We Must Heed the Vital Message of 1 Corinthians 10:18-20

1 Corinthians 10:18-20 provides vital instruction that every believer must heed:

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

To eat in a worship context of what has been sacrificed on an altar to an idol is to be a partaker of the altar. To do so is also to have fellowship with demons!

Such fellowship with demons is not contingent upon a person's having to offer the sacrifices himself. Anyone who eats of such sacrifices comes into fellowship with demons.

The passage also does not provide any basis to say or to hold that this only happens sometimes--in a worship context, anyone who eats what has been sacrificed to an idol has fellowship with demons. God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!

45643 reads
Bert Perry's picture

JD, not moved on the question of whether ancient Temple/praise music might have sounded a bit like modern rock & roll at all.  You have percussive instruments, string instruments, dancing, vocals, and in Nehemiah 12 (thanks Rajesh), it's pointed out that it could be heard a long way away.  Sounds like rock & roll to me.

To be fair, you could point out that tight harmonies, 12 bar blues, electric instruments, and other factors hadn't been developed yet, but the long and short of it is that it appears that God intended for music praising Him should, at least at various times, shake the rafters and get our feet un-glued from the ground.   

That noted, the kind of music Rajesh's employer (Majesty Music) endorses also features things like harmonies and electric instruments, as well as a performance of a song called "Rocky Top" by none less than BJU's president, which memorializes the murder of a couple of revenuers to protect a moonshine still.   And not all rock & roll features the 12 bar blues, or really even strong blues features of any kind.

And so in that light, I really can't get all worked up over stupid things Gene Simmons said, let alone use his comments and others to impugn the work (as GregH noted) of countless musicians of faith, as well as the music choices of countless musicians of faith.  I can, rather, note that Scripture commends pretty much all of the musical instruments of that age, and contains hints ("psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs", Psalms 149-150) that various genre were used to express various moods of human emotion and thinking.  In other words, our default position in Christ is freedom, not jumping whenever somebody comes up with a cockcamamie guilt by association argument. 

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

JD Miller wrote:

Rajesh, in my last post I agreed with you.  Then I made an additional comment to clarify my position,  It also served to point out where I believed an earlier poster had gone too far in his statement.  If you agreed with my additional comment, then all you had to do was to say so.  Instead you went on the defensive.  If you disagreed with my additional comment then all you had to do was state why.  Instead you accused me of accusing you of something I had not stated that you had said.  When you are so quick to go on the defensive, it is difficult for people to understand where you are coming from and it makes your position much more confusing.  Our goal as we sharpen iron should be to help one another, not to attack when there is no reason to battle.

Here is the post I referenced:

Rajesh, I actually agree with this statement of yours

There is zero biblical evidence that the divinely approved ancient Hebrew music spoken of in those Psalms sounded anything like rock music. 

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

Interestingly, my agreement with you was a disagreement with Bert and my hope is that my additional statement helped him to reflect on his statement a bit more. Bert and I have both agreed and disagreed through the years and in doing so, we have sharpened each others iron.

Thanks for the clarification. Since you specifically directed your previous comment to me, I do not know how I would have known that your last sentence was not a statement of how you disagreed with me. In any case, since you have made that clear, my apologies for incorrectly understanding what you were saying.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, if you're going to argue, as you seem to be doing, that rock music in worship leads to demon possession, you're going to have to seriously up your arguments, both Biblically and quite frankly in terms of contemporary evidence.  Biblically speaking, we know that some people do get inhabited by demons, but it is not entirely clear whether a believer can be possessed.  The Holy Spirit is going to "move out" to make room for a demon, or share His apartment with a demon, exactly why?  There is a big soteriological argument against your very premiss.  It is also worth noting that there is not one iota of evidence that unworthy music styles lead to demon possession in Scripture.  For that matter, apart from perhaps Saul and Nebuchadnezzar, we don't know anything about how any of the demon possessed came to be so afflicted.    So inferring that rock & roll is related to demons based on some stupid things a few artists have said--and ignoring stupid things said by artists of other genre--just shows a lack of seriousness in study.  

Never mind that most fundagelical believers these days do happen to be using music that at least would qualify as "light rock" or "easy listening", and the signs of any actual demon possession are scant to nonexistent.  Certainly they are less than, say, we'd have observed at a hymns-only church like First Baptist of Hammond a few years back.

For my part, it's my hope that the movement that seeks to brand musical genre as unacceptable because of guilt by association fallacies (e.g. Garlock, Rajesh) dies a quick, but extremely painful death, so that churches have a vivid reason not to repeat the experiment.

I have never said anything about music leading to demon possession. Not in this thread or in any other thread.

No matter how many times you claim that I have used so-called guilt by association fallacies, your claims are still worthless because you have no basis for validly making any such claims about me.

Bert Perry's picture

Regarding guilt by association, the term has a definition, and your argument--that rock & roll is wrong because it's tainted with idolatry--fits that definition to a T.  Hence, your argument is always false.  It's really that simple.

Regarding demon possession, this is your argument:

When demons control humans in a worship context, they are going to direct the humans to use things in the worship that are things that are not acceptable to God. They are not going to control the humans to use things that are acceptable to God.

The very definition of demon possession involves the concept of demons controlling people.  That's what "possession" means.  You have a degree in New Testament Interpretation, and you did not know this about one of the most prominent features of Jesus' ministry?  Seriously?  Yes, you did in fact argue that believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music.  

Reality is, Rajesh, that you are building your so-called "ministry" on logical and theological fallacies.  You need to repent.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding guilt by association, the term has a definition, and your argument--that rock & roll is wrong because it's tainted with idolatry--fits that definition to a T.  Hence, your argument is always false.  It's really that simple.

My argument is not and never has been that "rock & roll is wrong because it's tainted with idolatry [emphasis added to the original]." I have never said this.

Just because you make an assertion does not prove that it is true. You cannot prove that this is my argument by providing multiple direct quotes from this thread where I have said that rock music is "tainted with idolatry" because I have never said this.

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding demon possession, this is your argument:

When demons control humans in a worship context, they are going to direct the humans to use things in the worship that are things that are not acceptable to God. They are not going to control the humans to use things that are acceptable to God.

The very definition of demon possession involves the concept of demons controlling people.  That's what "possession" means.  You have a degree in New Testament Interpretation, and you did not know this about one of the most prominent features of Jesus' ministry?  Seriously?  Yes, you did in fact argue that believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music.  

What you have quoted from me does not have anything to do with arguing "that believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music." You have taken a statement that I made in another context and wrongly used it to assert that when I made that statement, I said it to say that I believe "that believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music."

I have not said anything like that.

Just because you make an assertion does not prove that it is true. You cannot prove that this is my argument by providing multiple direct quotes from this thread where I have specifically said that "believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music [emphasis added to the original]" because I have never said what you claim here.

Bert Perry's picture

Rajesh, you're gaslighting us, buddy.  If someone is under the control of demons, as you have clearly said, they are by definition demon possessed.  You said it, repeatedly as I review this dismal thread, so own it.  In the same way, you've repeatedly quoted rock & roll stars to impugn the work of those who had nothing to do with them.

You did it, you own it, and guess what?  You don't have to fess up to it for it to be true.  Your entire case is built off guilt by association, just like Garlock's, and what you're doing is to set believers at each others' throats by false argument while teaching them to ignore basic rules of exegesis like context, "the obvious explains the obscure", and the like.

I don't know if you are a wolf, but if you were, I don't know what you would be doing differently.  You are slick, but you seriously need to repent.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, you're gaslighting us, buddy.  If someone is under the control of demons, as you have clearly said, they are by definition demon possessed.  You said it, repeatedly as I review this dismal thread, so own it. 

Bert, I'm going to have to push back on you a bit here. Rajesh and I have discussed a spectrum of influence that Satan and demons have over people. One point on this spectrum is simply temptation. Temptation happens to believers and unbelievers alike, but temptation is not control. Actual possession is on another end of this spectrum and it happens only to unbelievers. I can certainly recognize some aspects of demonic influence between those two spectrums that is "control" but isn't possession. My personal point would be that such "control" is an aspect of all unbelievers since Satan is "the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience." Eph 2:2.

Is Satan more at work in some people than in others? Absolutely? Is "control" an accurate word to use for Satans work in unbelievers? I think it would be, therefore, I can see Satan having a level of influence that is "control" but not possession. I've actually asked Rajesh in this thread if he meant possession when he talks about "fellowship with demons", and he said "no," so I'll take his word that he doesn't mean possession. I did tell him that his point gets confusing when he uses examples of demoniacs to make his point, though. Those examples make it very easy for people to think he is referring to possession.

I've been thinking of his position as "almost but not quite possession," which I do find hard to fathom as an actual category of demon activity, but Rajesh is accurate when he states that he has never claimed people under the influence of demons are possessed.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

I have rejected and continue to reject categorically all attempts to determine musicologically what characteristics of demonically influenced music make it unacceptable to God because making such determinations is humanly impossible. We are limited to knowing that what makes all such musics ungodly is the demonic agency in the creation/production/playing, etc. of that music.

Okay, so it's humanly impossible to determine musicologically what characteristics make demonically influenced music unacceptable. Doesn't that put us up a creek without a paddle then? After all, it would certainly also be humanly impossible for us to determine "demonic agency" in any person or in any creation/production/playing of music. All we as humans can look on is the outward appearance. All we can notice is the musicological characteristics. Only God can see the spiritual realities of "demonic agency."

If I lived in the first century and saw a Christian friend of mine go into the temple (I'd stay out of course), I wouldn't have any way of knowing if that friend ate meat in the temple and was thus demonically influenced. I would have no way of knowing if I should stay away from the music he produces. Would it be your position that such a person would then start to produce different music than he had been producing before? If it is different, then wouldn't the difference be apparent in a musicological characteristic, but you already said that we can't use musicological characteristics to make a determination of what is acceptable.

How is it humanly possible to know if "demonic agency" is involved? Even if you say 'Well, rock performers have told us of the demonic agency involved in the production of their music," that still wouldn't tell us anything about music produced by CCM artists who have not claimed demonic agency. If we do not know that demonic agency is involved in the production of CCM music, then there wouldn't be a reason to reject CCM music.

Bert Perry's picture

Kevin, Rajesh did not say that demons were influencing people.  He said they were controlling them.  That is the very definition of demon possession.  I stand by my comments.  Rajesh is saying things that ought to shock us, and then when he's getting called on it, is more or less saying "because I don't fess up to it, that's not what it means".  It is classic gaslighting.

And really, let's be honest and do a mental exercise to think about this a moment.  Rajesh would have us believe, evidently, that the demons find a special opening to bother/control people when they listen to rock & roll.  Then he doesn't even define what that is, and he doesn't do any Biblical or musicological analysis to back it up.

That's not a prescription for Godliness; that's a control tactic.  "Don't do this or you're get controlled by demons....by the way, I have no clue whatsoever what 'this' is, only that it means you have to listen to my kind of music and not what you like."

Moreover, is a demon really going to wait to torment or possess someone for them to turn on some modern music...."Ah, there's Barry Manilow, time to get to work!"?  Seriously?  Even worse is the notion that this would happen with CCM....OK, you've got someone proclaiming 'Christ is Lord' (1 Cor. 12:3) and helping people get controlled by demons?   Since demons only do (see Job) what God allows them to do, we would be assuming God says "well, Tyler's listening to a rendition of 'Amazing Grace' with blues hints...I'd better let him be subject to demon possession now.".  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Kevin, Rajesh did not say that demons were influencing people.  He said they were controlling them.  That is the very definition of demon possession.  I stand by my comments. 

Are you saying that because the definition of demon possession is control that the definition of control is always demon possession? Does Satan exert no control over the unsaved apart from actually possessing them? Are unbelievers outside the control of Satan until they get possessed?

Quote:
And really, let's be honest and do a mental exercise to think about this a moment.  Rajesh would have us believe, evidently, that the demons find a special opening to bother/control people when they listen to rock & roll.  Then he doesn't even define what that is, and he doesn't do any Biblical or musicological analysis to back it up.

That's not a prescription for Godliness; that's a control tactic.  "Don't do this or you're get controlled by demons....by the way, I have no clue whatsoever what 'this' is, only that it means you have to listen to my kind of music and not what you like."

If you want to be honest and do some mental exercise, you'll point out which wording from Rajesh has caused you to think that he said demons control people when people listen to rock music. I have plenty of disagreement with the way he words things, but he has consistently said that God doesn't accept music from demonically controlled people. He hasn't said that such music is going to make the listener demonically controlled.

I did find a few statements from Rajesh that may have made you think he was implying that, though. On August 1, he said, "Therefore, He has given us the essential criteria for knowing what music we must not use--we must not get our music from demonically influenced idolaters, harlots, and other wicked people who produce ungodly music. We must not have any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, including their musical forms. We are not to be conformed to this present evil age. We must not walk in the counsel of the ungodly by borrowing their wicked music and bringing it into the worship of God. etc." When Rajesh talked about abstaining from "fellowship from the unfruitful works of darkness," that is similar wording to abstaining from "fellowship with demons." Fellowship with demons would cause "control" but he doesn't say fellowship with the works of darkness caused control.

Dan Miller's picture

Are you saying that because the definition of demon possession is control that the definition of control is always demon possession? Does Satan exert no control over the unsaved apart from actually possessing them? Are unbelievers outside the control of Satan until they get possessed?

This is one of Rajesh’s many problems. Paul said he did not want fellowship, koinonia, with demons. From this comes influence, control, and possession?! There might be nothing more in “fellowship” than commonality of thought and loyalty. 

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding guilt by association, the term has a definition, and your argument--that rock & roll is wrong because it's tainted with idolatry--fits that definition to a T.  Hence, your argument is always false.  It's really that simple.

Regarding demon possession, this is your argument:

When demons control humans in a worship context, they are going to direct the humans to use things in the worship that are things that are not acceptable to God. They are not going to control the humans to use things that are acceptable to God.

The very definition of demon possession involves the concept of demons controlling people.  That's what "possession" means.  You have a degree in New Testament Interpretation, and you did not know this about one of the most prominent features of Jesus' ministry?  Seriously?  Yes, you did in fact argue that believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music.  

You must repent of all your false assertions about me. I have never argued that rock music is wrong because it is "tainted with idolatry." Your failure to provide statements by me about rock music being "tainted with idolatry" proves that your assertion about my argument is categorically false. God has strong words for those who bear false witness.

You must repent also of your false assertion that I have argued that believers are demonically possessed if they listen to rock music. This is utter nonsense. You are utterly unable to produce any proof of my arguing that because I have never said any such thing.

Millions of unbelievers listen to rock music regularly and have never been possessed by demons. I have known many unbelievers personally and have known them very well and they listened to rock music and they were not possessed.

As an unbeliever myself for many years who listened to lots of rock music, I knew even when I was as an unbeliever that I was never possessed by demons. I have friends and family who listen to rock music and they have never been possessed. Some are even believers and they have never been possessed.

Knowing from my own personal experience of listening to lots of rock music myself as well as knowing firsthand of the experiences of many other people who have listened to rock music, I have never made such a preposterous and categorically false assertion that believers are demonically possessed if they listen to rock music.

I have not ever said anything about such a nonsense statement. You must repent of this categorically false assertion about me. 

Kevin Miller's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

Are you saying that because the definition of demon possession is control that the definition of control is always demon possession? Does Satan exert no control over the unsaved apart from actually possessing them? Are unbelievers outside the control of Satan until they get possessed?

This is one of Rajesh’s many problems. Paul said he did not want fellowship, koinonia, with demons. From this comes influence, control, and possession?! There might be nothing more in “fellowship” than commonality of thought and loyalty. 

That certainly is MY take on fellowship. I described it earlier in the thread as "walking in the same direction" or similar wording to that. I don't think it involves control, but Rajesh does, and my discussions with Rajesh have shown that he doesn't think of this control as possession. But he does come very, very close, so I'm not surprised if someone is confused. His deflections and nuances have been a consistent source of confusion to me.

RajeshG's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

Are you saying that because the definition of demon possession is control that the definition of control is always demon possession? Does Satan exert no control over the unsaved apart from actually possessing them? Are unbelievers outside the control of Satan until they get possessed?

This is one of Rajesh’s many problems. Paul said he did not want fellowship, koinonia, with demons. From this comes influence, control, and possession?! There might be nothing more in “fellowship” than commonality of thought and loyalty. 

Wrong. Paul does not say that "he did not want fellowship, koinonia with demons (emphasis added to the original)."

Neither in 1 Cor. 10 nor in Eph. 5 does Paul use the word koinonia:

1 Corinthians 10:20 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν]· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.

Ephesians 5:11 καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Dan Miller wrote:

 

Are you saying that because the definition of demon possession is control that the definition of control is always demon possession? Does Satan exert no control over the unsaved apart from actually possessing them? Are unbelievers outside the control of Satan until they get possessed?

This is one of Rajesh’s many problems. Paul said he did not want fellowship, koinonia, with demons. From this comes influence, control, and possession?! There might be nothing more in “fellowship” than commonality of thought and loyalty. 

 

 

Wrong. Paul does not say that "he did not want fellowship, koinonia with demons (emphasis added to the original)."

Neither in 1 Cor. 10 nor in Eph. 5 does Paul use the word koinonia:

1 Corinthians 10:20 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν]· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.

Ephesians 5:11 καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε.

The fact that I Cor 10:20 uses koinonous rather than koinonia does not change Dan's point that fellowship might be nothing more than commonality of thought and loyalty.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Dan Miller wrote:

 

Are you saying that because the definition of demon possession is control that the definition of control is always demon possession? Does Satan exert no control over the unsaved apart from actually possessing them? Are unbelievers outside the control of Satan until they get possessed?

This is one of Rajesh’s many problems. Paul said he did not want fellowship, koinonia, with demons. From this comes influence, control, and possession?! There might be nothing more in “fellowship” than commonality of thought and loyalty. 

 

 

Wrong. Paul does not say that "he did not want fellowship, koinonia with demons (emphasis added to the original)."

Neither in 1 Cor. 10 nor in Eph. 5 does Paul use the word koinonia:

1 Corinthians 10:20 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν]· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.

Ephesians 5:11 καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε.

 

The fact that I Cor 10:20 uses koinonous rather than koinonia does not change Dan's point that fellowship might be nothing more than commonality of thought and loyalty.

No, having fellowship with demons through eating in a worship context what has been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context does not mean "commonality of thought and loyalty."

Paul says "that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." Almost all of the unbelievers of whom Paul is speaking of in the first part of that statement do not know anything about the reality of what they are doing when they offer those sacrifices. They would object vehemently if you tried to tell them that they were sacrificing things to demons.

In spite of what they believe about what they are doing and would say that they are doing, Paul declares the fearful reality that such people are having fellowship with demons. Because they have no idea that they are sacrificing to demons, rightly holding the notion that their fellowship with demons means that they are having "commonality of thought and loyalty" to demons is impossible. They are not thinking at all about demons when they offer those sacrifices. They are not showing loyalty to demons because they do not even know that what they are doing has anything to do with demons.

A right understanding of having fellowship with demons in 1 Cor. 10:20 must account for what is true of unbelievers who do not know anything about the demonic character of what they are doing when they offer those sacrifices. Saying that in 1 Cor. 10:20 it means or might mean "commonality of thought and loyalty" to demons is wrong.
 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

Wrong. Paul does not say that "he did not want fellowship, koinonia with demons (emphasis added to the original)."

Neither in 1 Cor. 10 nor in Eph. 5 does Paul use the word koinonia:

1 Corinthians 10:20 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν]· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.

Ephesians 5:11 καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε.

 

The fact that I Cor 10:20 uses koinonous rather than koinonia does not change Dan's point that fellowship might be nothing more than commonality of thought and loyalty.

 

 

No, having fellowship with demons through eating in a worship context what has been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context does not mean "commonality of thought and loyalty."

Paul says "that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." Almost all of the unbelievers of whom Paul is speaking of in the first part of that statement do not know anything about the reality of what they are doing when they offer those sacrifices. They would object vehemently if you tried to tell them that they were sacrificing things to demons.

In spite of what they believe about what they are doing and would say that they are doing, Paul declares the fearful reality that such people are having fellowship with demons. Because they have no idea that they are sacrificing to demons, rightly holding the notion that their fellowship with demons means that they are having "commonality of thought and loyalty" to demons is impossible. They are not thinking at all about demons when they offer those sacrifices. They are not showing loyalty to demons because they do not even know that what they are doing has anything to do with demons.

A right understanding of having fellowship with demons in 1 Cor. 10:20 must account for what is true of unbelievers who do not know anything about the demonic character of what they are doing when they offer those sacrifices. Saying that in 1 Cor. 10:20 it means or might mean "commonality of thought and loyalty" to demons is wrong.
 

Come on, Rajesh. You don't have to be thinking about demons or have loyalty to demons to have the same kind of commonality of purpose (rebellion) as what demons have. And your explanation here certainly doesn't mean that "fellowship" means control by demons.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

Wrong. Paul does not say that "he did not want fellowship, koinonia with demons (emphasis added to the original)."

Neither in 1 Cor. 10 nor in Eph. 5 does Paul use the word koinonia:

1 Corinthians 10:20 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν]· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.

Ephesians 5:11 καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε.

 

The fact that I Cor 10:20 uses koinonous rather than koinonia does not change Dan's point that fellowship might be nothing more than commonality of thought and loyalty.

 

 

No, having fellowship with demons through eating in a worship context what has been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context does not mean "commonality of thought and loyalty."

Paul says "that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." Almost all of the unbelievers of whom Paul is speaking of in the first part of that statement do not know anything about the reality of what they are doing when they offer those sacrifices. They would object vehemently if you tried to tell them that they were sacrificing things to demons.

In spite of what they believe about what they are doing and would say that they are doing, Paul declares the fearful reality that such people are having fellowship with demons. Because they have no idea that they are sacrificing to demons, rightly holding the notion that their fellowship with demons means that they are having "commonality of thought and loyalty" to demons is impossible. They are not thinking at all about demons when they offer those sacrifices. They are not showing loyalty to demons because they do not even know that what they are doing has anything to do with demons.

A right understanding of having fellowship with demons in 1 Cor. 10:20 must account for what is true of unbelievers who do not know anything about the demonic character of what they are doing when they offer those sacrifices. Saying that in 1 Cor. 10:20 it means or might mean "commonality of thought and loyalty" to demons is wrong.
 

 

Come on, Rajesh. You don't have to be thinking about demons or have loyalty to demons to have the same kind of commonality of purpose (rebellion) as what demons have. And your explanation here certainly doesn't mean that "fellowship" means control by demons.


 

Your understanding seems to reflect no appreciation of the actual nature of what takes place when humans in a worship context sacrifice things on an altar to an idol and then consume in a worship context what has been sacrificed to the idol in a worship context.

Divine revelation says that what is sacrificed to an idol is sacrificed to demons (1 Cor. 10:20). They are the recipients/beneficiaries of the false worship that is offered in such a context. Such worship is not something that demons view from a distance with a complete lack of interest or response. Places and occasions of such false worship are of premier interest and focus of demons--we can be certain that demons abound in unseen contact with humans who do such things and demons permeate all locations and occasions when such activities take place. 

Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible. When humans in a worship context eat things offered to an idol in a worship context, they partner with the demons in their false worship. Because the humans do so, they give place to the demons (cf. Eph. 4:27) to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise.

You seem to want to reduce such idolatrous consumption of things offered to idols as merely instances of humans offending God by rebelling against Him without their having any contact with or partnership with the demons who are present on such occasions. If that is your view, you have a dangerously wrong understanding.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Your understanding seems to reflect no appreciation of the actual nature of what takes place when humans in a worship context sacrifice things on an altar to an idol and then consume in a worship context what has been sacrificed to the idol in a worship context.

Divine revelation says that what is sacrificed to an idol is sacrificed to demons. They are the recipients/beneficiaries of the false worship that is offered in such a context. Such worship is not something that demons view from a distance with a complete lack of interest or response. Places and occasions of such false worship are of premier interest and focus of demons--we can be certain that demons abound unseen around humans who do such things and demons permeate all locations and occasions when such activities take place. 

Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible. When humans in a worship context eat things offered to an idol in a worship context, they partner with the demons in their false worship. Because the humans do so, they give place to the demons to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise.

You seem to want to reduce such idolatrous consumption of things offered to idols as merely instances of humans offending God by rebelling against Him without their having any contact with or partnership with the demons who are present on such occasions. If that is your view, you have a dangerously wrong understanding.

Does the Bible describe "the actual nature of what takes place"? You have your interpretation, your opinion, of what takes place. I understand that. Demon are evil creatures. They can do many evil things. They can possess people for example, but your description of this "partnership" is something that you say is different from possession. You've used examples of demoniacs to make your point, even though it is not, in your opinion, possession. That makes your point seemed confused since you are trying to support your point with a different type of demon activity than what you say is happening in idol worship.

Do you have any lexical support that "partnership" in the koinonous sense is something in which one of the partners takes "control" of the other, or do you just get that from how evil you understand demons to be? Demons are evil enough to "possess," so why wouldn't koinonous be referring to possession, since demons have the ability to possess? Why would demons refrain from possessing people who "give place to the demons to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise."

I'm have a few more questions to ask, but I'm going to hold off since I really want to understand why you would limit the evilness of demons in such a way that they would not be actually possessing everyone that gives them an opportunity. You say "Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible." Wouldn't possession be the most evil way to do so?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Your understanding seems to reflect no appreciation of the actual nature of what takes place when humans in a worship context sacrifice things on an altar to an idol and then consume in a worship context what has been sacrificed to the idol in a worship context.

Divine revelation says that what is sacrificed to an idol is sacrificed to demons. They are the recipients/beneficiaries of the false worship that is offered in such a context. Such worship is not something that demons view from a distance with a complete lack of interest or response. Places and occasions of such false worship are of premier interest and focus of demons--we can be certain that demons abound unseen around humans who do such things and demons permeate all locations and occasions when such activities take place. 

Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible. When humans in a worship context eat things offered to an idol in a worship context, they partner with the demons in their false worship. Because the humans do so, they give place to the demons to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise.

You seem to want to reduce such idolatrous consumption of things offered to idols as merely instances of humans offending God by rebelling against Him without their having any contact with or partnership with the demons who are present on such occasions. If that is your view, you have a dangerously wrong understanding.

 

Does the Bible describe "the actual nature of what takes place"? You have your interpretation, your opinion, of what takes place. I understand that. Demon are evil creatures. They can do many evil things. They can possess people for example, but your description of this "partnership" is something that you say is different from possession. You've used examples of demoniacs to make your point, even though it is not, in your opinion, possession. That makes your point seemed confused since you are trying to support your point with a different type of demon activity than what you say is happening in idol worship.

 

Do you have any lexical support that "partnership" in the koinonous sense is something in which one of the partners takes "control" of the other, or do you just get that from how evil you understand demons to be? Demons are evil enough to "possess," so why wouldn't koinonous be referring to possession, since demons have the ability to possess? Why would demons refrain from possessing people who "give place to the demons to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise."

I'm have a few more questions to ask, but I'm going to hold off since I really want to understand why you would limit the evilness of demons in such a way that they would not be actually possessing everyone that gives them an opportunity. You say "Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible." Wouldn't possession be the most evil way to do so?

Further discussion is pointless if you do not account in your statements for what has been explicitly revealed in Scripture. The text says that the Gentiles sacrifice to demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

We know that this does not mean that they intend to do so or only think that they are doing so (but they're really not) because the vast majority of such people have no intention of offering anything to demons or any knowledge that what they are doing is directing worship to demons.

So what is your understanding of what takes place when the Spirit explicitly says that people offer sacrifices to demons?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Does the Bible describe "the actual nature of what takes place"? You have your interpretation, your opinion, of what takes place. I understand that. Demon are evil creatures. They can do many evil things. They can possess people for example, but your description of this "partnership" is something that you say is different from possession. You've used examples of demoniacs to make your point, even though it is not, in your opinion, possession. That makes your point seemed confused since you are trying to support your point with a different type of demon activity than what you say is happening in idol worship.

 

Do you have any lexical support that "partnership" in the koinonous sense is something in which one of the partners takes "control" of the other, or do you just get that from how evil you understand demons to be? Demons are evil enough to "possess," so why wouldn't koinonous be referring to possession, since demons have the ability to possess? Why would demons refrain from possessing people who "give place to the demons to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise."

I'm have a few more questions to ask, but I'm going to hold off since I really want to understand why you would limit the evilness of demons in such a way that they would not be actually possessing everyone that gives them an opportunity. You say "Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible." Wouldn't possession be the most evil way to do so?

 

 

Further discussion is pointless if you do not account in your statements for what has been explicitly revealed in Scripture. The text says that the Gentiles sacrifice to demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

We know that this does not mean that they intend to do so or only think that they are doing so (but they're really not) because the vast majority of such people have no intention of offering anything to demons or any knowledge that what they are doing is directing worship to demons.

So what is your understanding of what takes place when the Spirit explicitly says that people offer sacrifices to demons?

It looks like you are trying to evade my question. Why else would you ask me for my perspective when you have dismissed my perspective previously? If I posted my perspective right now, you would just say, "That has no support," and then you would never get back to answering my question. I already know you would be dismissive since you started out your recent post with a claim that my understanding doesn't show "an appreciation" for what takes place when sacrificing to an idol and eating to an idol in a worship context (and I have no idea why you felt the need to repeat "in a worship context" three times). You then went on about how evil demons are and how they "seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible."

Sure, my understanding does not have demons doing their ultimate worst when humans worship them. But then, your perspective doesn't either, since demons have the ability to possess people, but your position is that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped. Why isn't your position appreciating the full nature of what demons are able to do to people?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Does the Bible describe "the actual nature of what takes place"? You have your interpretation, your opinion, of what takes place. I understand that. Demon are evil creatures. They can do many evil things. They can possess people for example, but your description of this "partnership" is something that you say is different from possession. You've used examples of demoniacs to make your point, even though it is not, in your opinion, possession. That makes your point seemed confused since you are trying to support your point with a different type of demon activity than what you say is happening in idol worship.

 

Do you have any lexical support that "partnership" in the koinonous sense is something in which one of the partners takes "control" of the other, or do you just get that from how evil you understand demons to be? Demons are evil enough to "possess," so why wouldn't koinonous be referring to possession, since demons have the ability to possess? Why would demons refrain from possessing people who "give place to the demons to attack them in a way that would not have been given to the demons otherwise."

I'm have a few more questions to ask, but I'm going to hold off since I really want to understand why you would limit the evilness of demons in such a way that they would not be actually possessing everyone that gives them an opportunity. You say "Demons seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible." Wouldn't possession be the most evil way to do so?

 

 

Further discussion is pointless if you do not account in your statements for what has been explicitly revealed in Scripture. The text says that the Gentiles sacrifice to demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

We know that this does not mean that they intend to do so or only think that they are doing so (but they're really not) because the vast majority of such people have no intention of offering anything to demons or any knowledge that what they are doing is directing worship to demons.

So what is your understanding of what takes place when the Spirit explicitly says that people offer sacrifices to demons?

 

It looks like you are trying to evade my question. Why else would you ask me for my perspective when you have dismissed my perspective previously? If I posted my perspective right now, you would just say, "That has no support," and then you would never get back to answering my question. I already know you would be dismissive since you started out your recent post with a claim that my understanding doesn't show "an appreciation" for what takes place when sacrificing to an idol and eating to an idol in a worship context (and I have no idea why you felt the need to repeat "in a worship context" three times). You then went on about how evil demons are and how they "seek to ensnare and destroy as many humans as possible."

Sure, my understanding does not have demons doing their ultimate worst when humans worship them. But then, your perspective doesn't either, since demons have the ability to possess people, but your position is that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped. Why isn't your position appreciating the full nature of what demons are able to do to people?

You seem to attach supreme importance to the notion of being demonically possessed. Apparently, for you, something vital is stake in establishing whether demons possess people or not in specific circumstances, even for circumstances in which we already know that those people are involved in extremely wicked activities that God categorically forbids humans to do.

In brief, the Bible does not provide the necessary information to answer such questions about demonic possession with certainty.

God has not given us a book called "First Demons" with 50 chapters that exhaustively provide all the information necessary for us to know what demon possession is, when it takes place, what its exact nature is, who can or cannot be possessed and when and why and for how long they can be possessed, etc.

Furthermore, no, my position is not "that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped." I have never said that I know with certainty whether demons do or do not possess the people who in a worship context eat things that have been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context.

Being demonically possessed is specific biblical terminology that I am not going to use when the Bible does not provide the revelation necessary for us to be able to tell specifically whether it takes place in a given setting. My not answering every possible question that you want to ask about demon possession does not in any way show that my position is false. Many of the things that you want specific answers to are not humanly knowable.

Dan Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

...So what is your understanding of what takes place when the Spirit explicitly says that people offer sacrifices to demons?

As in Romans 14:6, it could rendered, “in honor of demons.” It means that the sacrificers are sacrificing with the purpose of honoring demons. It is about the mental state of the ones sacrificing. And based on v.16-18, the ones who eat what others sacrifice also honor the sacrifice and by extension honor what the sacrifice honors. 

Paul is talking about what the eaters are doing in their minds. They honor... They have commonality...

Rajesh seems to believe that the focus is on spiritual activity of demons, and while I agree that this is possible, I don’t think the text supports that, and it certainly isn’t the focus. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You seem to attach supreme importance to the notion of being demonically possessed. Apparently, for you, something vital is stake in establishing whether demons possess people or not in specific circumstances, even for circumstances in which we already know that those people are involved in extremely wicked activities that God categorically forbids humans to do.

You seem to attach supreme importance to the notion of being demonically influenced. Apparently, for you, something vital is stake in establishing whether demons influence people or not in specific circumstances, even for circumstances in which we already know that those people are involved in extremely wicked activities that God categorically forbids humans to do.

Hey, you are the one who has demon activity as a major factor in why God is rejecting some music. I'm just trying to get a clear picture of your point.

Quote:
In brief, the Bible does not provide the necessary information to answer such questions about demonic possession with certainty.

God has not given us a book called "First Demons" with 50 chapters that exhaustively provide all the information necessary for us to know what demon possession is, when it takes place, what its exact nature is, who can or cannot be possessed and when and why and for how long they can be possessed, etc.

The Bible also doesn't give us an exact description of what "fellowship with demons" entails, yet you have been pretty specific in stating that it causes whatever has been produced by a person in "fellowship with demons" to be forever unacceptable to God. That assertion goes well beyond anything the Bible says about demon activity.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, no, my position is not "that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped." I have never said that I know with certainty whether demons do or do not possess the people who in a worship context eat things that have been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context.

Being demonically possessed is specific biblical terminology that I am not going to use when the Bible does not provide the revelation necessary for us to be able to tell specifically whether it takes place in a given setting. My not answering every possible question that you want to ask about demon possession does not in any way show that my position is false. Many of the things that you want specific answers to are not humanly knowable.

I figured you would eventually use the "not humanly knowable" dodge. You've made a bunch of statements in this thread about why demonic influence makes certain music unacceptable to God, but when I try to ask specifics about where in the Bible you these effects of demonic influence, you present verses that deal either with demonic activity that happens to all unbelievers or with demonic activity that happens in possession. Yet you assert that the "fellowship with demons" is a demonic activity that is greater than the first and not necessarily the latter. Your assertion of this category with special influence effects seems to be a leap of logic, yet when I press you for specifics to support this leap, you fall back on "not humanly knowable." It's like watching a repetitous tap dance routine.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Quote:
Furthermore, no, my position is not "that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped." I have never said that I know with certainty whether demons do or do not possess the people who in a worship context eat things that have been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context.

 

Being demonically possessed is specific biblical terminology that I am not going to use when the Bible does not provide the revelation necessary for us to be able to tell specifically whether it takes place in a given setting. My not answering every possible question that you want to ask about demon possession does not in any way show that my position is false. Many of the things that you want specific answers to are not humanly knowable.

 

I figured you would eventually use the "not humanly knowable" dodge. You've made a bunch of statements in this thread about why demonic influence makes certain music unacceptable to God, but when I try to ask specifics about where in the Bible you these effects of demonic influence, you present verses that deal either with demonic activity that happens to all unbelievers or with demonic activity that happens in possession. Yet you assert that the "fellowship with demons" is a demonic activity that is greater than the first and not necessarily the latter. Your assertion of this category with special influence effects seems to be a leap of logic, yet when I press you for specifics to support this leap, you fall back on "not humanly knowable." It's like watching a repetitous tap dance routine.

Because you are now officially on record as accusing me of using what you claim is "the 'not humanly knowable' dodge," I'm sure that you will not want to be a hypocrite by doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing. Also, because you claim that I am using a dodge by saying that many specific things about demonic activity are humanly unknowable, you apparently hold the view that such specific things are humanly knowable and that you know them.

Now, it's my turn to ask specific questions.

Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

This is an explicit passage about demonic activity. Clearly, this woman was afflicted by Satan nonstop for 18 years. Was the woman in this account demonically possessed or not? 
 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Because you are now officially on record as accusing me of using what you claim is "the 'not humanly knowable' dodge," I'm sure that you will not want to be a hypocrite by doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing. Also, because you claim that I am using a dodge by saying that many specific things about demonic activity are humanly unknowable, you apparently hold the view that such specific things are humanly knowable and that you know them.

Now, it's my turn to ask specific questions.

Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

This is an explicit passage about demonic activity. Clearly, this women was afflicted by Satan nonstop for 18 years. Was the woman in this account demonically possessed or not? 

The passage does not clearly state that she was, so i would not make a definite assertion that she was. I see you are back to your habit of making up positions I "apparently" hold.

I have repeatedly, through this thread, said that there are some things that the Bible does not clearly state. That's why I have often questioned your definitive assertions as you keep making them. It is only when I ask foundational questions that you don't wish to answer, that you then fall back on the correct perspective that it's not humanly knowable if the Bible doesn't make it clear. I call it a dodge, because after you have made that correct assessment, you then go right back to your unsupportable definitive assertions as if you hadn't just admitted that the foundation behind them is not humanly knowable. We then go round and round again.

I have also stated in this thread that is completely acceptable for people to come up with their own standards based on what they understand the Bible to be teaching even if the Bible doesn't specifically say it. However, if you present your own standards as "what the Bible teaches" when the Bible is not completely clear, then I'm going to question your assertions until you admit that the Bible isn't clear. I was reviewing the thread back on page 6 where we were previously talking about demon activity, and on that page you told me "It appears to me that you are not yet willing to let the Bible explain to you what fellowship with demons entails the way that God has chosen to explain it" and "You are persisting in refusing to let God teach you." It seemed to me that if I didn't agree with your perspective then you thought I was refusing to let God teach me. So then I ask foundational questions about your perspective.  When my questions about your perspective get too hard, then you go back to things being "not humanly knowable."

Why not just skip the leaps of logic and unsupportable definitive assertions in the first place?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Because you are now officially on record as accusing me of using what you claim is "the 'not humanly knowable' dodge," I'm sure that you will not want to be a hypocrite by doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing. Also, because you claim that I am using a dodge by saying that many specific things about demonic activity are humanly unknowable, you apparently hold the view that such specific things are humanly knowable and that you know them.

Now, it's my turn to ask specific questions.

Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

This is an explicit passage about demonic activity. Clearly, this women was afflicted by Satan nonstop for 18 years. Was the woman in this account demonically possessed or not? 

 

The passage does not clearly state that she was, so i would not make a definite assertion that she was. 

So, do you now still hold to your position that there is either only the "background activity" in all unbelievers that Satan exerts or demonic possession? Are there other manifestations of demonic activity upon humans or not beside these two that are neither the "background activity" nor possession?

Also, Jesus clearly knew whether she was possessed or not. He did not use the specific biblical terminology that Luke shows was widely used in His day. So, why is it that you do not know the answer to the question of whether she was possessed or not?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

So, do you now still hold to your position that there is either only the "background activity" in all unbelievers that Satan exerts or demonic possession? Are there other manifestations of demonic activity upon humans or not beside these two that are neither the "background activity" nor possession?

Also, Jesus clearly knew whether she was possessed or not. He did not use the specific biblical terminology that Luke shows was widely used in His day. So, why is it that you do not know the answer to the question of whether she was possessed or not?

I do not know because Jesus did not use the Biblical terminology, but Jesus also did not say that the spirit of infirmity wasn't possessing her. My inclination is that she wasn't possessed. I thought I made that clear when I said I wouldn't make a definitive assertion that she WAS possessed. I see now I could have worded that better, but the answer is just my opinion, since the Bible doesn't say one way or another.

I gave the concepts of possession and temptation as two ends of a spectrum. That means there are positions in between. I agree that there are certain verses in which a spirit is described as doing some particular thing in the life of a person. Those verses are usually pretty specific about what the spirit is doing though. If the "participation" in I Cor 10 causes some kind of "participation spirit" to harass an individual, then why would you think such "harassment power" would extend to things created by the harassed person? If the woman with the spirit of infirmity had produced music, would all of her music be unacceptable to God in worship? 

 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

So, do you now still hold to your position that there is either only the "background activity" in all unbelievers that Satan exerts or demonic possession? Are there other manifestations of demonic activity upon humans or not beside these two that are neither the "background activity" nor possession?

Also, Jesus clearly knew whether she was possessed or not. He did not use the specific biblical terminology that Luke shows was widely used in His day. So, why is it that you do not know the answer to the question of whether she was possessed or not?

 

I do not know because Jesus did not use the Biblical terminology, but Jesus also did not say that the spirit of infirmity wasn't possessing her. My inclination is that she wasn't possessed. I thought I made that clear when I said I wouldn't make a definitive assertion that she WAS possessed. I see now I could have worded that better, but the answer is just my opinion, since the Bible doesn't say one way or another.

I gave the concepts of possession and temptation as two ends of a spectrum. That means there are positions in between. I agree that there are certain verses in which a spirit is described as doing some particular thing in the life of a person. Those verses are usually pretty specific about what the spirit is doing though. 

Let's move now to Ananias:

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Certainly, the Spirit knew whether Satan possessed Ananias or not. The Spirit, however, did not inspire Luke to record that Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan possessed you to lie to the Holy Ghost?"

What Peter did say and what the Spirit inspired to be recorded for our profit is Peter's saying that Satan filled Ananias' heart. The verb used here is the same verb used in the command in Eph. 5:18 when God commands Christians to be filled with the Spirit. That command is a command for Christians to be controlled by the Spirit.

Because the Spirit inspired Luke to use that same verb in Acts 5:3, we know with certainty that the devil was controlling Ananias' heart. This passage therefore refutes the notion that saying that people are controlled but not possessed is "dodging" the hard questions.

Anyone who does assert that Ananias was possessed has to explain why the Spirit did not use the specific terminology for possession that He inspired Luke to use in many passages in Luke-Acts. He also has to explain how the other believers were not able to tell that Ananias was possessed.

So now tell me why it is important, necessary, etc to establish whether people who in a worship context consume what is offered to an idol in a worship context are possessed or not.

Tell me also how it is a dodge to refuse to say whether people are possessed and yet say that they are under strong demonic influence.

 

RajeshG's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Anyone who does assert that Ananias was possessed has to explain why the Spirit did not use the specific terminology for possession that He inspired Luke to use in many passages in Luke-Acts. He also has to explain how the other believers were not able to tell that Ananias was possessed.

I misspoke when I made this comment earlier; I should have checked the data again instead of going by memory. The specific terminology that I was speaking about (the verb δαιμονίζομαι) is not used in many passages in Luke-Acts; it only occurs once in Luke-Acts (Luke 8:36).

It does occur 13 times in the Gospels (Matt. 4:24; Matt. 8:16; Matt. 8:28; Matt. 8:33; Matt. 9:32; Matt. 12:22; Matt. 15:22; Mk. 1:32; Mk. 5:15; Mk. 5:16; Mk. 5:18; Lk. 8:36; Jn. 10:21) so what I should have said is the following: "Anyone who does assert that Ananias was possessed has to explain why the Spirit did not use the specific terminology for possession that He inspired the Gospel writers to use in many passages in the Gospels."

My apologies for misspeaking.

Pages