Witchcraft 101

[ViaCrucis]

It appears to be earlier than the second-temple period.

Leviticus 17:7 They shall no more offer their sacrifices to demons, after whom they have played the harlot. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.

The referenced entity appears to be a goat-like demon.

Deuteronomy also references demons:

Deuteronomy 32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 They sacrificed to demons, not to God,
To gods they did not know,
To new gods, new arrivals
That your fathers did not fear.
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

The 2nd Temple period is when Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, and with it brought Greek language and culture to the Levant, thus introducing the Hellenistic concept of the daimon--a generalized word for spiritual, divine, or semi-divine beings--to the Jews. So it was within this context that I'm talking about.

The passages in Leviticus 17:7 and Deuteronomy 32:17 are more complicated than that.

Leviticus 17:7 says they shall not offer their sacrifices to the שָׂעִיר (sa'iyr, "he-goat"), while Deuteronomy 32:17 speaks of sacrifices to the שֵּׁדִים (shedim, "lords" from the root shuwd, "to despoil" "to be strong or powerful"). In both cases I think we can be somewhat confident that what is being spoken of here are things of Canaanite religion--spirits, gods, semi-divine things, etc.

The Septuagint renders Leviticus 17:7 as "offer their sacrifices to vanities" i.e. to "vain [gods]" false gods; while in Deuteronomy 32:17 does choose to render shedim as δαιμονίοις (daimoniois), "daimons".

It would therefore be improper to read the passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy anachronistically; what is being spoken against is the offering of sacrifice to malevolent desert spirits which were believed in by the surrounding pagan Canaanite religion and culture. Where sacrifices were made to appease these malevolent desert inhabitants. Compare with, for example, the djinn of pre-Islamic Arabia, or other near-eastern desert spirits such as the lilitu (a kind of ancient near eastern version of a succubus).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hans Blaster]

We seem to have reached a similar conclusion via a different route.

Back in post #127 I talked about 'God-based (i.e. Christian) supernatural and 'Generic' supernatural. You've taken it a stage further with your category for 'other religions'. I also had trouble placing ghosts in a particular category.

The boundaries between the 3 groups aren't always clear. It seems that the way to move something from group 1 or 2 into Group 3 is to add a demon and stir. The candles are a good example. Some Christian posters in this thread are seeing the candle as generic and unbelievable. Others are suggesting the candles posses some sort of evil power, by adding a demonic influence.



OB

I missed this post jammed as it was between some long quote posts and a burst of short, sharp posts on a day I was otherwise busy.

Even in my category 3 with the supernatural aspects of one's own religion, there were definitely some of them I rejected back when I was a believer. Some of these were because I just didn't realize the Church backed them.

If I had been a bit older, a regular movie goer, and liked the horror genre, I might have seen "The Exorcist" when it came out. The movie is literally about a Catholic priest performing exorcisms, but I didn't know that. So by the time I found out about that plot point of the movie, I'd already dismissed demon possession. And that's all despite our parish having it's own Catholic priest. (They're kind of standard issue, one per church.)

Another good example would be faith healing. I think the first I ever heard about it was a expose of some fraudster televangelist on some news magazine show. (Johnny Carson working with James Randi had already caught Peter Popov cheating with radio earpieces and other tricks, but I never stayed up that late when I was a kid.) So I came to view faith healing as straight up fraud. Come to learn later that my own church recognized miraculous healings at Fatima and Lourdes, but I could never accept those.

 

[ViaCrucis]

While deception is certainly a key part, it still appears that Satan does have some power:

2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

I mean, the key to note here is lying wonders and unrighteous deception. The lawless one, in league with the devil, deceives.

It goes back to what I've been saying in this thread. The devil is a liar. What he does is lie. What he offers are lies. The "powers" are a con. It is trickery, deceit, hucksterism.

The term being translated as "lying wonders" is literally τέρασιν ψεύδους (terasin pseudous) "pseudo-wonders".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tall73]

The 2nd Temple period is when Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, and with it brought Greek language and culture to the Levant, thus introducing the Hellenistic concept of the daimon--a generalized word for spiritual, divine, or semi-divine beings--to the Jews. So it was within this context that I'm talking about.

The passages in Leviticus 17:7 and Deuteronomy 32:17 are more complicated than that.

Leviticus 17:7 says they shall not offer their sacrifices to the שָׂעִיר (sa'iyr, "he-goat"), while Deuteronomy 32:17 speaks of sacrifices to the שֵּׁדִים (shedim, "lords" from the root shuwd, "to despoil" "to be strong or powerful"). In both cases I think we can be somewhat confident that what is being spoken of here are things of Canaanite religion--spirits, gods, semi-divine things, etc.

The Septuagint renders Leviticus 17:7 as "offer their sacrifices to vanities" i.e. to "vain [gods]" false gods; while in Deuteronomy 32:17 does choose to render shedim as δαιμονίοις (daimoniois), "daimons".

It would therefore be improper to read the passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy anachronistically; what is being spoken against is the offering of sacrifice to malevolent desert spirits which were believed in by the surrounding pagan Canaanite religion and culture. Where sacrifices were made to appease these malevolent desert inhabitants. Compare with, for example, the djinn of pre-Islamic Arabia, or other near-eastern desert spirits such as the lilitu (a kind of ancient near eastern version of a succubus).

-CryptoLutheran

The information I saw on the goat entity in Leviticus suggests an origin from Egypt. However, you seem to be making more of a linguistic argument as to the term demon. As you note the he-goat term appears to refer to a desert spirit. But I am wondering how this functionally differs from a demon in your thinking.

You acknowledged the LXX uses δαιμονίοις. Why do you think they rendered it with δαιμονίοις in the LXX if the concepts were radically different?

17 ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς οἷς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν· καινοὶ πρόσφατοι ἥκασιν, οὓς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν.

 

[Occams Barber]

I share the view that it is a demonic element at root in all of the supernatural phenomenon, other than that attributable to God. But I think they do have some power, though limited.

It does simplify things, in a way. Almost all cultures and times have believed in the supernatural. I understand that some now think they were backwards for thinking so. However, if someone today has experienced the supernatural then they have little reason to doubt the experience of many over the centuries.

For the record; I don't consider belief in gods or the supernatural as backward although some of the sillier superstitions (astrology, Tarot, spell candles) are pushing the boundaries. The higher level supernatural beliefs (aka religions) have served a functional purpose in providing explanation, consolation and a sense of security to generations of believers. I also accept that for some Christians, belief can be partially derived from a logical assessment of the way the world works. I don't agree, but I can understand.

The Christian concept of 'Faith' is something beyond my comprehension.

OB

 

[tall73]

I mean, the key to note here is lying wonders and unrighteous deception. The lawless one, in league with the devil, deceives.

It goes back to what I've been saying in this thread. The devil is a liar. What he does is lie. What he offers are lies. The "powers" are a con. It is trickery, deceit, hucksterism.

The term being translated as "lying wonders" is literally τέρασιν ψεύδους (terasin pseudous) "pseudo-wonders".

-CryptoLutheran

The goal is deception, because he is impersonating:

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


The lying wonders are brought about by some means, correct?

Let's start with this. Do you think Satan is an actual being?

If you take it as parallel to other texts that use power, signs and wonders as a whole, then the false aspect would be the false goal of their use.

For instance, in Hebrews 2:4 Jesus is testified by them. This would also be testimony, but false testimony as to his identity.

 

[tall73]

For the record; I don't consider belief in gods or the supernatural as backward although some of the sillier superstitions (astrology, Tarot, spell candles) are pushing the boundaries. The higher level supernatural beliefs (aka religions) have served a functional purpose in providing explanation, consolation and a sense of security to generations of believers. I also accept that for some Christians, belief can be partially derived from a logical assessment of the way the world works. I don't agree, but I can understand.

The Christian concept of 'Faith' is something beyond my comprehension.

OB

Understood.

If you somehow experienced a particular supernatural happening in such as way that you could not deny it, would that make you re-assess just that one thing, or all of them?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The information I saw on the goat entity in Leviticus suggests an origin from Egypt. However, you seem to be making more of a linguistic argument as to the term demon. As you note the he-goat term appears to refer to a desert spirit. But I am wondering how this functionally differs from a demon in your thinking.

You acknowledged the LXX uses δαιμονίοις. Why do you think they rendered it with δαιμονίοις in the LXX if the concepts were radically different?

17 ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς οἷς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν· καινοὶ πρόσφατοι ἥκασιν, οὓς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν.

I don't think the intent here is to communicate that these desert spirits were literally fallen angels (which is what a demon is in Christianity), and so the use of daimon in the LXX is being used in the more literal sense, that of a spirit or spiritual entity; in the same way that a nymph or naiad from Greek mythology could be called a daimon (not that nymphs are literally fallen angels). So the sai'yr is a desert spirit, which the LXX renders as daimons.

Basically I think we need to make a distinction between "daimon" and "demon", or between various supernatural entities believed to have existed in various cultures and what we in the Church recognize as rebellious, wicked angels.

That is, the sai'yr of Leviticus 32:17 doesn't exist, and so what the Canaanites were offering sacrifices to was a non-existent thing. They are not fallen angels, they just don't exist at all.

In essence, I don't think that there are fallen angels living in remote places in the desert who are out there waiting to get anyone. Additionally, I don't believe in ghosts, fairies, nymphs, djinn, etc. They don't exist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tall73]

I don't think the intent here is to communicate that these desert spirits were literally fallen angels (which is what a demon is in Christianity), and so the use of daimon in the LXX is being used in the more literal sense, that of a spirit or spiritual entity; in the same way that a nymph or naiad from Greek mythology could be called a daimon (not that nymphs are literally fallen angels). So the sai'yr is a desert spirit, which the LXX renders as daimons.

Basically I think we need to make a distinction between "daimon" and "demon", or between various supernatural entities believed to have existed in various cultures and what we in the Church recognize as rebellious, wicked angels.

That is, the sai'yr of Leviticus 32:17 doesn't exist, and so what the Canaanites were offering sacrifices to was a non-existent thing. They are not fallen angels, they just don't exist at all.

So it was only of the Greek gods that it could be said the sacrifices offered were offered to demons?

Note in the Psalms the sacrifices were offered in the context of Canaanite worship, and the term is used again.

Psa 106:37
(LXX 105:37) καὶ ἔθυσαν τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῶν τοῗς δαιμονίοις

In essence, I don't think that there are fallen angels living in remote places in the desert who are out there waiting to get anyone. Additionally, I don't believe in ghosts, fairies, nymphs, djinn, etc. They don't exist.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you think the demons referenced by Paul exist that sacrifices were offered to?

Again, using different terms doesn't radically change the idea. If they were spirits who demanded sacrifice how is that far different than the thing spoken of in the Corinthian correspondence? How much understanding they had of them is another question. But Paul's comments seem to be an enlargement on the concept of demons being behind these sacrifices to false gods.

 

[Occams Barber]

Understood.

If you somehow experienced a particular supernatural happening in such as way that you could not deny it, would that make you re-assess just that one thing, or all of them?

I can't conceive of an event for which there is no natural cause or the possibility of no natural cause however...

Firstly I'd probably question my own judgement - was I deluded? (knowing me, the kids would probably have me locked away)

After that I'd probably want to know which supernatural entity it was and what were its intentions, powers, achievements etc. Since I have no investment in any particular god, I wouldn't automatically assume the Christian God.

Assuming an undeniably supernatural event, I'd need to revise my view of all things supernatural to align them with this new knowledge.

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

I can't conceive of an event for which there is no natural cause or the possibility of no natural cause however...

Firstly I'd probably question my own judgement - was I deluded? (knowing me, the kids would probably have me locked away)

After that I'd probably want to know which supernatural entity it was and what were its intentions, powers, achievements etc. Since I have no investment in any particular god, I wouldn't automatically assume the Christian God.

Assuming an undeniably supernatural event, I'd need to revise my view of all things supernatural to align them with this new knowledge.

OB

What kind of event would qualify for your review??

 

[Occams Barber]

What kind of event would qualify for your review??

I can't conceive of an event for which there is no natural cause or the possibility of no natural cause however...

OB

 

[Brightmoon]

To go back to the OP . I would tell my kid what do you think would work better, lighting a love spell candle with symbols on it or improving your communication and social skills . I taught my 2 to think .

 

[Pommer]

So it was only of the Greek gods that it could be said the sacrifices offered were offered to demons?

Note in the Psalms the sacrifices were offered in the context of Canaanite worship, and the term is used again.

Psa 106:37
(LXX 105:37) καὶ ἔθυσαν τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῶν τοῗς δαιμονίοις



Do you think the demons referenced by Paul exist that sacrifices were offered to?

Again, using different terms doesn't radically change the idea. If they were spirits who demanded sacrifice how is that far different than the thing spoken of in the Corinthian correspondence? How much understanding they had of them is another question. But Paul's comments seem to be an enlargement on the concept of demons being behind these sacrifices to false gods.

Gee, it’s almost as if the revelation of scripture “evolved” the theological thinking from “false [nonexistent] gods” to “oh, yeah there’s ‘bad things’ that behind all the BAD STUFF.”

Still, it’s quite the leap from demons inhabiting the occult to “don’t use certain red candles unless you want an incubus visitation.”

 

[Carl Emerson]

OB

Would for example the dead being raised qualify?

 

[Occams Barber]

Would for example the dead being raised qualify?

Sure - certifiably dead and in an advanced state of putrefaction might get me interested.

Oh - and no anecdotes from your wife's granny, faith healers, Philippino charlatans or items from pseudo Christian pulp magazines.

I want evidence Carl, real evidence.

OB

 

[Pommer]

Sure - certifiably dead and in an advanced state of putrefaction might get me interested.

Oh - and no anecdotes from your wife's granny, faith healers, Philippino charlatans or items from pseudo Christian pulp magazines.

I want evidence Carl, real evidence.

OB

I’d settle for a complete regeneration of an amputated limb, might even give it a month.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sure - certifiably dead and in an advanced state of putrefaction might get me interested.

Oh - and no anecdotes from your wife's granny, faith healers, Philippino charlatans or items from pseudo Christian pulp magazines.

I want evidence Carl, real evidence.

OB

No problem - what about immediate healing then - would that qualify?

 

[Occams Barber]

No problem - what about immediate healing then - would that qualify?

Now now Carl - you offered me a resurrection - don't start backsliding

By all means throw in a healing, but be warned - they're a dime a dozen on YouTube - and a mixture of pure fake and suggestibility.
OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

Now now Carl - you offered me a resurrection - don't start backsliding

By all means throw in a healing, but be warned - they're a dime a dozen on YouTube - and a mixture of pure fake and suggestibility.
OB

How about cancer completely disappearing and baffling the medics - hospital records available.