"Possessed" people

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think demonic possession is a myth.

Of course, you are entitled to think what you wish. But I know what I saw, and although we can probably come up with some other rational explanation for it, it sure seemed to fit that description to me.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How would the authors of the Gospels know the difference? Their spirits were merely afflicted and then they were healed.

Not a single devil is cast out of anyone in the Gospel of John. In Mark, it happens at the drop of a hat.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Not a single devil is cast out of anyone in the Gospel of John. In Mark, it happens at the drop of a hat.

SIEQ, do you know if Q has any "devil casting out" material in it (probably not since it is mostly sayings material)?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Not a single devil is cast out of anyone in the Gospel of John. In Mark, it happens at the drop of a hat.

And Mark is considered the Gospel most proximate to the actual events, but John is considered to have been written by an apostle or his associate.

As the the concept of possession, it sounds theologically troubling in that it appears to impede one's agency. OTOH, if it's attributable to organic causes, then it makes more sense.

I have never witnessed a perceived possession, as Europeans were too much rational to even mention such things. Usually the stories I've heard told hearken from South America where lots of weird stuff transpired.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think demonic possession is a myth.

Of course you do. In fact, you find it all a myth except for that little bit of spirituality that you can't bring yourself to let go of. You have admitted it here before; you believe in some sort of god, or somethign beyond yourself and us. You are unable to articulate what this is, which makes it a very convenient belief, I might add, and yet you cling to it for some unknown and certainly unproveable reason. Anything specifically articulated by others is always a myth, and you are very gracious to point that out to them, but by leaving your own spirituality nebulous and undefined, you avoid similar scrutiny.

As for me, I am quite happy in my one-star world.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

Of course you do. In fact, you find it all a myth except for that little bit of spirituality that you can't bring yourself to let go of. You have admitted it here before; you believe in some sort of god, or somethign beyond yourself and us. You are unable to articulate what this is, which makes it a very convenient belief, I might add, and yet you cling to it for some unknown and certainly unproveable reason. Anything specifically articulated by others is always a myth, and you are very gracious to point that out to them, but by leaving your own spirituality nebulous and undefined, you avoid similar scrutiny.

As for me, I am quite happy in my one-star world.

I know this is going to sound kind of strange, but I kind of appreciated SU's response. Sure, he probably engaged in some pettifoggery, but you can hardly blame him for that. I am probably too sensitive about this issue because of close family members that are mentally ill. I hope members didn't assume or presume demonic possession or any spiritual ramifications about one of my sibling's Schizophrenia.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I know this is going to sound kind of strange, but I kind of appreciated SU's response. Sure, he probably engaged in some pettifoggery, but you can hardly blame him for that. I am probably too sensitive about this issue because of close family members that are mentally ill. I hope members didn't assume or presume that about one of my sibling's Schizophrenia.

Yes. I think someone needed to say this. To apply the epithet of demonic possession to a physical malady as real and serious and medically treatable as mental illness is medieval, and cruel, not unlike what happened in Salem. It's a classic example of religion run amok.

And in this thread we even have suggestion that apostates are possessed.

Truly, this type of talk is not fit for college educated people in modern times.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes. I think someone needed to say this. To apply the epithet of demonic possession to something as real and serious and medically treatable as mental illness is medieval, and cruel, not unlike what happened in Salem. It's a classic example of religion run amok.

And in this thread we even have suggestion that apostates are possessed.

Truly, this type of talk is not fit for college educated people in modern times.

I should be careful, I am not sure anyone really did that. I know I am overly sensitive to this issue and I am always worried that is where it is headed.

[Surfah]

I am sure that several of the instances where "devils" are mentioned in the scriptures were in fact not matters of possession but rather other physical or even mental maladies.

However, I also believe that demonic possession is a very real thing through experiences I care not to share here or anywhere else for that matter. Whether a devil be allowed to possess through invitation, sin, or some other organic process as Arch mentioned I do not know.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SIEQ, do you know if Q has any "devil casting out" material in it (probably not since it is mostly sayings material)?

Being just a scholarly construct, "Q" is Mark's unknown source(s), and is believed to also have been a source for the Gospel of Thomas (specifically of the sayings material which you referenced and which are also found in Mark). The devil casting out material is very important to Mark's theology, in a broad way it fits into the redemption of Israel, but it isn't in the GoT.

Luke is actually useful here as he tells us that he gets his information from earlier, though second and third hand, sources (inferentially including Mark), and thinks he has the truth of things figured out for Theophilus. Luke includes the casting out of devils in his Gospel.

Matthew doesn't sanitize Mark's casting out of devils and he is prone to rewriting Mark in the name of theology.

My take on John's gospel is that while their might be a little in there that is somehow attritutable to John, it seems to have been revised and pieced together as the work of probably at least three authors. John 20 and 21 look to be two seperate and distinct endings (John 21 explaining the apostle's death--something I've never heard discussed by rank and file Mormons), and the prologue to John and other passages have the feel of neo-platonist philosophy (and even gnosticism, to my eye). The Gospel of John probably has parts that were written quite early on in Christian history (the "Signs Gospel" assumed to be the source of the seven signs material), but I don't think it took it's current form until later. Probably near the end of the First Century.

Weighing all of this in with what I know of 1st century Judaism, it is fair to conclude that many early Christians believed in posession.