Primacy of Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega (sin or no sin)

Christianity Today ^ | January, 2008 | Philip Yancey

[koinonia]

I’m a Bible Christian of sorts. But there is nothing so foreign to the Bible as “the Bible alone” and “faith alone”. So I’m not afraid to use the intellect God gave me and to profit, I hope, from the insights of others who love God and seek truth (even Aquinas or Scotus or the Pope!).

Speaking of the Baptists, I do have to say that as a boy I too went to a Baptist church with a friend on several occasions and even publicly accepted Jesus (a big deal for a boy of 9-10 years old) and was “saved”. That act of faith was a big step in my life. My friend’s family was profound in their faith and love for Christ; but as my friend grew up he began to live a very scandalous life. According to them, that was “okay” because he was “saved”—very illogical and unbiblical—the kind of predetermination/predestination you wrote of earlier (how one could be destined for Heaven yet not freely cooperate with God’s grace or even blatantly reject it can be a scary doctrine, and it’s not biblical). This was one of the experiences that helped me to realize the importance using my intellect and looking at tradition to understand better what the Bible really means and how to follow Christ.

I’m clocking out until Monday...

[kosta50]

How do you deal with the issue of "demons" causing illness? The Bible clearly tells us that not only this is what causes illness, but that Jesus believed it too.

Do you believe illness is caused by "demons?" Do you believe medicine belongs in demonology? Where do you draw the line and how do you decide what is believable and what is not?

[koinonia]

Jesus healed many sick and crippled without any mention of casting out demons. Are they saying this ("demons cause illness") based on some Bible passage?

It seems to me that some illnesses can be caused by demons or be the physical and psychological side-effects of possession and obsession by demons; but this is rare. Clearly the vast majority of sicknesses, even in the Gospels, are physical ailments plain and simple. What is more, I've seen many holy people physically suffer more than others do and accept it with supernatural peace based on the teaching of Christ that no disciple is greater than his Master and St. Paul who writes: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." (Colossians 1:24)--suffering as a type of intercessory prayer in union with Jesus for the church.

To put it another way, when considering health issues there are three levels to look at: 1. the physical (rule out the obvious), 2. the mental (psychological--i.e. stress can cause heart conditions, fatigue, etc.), 3. spiritual (People living in serious sin cannot be at peace and this will sometimes have physical and psychological ramifications. Then there are those damned spirits themselves--I've seen people who go to fortune tellers or dabble in the occult or open the door directly to evil spirits and later they, or members of their family, have strange, medically unexplainable physcial illnesses--but the root of the problem is not physical, but demonic, and there are usually other strange phenonomen in their houses, dreams, etc. that make this clear. These souls need to get right with God--repent, change their lives, and if necessary seek deliverance). I'm not an expert in any of these fields, but I can certainly say that in our day and age the spiritual is more often than not completely overlooked.

So that's my take on the issue.

Regarding your question: Do you believe medicine belongs in demonology? No. But can men and demons take a good thing and distort and abuse it? Yes. In the name of medicine Doctors kill babies and nurses kill the sick and elderly (overdoses of morphine or depriving the patient of ordinary means of support such as food or liquids). Also, in a materialistic, atheistic society there is an overemphasis on medicine (chemical and surgical intervention) as the remedy to all woes. What I've noticed is oftentimes people suffer more in seeking a remedy for things (bills, hundreds of tests and visits to doctors, medicines with all kinds of undesirable side effects, etc.) than they would have suffered just accepting their cross and saying some prayers :) At any rate, I'm not afraid of going to a doctor and taking some medicine or undergoing a surgery, but in a proper perspective. We're all going to die sooner or later anyway!

[kosta50]

The word shed in various biblical version translated as "dol," "demon" or "devil" (in Hebrew simply means "god," a ruler, one who can exert control.

OT Judaism doens't know demonology of the later, Post-Babylonian apocalyptic age. Christian demonology is derived mainly from the so called Old Testament "Apocrypha," books which have thrie roots in messianic (apocalyptic) Judaism; books considered scripture by the early Church and to this day by the ROman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

So, while OT refreences to idols are cursory, and have to deal with worshiping false gods, demonology goes into full blown afterburn in the NT, which ha snothign to do with worshiping idols, but being completely taken over by these spirits. With pages and pages of references to illnesses and cured related to demons.

It seems to me that some illnesses can be caused by demons or be the physical and psychological side-effects of possession and obsession by demons; but this is rare

They can?. What demons? What illnesses? Can we name them? My Blue Letter Bible lexicon makes a note (with my emphases):

In the NT, these [demons] are persons, afflicted with especially severe diseases, either bodily or mentally, (such as paralysis, blindness, deafness, loss of speech, epilepsy, melancholy, insanity, etc.) whose bodies in the opinion of the Jews demons had entered, and so held possession of them as not only to afflict them with ills, but also to dethrone the reason and take its place themselves; accordingly the possessed were wont to express the mind and consciousness of the demons dwelling in them; and their cure was thought to require the expulsion of the demon.

Driving out demons is part of Jesus' ministry and also the duties of the disciples. He even leaves all believers wiht these words:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well [Mark 16:17-19]

Do you have any of these "signs?" How do you know then that you are believer, when the Bible is so clear what "those who believed" will do and see?

[Of course you do realize that Mark 16:9-20 do not exist in the earliest reliable sources, so God only knows how many of these demonic references are latter-day addiions by scribes and monks, pretending to be words of God]

Claiming that some illnesses can be caused by demons requires equally extraordinary evidene. I am open to seeing such evidence, although form what I have seen it is without substance.

[maryz]

Claiming that some illnesses can be caused by demons requires equally extraordinary evidence

I think you're "loading the deck" here, assuming without argument that material causality is the only kind, omitting reference to final, formal, efficient causes. This is, of course, appropriate to scientific research (I guess), but not really satisfactory even in areas of normal life, never mind theology. And it's a common view in our reductionist age!

[Campion]

November 1, according to which calendar? The one used by the minority which the Greek Church and other smaller Churches use so as to "conform" with the west or the Old Calendar used by over 85% of the Orthodox?

Well, neither the "New Calendarist" Orthodox nor the "Old Calendarist" Orthodox celebrate the Feast of All Saints on November 1 on anybody's calendar, which was my original point. >:-) They celebrate it on the original date, the Sunday after Pentecost.

[kosta50]

Perhaps the “trick” was in te word “EF.” I hae no clue what it is.

[kosta50]

I think you're "loading the deck" here, assuming without argument that material causality is the only kind, omitting reference to final, formal, efficient causes

I think you have it backwards. I am simply expresisng doubt at an extraordinary claim—"demonic" causes of illnesses—and I am simply asking for evidence to such an extraordinary claim.

You are turning the tables and supposing my doubt is baseless, as if acceptance of a "demonic" cause of illnesses is something deserving of a serious consideration!

In order for that to happen, one must provde more than someone's word for such a claim to be deserving of a consideration.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If I state that there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, you'd be perfectly justified in demanding credible evidence to that effect and I would have no leg to stand on by accusing your doubt as being unjustified.

If one of these days scientists discover "life" on Mars, the world will demand proof, and justifiably so. Wen someone claims there can be illnesses caused by demons, it is justified to ask which demons and what illnesses are involved here.

I am waiting, patiently...

[maryz]

The claim is only "extraordinary" in a modern, "scientific" worldview. You exclude demons because, well, just because! Science has not demonstrated their existence (nor attempted to AFAIK, but I couldn't swear to it). From your other posts, I don't think this denial out of hand of the supernatural is thoroughgoing.

I admit that, in many ways, my personal prejudice is against the prevailing modern view, at least always remembering that, if two people (or cultures, or schools of thought, or ages, etc.) disagree, it may be that one is right and one is wrong, it may be that both are wrong, and it may be that both are right in some degree, but they're not talking about the same thing, "under the same aspect," as the philosophers say! ;-)

I have to go for tonight -- more tomorrow, maybe, if God should live and be well!

[kosta50]

The claim is only "extraordinary" in a modern, "scientific" worldview. You exclude demons because, well, just because!

No, dear lady, "just because" is precisely the only "evidence" presented by people who "believe" things but have nothing believable to offer to back up their claims. Again, doubt is always justified in such cases. The burden of proof is on those making the claims.

[koinonia]

Yes, what is “EF” anyway? I meant to ask earlier. Thanks.

[koinonia]

I only have one example (hence rare). A young man named Louis whom I met. He complained of not being able to sleep due to extremely violent and scary nightmares every time he went to sleep. Obviously I began to ask him about his faith life, if he prayed, if he believed in Jesus. At the name of Jesus the pupils of his eyes rolled back into his head and, for all practical purposes Louis was not present to me for a good minute--then his eyes rolled back and, not aware that anything had happened he complained of now having a severe migraine headache. In the conversation that followed, I had to avoid that NAME so he wouldn't disappear, he told me that his parents were satanists and had consecrated him to the devil.

I later found out that he went to a priest to get help, and when the priest showed him a crucifix Louis went to the floor violently and began convulsing and foaming at the mouth. He was referred to an exorcist priest and, thank God, was successfully delivered. He now longer has migraines and siezures.

Why? because, in his case, they were caused by demons and once delivered from the demons they went away.

That certainly does not mean that everyone with migraine headaches should set up an appointment for deliverance prayers! Or that a person with epilepsy is possessed! I think Louis' case is exceptional, but clearly an example of physical "illnesses" caused by demons.

Jesus healed a woman hemorraging--no mention of casting out demons, he healed Peter's mother in law--no mention of demons; and ten lepers and various paralytics and blind--no mention of demons, and the man with the withered hand--no mention of demons, etc.. Obviously there were sicknesses directly caused by demons in the Gospels and in those cases Jesus healed them by delivering them from their root cause, the devil.

[koinonia]

Before we got side tracked, mainly by my frustation that I can quote St. Paul as an authority, you responded (71) to my entry (60) and were going to respond some more. I’d like to return back to that part of the discourse, if you have time. I’m looking at St. John of Damascus at this point and his points on predestination, foreknowledge, omniscience and how these three realities don’t equal predetermination nor ignorance on the part of God. I’ll need some time to ponder these things. What else were you going to respond to in (60)?

[koinonia]

Sorry about the typo, the first line above should read:

Before we got side tracked, mainly by my frustation that I cannot quote St. Paul as an authority,

[maryz]

"EF" is the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy, i.e., the "old Mass," as opposed to the Novus Ordo (the "new Mass"). It's the term the Pope used in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, freeing the old rite from the former restrictions.

[Uri’el-2012]

The theological basis that the Messiah would enter into the world in about March is fairly sound, but is perfectly consistent with a Dec 25 Christmas. In fact, Catholics have since the early days of the Church recognized March 25th as the date that Christ was conceived, and therefore fulfilling such prophecies. March 25th, (or, actually April 6 accounting for the Julian calendar) incidentally, is the day that Christ died; the ancient Jews and Christians believed that great prophets died on the day they were conceived. (This feast is called that of the Annunciation, referring to the annunciation of Gabriel to Mary regarding the conception of Christ.)

The historicist arguments are quite presumptuous, ignoring the impact of the “Roman Warm Period,” for instance.

The syncretist arguments, that Christmas has a pagan origin, are thoroughly bankrupt: Some allege, for instance, that the date of Christmas is based on the date of Sol Invuctus, whereas that festival was moved to the date of Christmas in the third century. There existed a Judeo-Christian holiday on Dec. 25th (or the closes Jewish-calendar equivalent) as early as four centuries earlier, when the Macabbeans established that the 25th of Kislev be celebrated as the return of the Spirit of God into the Holy Temple (the Feast of the Dedication).

Niether the Feast of the Dedication, nor the ancient Judeo-Christian supposition that prophets were conceived on the day they die establish for certain that Christ was born on the 25th, but they certainly establish a pious and biblical reason for choosing that day to celebrate his birth.

16 posted on August 6, 2008 12:16:31 PM MDT by dangus

The question is whether you believe and trust
the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1
or you trust the traditions of man

Yah'shua's birth on Sukkot
(Sukkot is the Feast of Tabernacles or booths, where we live in temporary shelters.
Sukkot is when YHvH took on a temporary garment to be with His People
and to die as the Lamb of G-d on Pesach in order to bring salvation to all
who would call on His Name : Yah'shua ( YHvH is become my salvation)).

Sukkot as the date is supported by Elizabeth's pregnancy of John the Immerser.
The time sequence is outlined by the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 with Zacharias.

Zacharias served as a high priest and based on his tribe, we know when he served
(1 Chronicles 24:7-18) and when he was struck dumb and when John was conceived.

John would have been born on Pesach. Most Jews believed that Elijah
would come at Pesach to announce the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5).

Factor in when Miriam visited her cousin Elizabeth,
Elizabeth was six months pregnant (Luke 1:26)
Thus the timing of Yah'shua's birth can be ascertained.

John (1:14) tells us that Yah'shua was made flesh and tabernacled among us.

Eight days after the beginning of Sukkot is another Holy Feast Day called Shemini Atzeret.

Eight days after a Jewish male is born he is circumcised.

After the Eighth day comes the the most Joyous day:
Simchat Torah or
the rejoicing in the Torah (The Word of Elohim).

Nine months back from Sukkot is Chanukah where the light entered the temple.

Biblical Dates for the Birth of Yochanan the Immerser and for the Conception and Birth of Yeshua HaMashiach

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[dangus]

>> The question is whether you believe and trust the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 Xenia's unique notions or you trust the traditions of man. <<

In all fairness, I don't mean to trash your reasoning. But it IS human reasoning. You write as if the bible said "Jesus was born on Sukkot," whereas you actually have a long trail of cascading assumptions to reach that point.

For example, your first step is your assertion that "Most Jews believed that Elijah would come at Pesach to announce the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:5). How Malachi 4:5 supports your assertion is an argument you didn't (yet) make. Even assuming your assertion is true: so what? Most Jews also expected Christ to be a king in this world. I've even heard that in THIS context, Elijah refers to the first coming of CHRIST, not John. Yes, Jesus quotes Isaiah's allusion to Elijah as referring to John, but does that mean Malachi is? I think it's a pretty weak case that John fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi

But don't let the contentiousness of that throw you off the main point: You need to prove the doctrinal necessity that Malachi 4:5 be interpreted the way you interpret it. You haven't... yet. The point is that there are other ways to interpret who Malachi refers to, let alone the fact that I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that it refers to Sukkot.

Each step you likewise procede with assertions which would be precariously and presumptively based on arguments, even if the arguments were certainly true... while in fact you haven't made the arguments. Again, I don't mean to assert that they're false arguments. But you haven't made your case. So you can drop the proclamations like "The question is whether you believe and trust the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 Xenia's unique notions or you trust the traditions of man, and have a reasonable conversation, or you can be ignored.

[Uri’el-2012]

You seem very confused and unable to follow a scripturally based argument.

Or you don't like the result and create confusion to cast doubt.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[dangus]

Basically, your response boils down to telling me I’m either an idiot, or evil. You’re the one making the arguments. It’s up to you to make them clear.

[dangus]

Or allow me to put it another way:

Reasoned discourse is the great equalizer of status in debate. Through it, we allow the one who makes the better argument hold authority over those with lesser arguments. Through it, the Church has allowed the poor and meek to correct the high and lofty, as St. Therese corrected the popes. You don’t offer arguments, so where is your authority?

Instead, you pretend to be a scholar by dropping bits of Hebrew into your writings,and by appealing to what “ancient Jews” believed. Yet, in fact, you have previously indicated that you are not Jewish. You have demonstrated no particular expertise in what ancient Jews believed. You have on several times revealed that your knowledge of Hebrew is limited to your chosen buzz words. You try to convince people you are an expert, but you are not.

Yet, I did not dismiss your statements. You will notice I did not state that your reasoning were false, your logic invalid or your assertions. I only pointed out how you had not demonstrated your reasoning sufficiently... and I always noted, “yet,” because I did not presume you couldn’t make a strong argument.

You did not take the opportunity to strengthen your argument, or explain yourself, or secure your footing in your cascade of presumptions. You instead chose a personal attack.

My faith does not rest on which day Christ was born. The ancients had a valid, Christian reason to suppose it was on Dec. 25th. While the arguments that such a date was pagan in origin are demonstrably false, extending from atheistic slander, there is no doctrinal certainty that the date is correct; it is admittedly supposed at after the fact. Therefore, if you suppose I have a doctrinal reason to oppose you, you are false. But if you want to convince me of your argument, you will have to do better.