Unlocked Wisdom

“Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” (I Thes 5:21)

It is demonstrably acknowledged that Jesus, Yahshua the Messiah, was the wisdom of Yahweh (1Cor 1:24). It is also settled that He had an understanding of the Holy Scriptures that could not be compared with any other individual before or after Him. For modern theologians to presume that the Messiah could err in scriptural doctrine is a faulty assertion, one that has been promulgated, codified and believed in by almost all. Claiming that Yahshua Jesus had an eschewed knowledge on the actual nature of what many modern believers agree to be disembodied living human spirits, or disordered angels, is a great oversight in the theologian’s tradition-motivated diligence to substantiate radical demonology and literal demoniac possession. Because of misunderstandings regarding the Messiah’s culture and the Holy Scriptures, many have run head first into superstitious conclusions about doctrines concerned with demons, and this is due to the New Testaments simple and clear matter of fact-ness regarding demonism. A great problem that exists is that the superficial treatment of demons in the New Testament is, when read outside of and apart from its natural context, incorrectly understood in almost every one of its treatments on the matter. Meaning that in order for any to correctly understand what’s truthfully stated, a certain amount of work is required, and this work is the reader’s responsibility. In order for the Messiah to have believed in the existence of literal beings whom possessed the bodies of living people, He would have to have been receptive to pagan ruminations and their vain philosophies. Furthermore, for the Messiah to believe in literal demons He would have to have been acting in a way latently antagonistic towards the various and plainly stated truths discussed in the only scriptures He had as foundationally sure, those being they found in the Tanakh. If it were true that He did ignore the words in the Tanakh, this would have brought multifarious problems into His ministry, problems that scripturally could not exist if He was to remain the promised Messiah. With acknowledgement of this, it is our responsibility to re-align the actions and teachings of the One Holy Messiah with the truths found in His Tanakh, and then understand the sure road of explanation for why Yahshua would seem to both teach and substantiate the existence of disembodied spirits who afflict, disease and possess the living in a Gentle influenced Israel, while the Scriptures He lived upon clearly stated exactly the opposite.

The Messiah was a law giver. It could be argued that He was also the very Word that spoke to the Prophets. In the flesh He was demonstrated to be the wisdom of Yahweh Himself. To suggest that the Messiah had erred in one of the most fundamental and clearly defined Old Testament doctrines (regarding posthumous spiritual existence before the judgment), would be first on behalf of the educated a gross oversight, and secondly, a reading into, or more properly stated eisegesis of the scriptures. By inspiration, the Messiah told Paul that men were appointed once to die than after this the judgment (Heb 9:27), and the Spirit of Holiness also told Solomon that when men died they could no longer think or act (Ecc 9:10), yet the superstitious Hellenized Pharisee would have all people believe that after death those who passed away in an angry state of mind could spiritually leave their graves and seek new lodgings in the abodes of the sinful or somehow susceptible persons. Teachings on the spirits of the dead have not come from 1st Samuel verse 28, nor had it come from the Messiahs parable about Lazerous and the rich man, which I mention arose much later than the belief of the spiritual life of evil spirits, but was one attained from historical heathendom, either Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Indian or Persian; this idea came fully prepared with a complete demonology as well. Such beliefs were so well feared by the people of the first century, that the apostles on no less than two occasions believed Jesus to be a wayward spirit, and this was after they had been educated by Him during His ministry. The notion of demonic possession was a superstition that was very firmly rooted in the cultural consciousness of their time – as it remains so concreted everywhere today.

For brevities sake here are the Old Testament scriptures that confirm the impossibility of posthumous thoughts and existence before the judgement.

Ecc 8:8 There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death

Ecc 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Psa 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Psa 146:3-4 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

One of the first Old Testament examples of an individual expressing the belief in spiritual possession comes from the King of Babylon. This is fitting, seeing that spirit possession is an belief taken from Babylonian mysteries.

Dan 4:9 “O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. (KJV)

The Aramaic source says the “Spirit of the Holy God” singular. This still promotes belief in the notion of spiritual possession.This scripture has many different translations, but all hold to the idea that a spirit inhabits the body of Daniel.

What Jesus actually taught about Demonic Possession

Many people believe that Jesus never corrected the unashamed errors contained in the beliefs of demonic possession existing all over the 1^st century world, but such conjecture is incomplete and because of its incompleteness absolutely erroneous. In actuality, Yahshua Jesus openly condemned the heathenized Pharisee belief that demons could ever enter the body and control one’s mind or will. The rebuke of this notion took place while He taught in Galilee which was a section of Israel that had been utterly steeped in demonic superstitions.

Evil spirits and hand washing: Jesus’ public rebuke against the belief of demonic possession.

The account of Jesus’ public rebuke of demonic possession is as such:

(Mar 7:1-3) “Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. (2) And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. (3) For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.”

The Judean Pharisees warned against eating with unwashed hands for various ritual reasons, each of these finding authority in post Tanakh texts (most finding allusion for authority from the Tanakh). One example of such a decree is found in the Talmud Bavli Hullin 106a-b.

The account continues:

(Mar 7:14-23) “14 And when [Yahshua] had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the [mind] of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

Explanation

A very important element of this public rebuke was that the Pharisees from Jerusalem did not in any way disagree with the Messiahs words about the affects of eating with unclean hands. Since the Pharisees from Jerusalem did not believe in demonic possession, Yahshua had used their beliefs as supports through their lack of denial, making them witnesses for what He now publicly taught the people as incorrect.

To elaborate on the reason for why Messiah said the words that He did, a book titled Demons and Jewish Magic highlights the significance of the purposes of hand washing, and why the Pharisees took it so seriously. “The connection between demons and uncleanness was made to serve important hygienic ends. Evil spirits, sometimes called "spirits of uncleanness," and once identified by the name bat melech, rest upon unwashed hands, contaminate foods handled with them, and endanger the lives of those who eat such food. Seven occasions which require a ritual washing of the hands (which destroys or dislodges the demons) were enumerated; most important among these was upon arising in the morning, for the night creates a special susceptibility to spirit contamination. Even on Yom Kippur when no ablutions might be performed, the hands must be washed in the morning. Touching the eyes, ears, nose and mouth with unwashed hands spells trouble; no doubt it was feared that the evil spirits would enter the body through these orifices. (… if, in speaking of infection, our vocabulary is more "scientific," the sense remains the same.) The demon of uncleanness, entering the eyes, could cause one’s glance to have a devastating effect upon the innocent passer-by; it might even be responsible for the loss of one’s memory, and ultimately complete loss of mind.” (p.33 Demons and disease Jewish magic)

It can be fairly presumed that the Pharisees from Jerusalem were more concerned with the breaking of tradition then the negative effects of catching a demon from eating food with unclean hands. This perspective will be emphasized further in following passages. I must highlight that when speaking to the Apostles in the house the Messiah focused on food, and how it could not contaminate, but in doing so He completely disregarded the existence of evil spirits and taught a valuable lesson that showed his followers that evil comes from the mind.

A side note and point of interest is how the evil spirits of hand washing could cause a person to develop the Evil eye[1]. In the above passage Jesus mentioned the evil eye, and it is clear that He surly did not believe in its existence, but he mentioned this superstition intentionally because He knew about the traditional teachings surrounding unclean hands and demonic possession which caused the evil eye. Through its mention, He wished to prove that the evil eye was nothing more than human envy if anything at all. I would also like to note that the evil spirits who entered the body as mention in the book on demons above, are by admission of the author equated with sicknesses caused by touching susceptible parts of the body with contaminated hands.

Not washing hands causes demonic possession continued:

“The custom of washing the hands after a funeral is very widespread … Efforts were made to find a Biblical precedent for this act, but … there was a general admission that it was done ‘to dispel the spirits of uncleanness’ which cling to one’s person, these being ‘the demons that follow them home.’” (page 179).

In the above scripture we notice that Yahshua Jesus told the people that they lacked understanding. Belief in demon possession to Yahshua was without question both folly and ignorance. By understanding that Jesus had corrected the erroneous beliefs about demonic infiltration and possession, we must further evaluate the attitudes regarding demonic possession held by the people in both Galilee and Judea.

Jesus educated the people in Galilee (Important):

Belief in demons in Galilee and Judea

“Based on his studies of the relevant Talmudic literature, Cambridge rabbinical scholar Herbert Loewe concluded that during the first century AD rabbis in Galilee and Mesopotamia generally believed in the literal existence of demons, while those in Judea did not. … Loewe next summarizes the results of his findings: "In investigating Talmudic evidence as to spirits, the reader will notice, at the outset, different attitudes adopted by the Rabbis in dealing with this question. In some cases the reality of demons seems to be taken for granted absolutely; in others it seems, with no less certainty, to be denied. Stories occur in which both these attitudes may be traced simultaneously. The reason for this may be found if the nationality of the respective teachers be sought. It has already been stated that Galilee was the centre of Palestinian demonology, and it will almost invariably be found that Galilaean teachers accepted, while Judaean teachers rejected, the existence of spirits. The numerous instances which the NT furnishes would have been impossible save in Galilee; there is a strong similarity between these and those adduced by Galilaean Rabbis. The same must be said of those Rabbis who came from Mesopotamia. And they were brought up in surroundings in which superstition was rife, their teaching was tinged by a belief in spirits, and in comparison with them the clarity of Palestinian teaching stands out in bold relief.‟ Loewe, “Demons and Spirits (Jewish),” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. 4, James Hastings (Edinburgh, 1911), p. 612-13.

"This background information opens a window on demonic activity during the ministry of Christ. Belief in demons was taught and fostered in the north by the local rabbis; conversely, those in the south were encouraged by a sceptical outlook by the Judaean teachers. Since belief in demons was rampant in the north, many people attributed sickness to demons. Because demon belief was much less common in the south [the above-cited scholarly source implies that it was virtually nonexistent among Judaean rabbis], then the demons did not exist either." (The Geographical Distribution of Demon-Possession: Mapping demon belief in the new testament pg 6)

Demon possession was not Geographically uniform – evidence against the belief

“Demon-possession in the Gospel accounts is not a geographically-uniform phenomenon. Specific cases of demon-possession in the synoptics occur in regional clusters, always in northern environs such as Galilee, rather than occurring throughout every location through which Christ travelled and performed healings. Conversely, not a single case of demon-possession in Judea or Jerusalem is recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Moreover, the Synoptics include several quantitative summaries of demon-possession that imply that demon-possession was a common and even characteristic phenomenon in Galilee and the northern regions. No comparable statements for Judean areas are found in the Gospel records. Finally, certain ostensibly physical pathological conditions, such as blindness, deafness and muteness, which are sometimes attributed to demon-possession in the north, are never so characterized in the south, even though descriptions of these conditions do occur in texts commenting on the Judean ministry.” (The Geographical Distribution pg.1)

Summery

It has been made clear that Yahshua Jesus did in fact correct the beliefs about demonic possession during His ministry. Through teaching that evil came from within out of a corrupt mindset agrees with many New Testament epistles (James 1:14-15 &c), and clearly states that nothing can enter into a man or women to defile them spiritually. This is to say that sin is the fruit of the human will. Yahshua clearly told all of the people who were present that demons were not able to enter into them and take possession of their minds and will, and that this notion is impossible (for even Yahweh Himself doesn’t do this, even Yahshua Jesus the embodiment of Yahweh had a free will). The fact that Jesus made reference to the evil eye shows that He was concerned with the numerous superstitions that currently ensnared the people. For Yahshua to command the people to understand shows that they as a whole held onto incorrect ideas that needed correcting. The fact that He rebuked His apostles shows that the practice of hand washing was not the chief focus of His reprove, but it was the belief in demonic possession (which the apostles (most coming from Galilee or surrounding area did also believe in)) that was the object of his scrutiny, nothing less. Since Jesus knew that the Judean Pharisees would not contradict His rebuke, He purposely taught this lesson in their presence using them as an aid. Jesus not only corrected the Pharisees flawed reasoning about hand washing obtained from the Talmud, but He also used their perspective on the demon doctrine to the advantage of the people. This topic of possession, and how Jesus treated it, is in absolute perfect agreement with the Tanakh; and it also shows that even though the Messiah used the term Demon at other times when speaking about those suffering from mental or otherwise un-diagnosable ailments, He not only understood the actual cause of their true diseases, but He used this popular term so the people of His time would understand, and relate with Him. Yahshua Jesus had in no way justified the existence of actual demons human or angelic nor demonic possession.

2. The following treatments will go through the history of the word demon, demoniac, and all other terms directly connected to demon possession, and will show how these terms were historically derived from outside of Israel. It will continue to show that when said terms were used in Israel they represented nothing more than names for people suffering from various difficult illnesses, or parable based mythical beings for stories.

How the concept of demons as the spirits of dead men came into popularity

Popular Lectures and Addresses By Rev. A. Campbell 1868

The subject of demons, as forming a portion of the real antiquities of the world as connected with Pagan, Jewish and Christian theology the subject of demons, sometimes called devils, not in their fictitious, but in their true character, is that which I propose to discuss; for even here, as in everything else, there are the fact and the fable, the true and the false, the real and the imaginary. The extravagant fancies of the poets, the ghosts and spectres of the dark ages, have spread their sable mantles upon this subject, and involved it either in philosophical dubiety or in a, blind indiscriminate infidelity. The Christian philosopher in this department, as in most others, finds truth and fable blended in the same tradition; and therefore, neither awed by authority; nor allured by the fascinations of novelty, he institutes an examination into the merits of this subject, which, if true, cannot but deeply interest the thoughtful, and if false, should be banished from the minds of all.

That a class of beings designated demons has been an element of the faith, an object of dread and veneration, of all ages and nations, as far back as memory reaches, no one who believes in a spiritual system, no one who regards the volumes of divine inspiration, or who is even only partially acquainted with Pagan and Jewish antiquity, can reasonably doubt. But concerning these demons, of what order of intelligences, of what character and destiny, of what powers intellectual and moral, there has been much debate, and there is need of further and more satisfactory examination. Before entering either philosophically or practically into this investigation, it is necessary that we define the true and proper meaning of the term demon. This word, it is said, is of Grecian origin and character of which, however, we have not full assurance. In that language it is written and pronounced daimoon, and, according to some etymologists, is legitimately descended from a very ancient verb, pronounced daioo, which means to discriminate, to know. Daimoon, or demon, therefore, simply indicates a person of intelligence—-a knowing one. Thus, before the age of philosophy, or the invention of the name, those were called demons, as a title of honor, who afterwards assumed the more modest title of philosophers. Aristotle, for his great learning, was called a demon, as was the celebrated ‘I’hucydides: hence among the Platonists it was for some time a title of honor, But this, it must be observed, was a special appropriation, like our use of the words divine and reverend. When we apply these titles to sinful men, who, because of their calling, ought to be not only intelligent, but of a divine and celestial temper and morality, we use them by a special indulgence from that sovereign pontiff with whom is the jus et norma Loquendi [right and norm of speaking]. But as some of the Platonists elevated the spirits of departed heroes, public benefactors and distinguished men into a species of demigods or mediators between them and the supreme Divinity, as some of our forefathers were accustomed to regard the souls of departed saints, this term began to be used in a more general sense. Among some philosophers it became the title of an object of worship; while, on the other hand, it degenerated into the genii of poetry and imagination.

In tracing the popular transitions of words, permit me, gentlemen, to say that we are not to imagine that they ceremoniously advance, like our naval and military officers, from one rank to another, by some systematic or conventional agreement. On the contrary, the transitions are exceedingly anomalous, and sometimes inverted. In this instance the term demon" from simply indicating a knowing one, became the title of a human spirit when divested of its clay tenement, because of its supposed initiation into the secrets of another world. Thus a separated spirit became a genius, a demigod, a mediator, a divinity of the ancient superstition, according to its acquirements in this state of probation. But we shall better understand the force and import of this mysterious word from its earliest acceptation among the elder Pagans, Jews and Christians, than from the speculations of etymologists and lexicographers. Historical facts, then, and not etymological speculations, shall decide not only its meaning, but the character and rank of those beings on whom, by common consent, this significant title was conferred.

To whom, then, among Pagan writers shall we make our first appeal? Shall we not at once carry up the question to the most venerable Hesiod, the oldest of Grecian bards, whose style even antedates that of Homer himself almost one hundred years? Shall we not appeal to the genealogist of all the gods, the great theogonist of Grecian mythology? Who more likely than he to be acquainted with the ancient traditions of demons? And what is the sum of his testimony in the case? Hear him speak in the words of Plutarch :_U The spirits of mortals become demons when separated from their earthly bodies." The Grecian biographist not only quotes with approbation the views of Hesiod, but corroborates them by the result of his own researches, avowing his conviction that the demons of the Greeks were the ghosts and genii of departed men; and that they go up and down the earth as observers, and even rewarders, of men; and although not actors themselves, they encourage others to act in harmony with their views and characters." Zenocrates too, is quoted by Aristotle, extends the term· to the souls of men before death, and calls them demons while in the body. To the good demons and the spirits of deceased heroes they allotted the office of mediators between gods. And men. In this light Zoroaster, Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Plutarch, Celsus, Apuleius, and many others regarded the demons of their times. Whoever, indeed, will be at pains to examine the Pagan mythologies, one and all, will discover that some doctrine of demons, as respects their nature, abodes, characters or employment, is the ultimate foundation of their whole superstructure; and that the radical idea of all the dogmata of their priests, and the fancies and fables of their poeta, is found in that most ancient and veritable tradition-that the spirits of men survive their fallen tabernacles, and live in a disembodied state from death to the dissolution of material nature. To these spirits, in the character of genii, gods or demigods, they assigned the fates and fortunes of men and countries. With them a hero on earth became a demon in hades, and a demigod, a numen, a divinity, in the skies. It is not without some reason that the witty and ingenious Lucian makes his dialogist, in the orthodoxy of his age, ask and answer the following questions:- What is man’ A mortal god. And what is God! An immortal man. In one sentence, all Pagan antiquity affirms that from Titan and Saturn, the Poetic progeny of Coelusm and Terra, down to Aecnlapius, Proteus "and Minos, all their divinities were the ghosts of dead men, and were 80 regarded by the most erudite of the Pagans themselves.

We see that historicity and scholarly knowable prove the specific source for both the word and imaginary ideal of what are commonly called demons. Can we honestly, with a holy heart presume Jesus took these ideas from none believing, ignorant and lost men? Let us not even remotely think so.

How early Theological sources viewed Demoniac’s (The demon possessed)

A theological, biblical and Ecclesiastical Dictionary 1815 John Robson

DEMONIAC, a human being whose volition and other mental faculties are overpowered and restrained, and his body possessed and actuated by some created spiritual being of superior power. This appears to be the determinate sense of the word; but it is disputed whether any of mankind were ever in this unfortunate condition. The following are the principal arguments on each side of the question.

1. Arguments against the existence of demoniacs. – The Greeks and Romans believed in the reality of demoniacal possession. They supposed that spiritual beings sometimes entered into the sons or daughters of men, and distinguished themselves by capricious freaks, deeds of wanton mischief, or prophetic enunciations. But in the instances in which they supposed this to happen, it is evident that no such thing took place. Their accounts of the state and condition of those persons whom they believed to be possessed in this supernatural manner, plainly shew that what they ascribed to the influence of demons was merely the effect of natural diseases. Among the Latins, all the words which describe demoniacs, or persons possessed by ghosts, include in them the idea of madness. Their lareati, cerriti, and lymphatici, were all madmen, persons of a disordered mind, and in the same unfortunate situation as those madmen, idiots, or melancholy persons, whom we have among ourselves. To be full of lareae, or the ghosts of wicked men, was a phrase expressive of the most outrageous madness. In like manner among the Greeks, rage and phrenzy were the usual attendants of inspiration and possession; and the same word denoted both the being mad, and having a demon. The highest degrees of rage and distraction are expressed by the term borrowed from evil demons. Lucian describes demoniacs as lunatic, and as staring with their eyes, foaming at the mouth, and being speechless. It appears still more evident that all the persons spoken of in the New Testament as possessed with devils, were either mad or epileptic, and precisely in the same condition with the madmen and epileptics of modern times. Some of the Jews, offended with Christ’s discourses, said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? The expressions he hath a devil, and is mad, were certainly used on this occasion as synonymous. With all their virulence, they would not surely ascribe to him at once two things that were inconsistent and contradictory. Those who thought more favourably of Christ, replied to the calumny of his enemies, These are not the words of him that hath a devil; meaning that they did not discover in his discourse the ravings of a madman, or of one disordered in his understanding. The Jews ascribed to demons not only raving, but also the melancholy madness of John, who secluded himself from intercourse with the world, and was distinguished by abstinence and acts of mortification, they said, He hath a demon. The youth, whose father applied to Jesus to cure him, was plainly epileptic; and the disorder was attended with a deprivation of the understanding, or loss of sense, and with the signs of phrenzy. This appears from the language of his father: Have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and sore vexed with a demon: for often times he falleth into the fire, and often into the water. In the interval of his fits, the demon was supposed to depart from him. Indeed, everything related in the New Testament concerning demoniacs, proves that they were persons affected with such natural diseases as are not uncommon among mankind in this present age. When the symptoms of the disordered cured by the Saviour and his apostles, as cases of demonical possession, correspond so exactly at the present time, it would be absurd to impute them to a supernatural cause. It is much more consistent with common sense and sound philosophy, to suppose that our Saviour and his apostles adopted the vulgar language in the speaking of those unfortunate persons, who, without any foundation, were imagined to be possessed with demons. It is customary with the sacred writers, and our Saviour himself, to speak on many subjects in the language of the vulgar, though known and admitted to have been originally grounded on a false philosophy. When therefore, the sacred historians tell us, that one person was possessed by seven demons, and another by a legion, is it not more probable to suppose that they adopted the phraseology of the Jews, than to imagine that diseases which arise at present from natural causes, were produced in ancient times by the intervention of demons, or that evil spirits still continue to enter into mankind in all cases of madness, melancholy, or epilepsy? Besides, it is by no means a sufficient reason for receiving any doctrine as true, that it has been generally received through the world. Error, like an epidemical disease, is communicated from one to another. In certain circumstances, too, the influence of the imagination predominates, and restrains the exertions of reason. Many false opinions have extended their influence through a very wise circle, and for a long time maintained it. On all such occasions, therefore, it becomes us to enquire not so much how generally any opinion has been received, or how long it has prevailed, as from what cause it has originated, and on what evidence it rests. In every part of the world that falls under our observations, we perceive a fixed order of causes and effects, which is not disturbed by any invisible beings; and the preservation of this order appears to be essential to the happiness of the creation. May we not hence conclude that the human system, in particular, is governed in the same manner, and subjected to invariable laws, which God alone can control? Are we to take it for granted that God will permit these laws to be controlled, merely for the sake of subjecting the health’s, the understandings, and the lives of mankind, to the caprice and malice of evil spirits? This appears utterly repugnant to all our ideas of the equity, the goodness, and the mercy of the gracious Parent of mankind.

2. Arguments for the existence of demoniacs. – It would appear that, in the time of our Saviour, demoniacal possession was very common among the Jews, and also in the neighbouring nations. Many were the evil spirits, that Jesus is related in the gospels to have ejected from patients, who were brought to him as possessed and tormented by those malevolent demons. His apostles, too, and the first Christians who were very active and successful in the propagation of Christianity, frequently exerted on similar occasions the miraculous powers with which they were endowed. The demons displayed a degree of knowledge and malevolence which sufficiently distinguished them from human beings. The language in which the demoniacs are mentioned, and the actions and sentiments ascribed to them in the New Testament, shew that our Saviour and his apostles did not consider the idea of demoniacal possession merely as a vulgar error concerning the origin of a disease or diseases produced by natural causes. The more enlightened cannot always avoid the use of metaphorical expressions, which, though founded on error, yet have been so established in language by the influence of custom, that they cannot be suddenly dismissed. However, in descriptions of characters, in a narrative of facts, and in laying down systems of doctrine, we require different rules to be observed. If any person, in compliance with popular opinions, should talk seriously of the existence, dispositions, declarations, and actions of a race of beings whom he knew to be entirely fabulous, we certainly could not praise him for his integrity; we must suppose, that he either exults in irony over the weak credulity of those around him, or that he takes advantage of their weakness, with the dishonesty and selfish views of an imposter. If he himself should pretend to any connection with them, particular honours from his contemporaries, what ever might be the dignity of his character in all other respects, no person would hesitate to brand him as an impostor. In this light we must regard the conduct of our Saviour and his apostles, if the idea of demoniacal possession be considered merely as a vulgar error. They talked and acted as if they believed that evil spirits had actually entered into those who were brought to them as possessed with devils, and as if those spirits had been actually expelled by their authority from the unhappy persons possessed. They also demanded that their authority and declarations should be believed, in consequence of their performing such mighty works, and thus triumphing over the powers of hell. The reality of demoniacal possession rests on the same evidence as the gospel system in general. There is nothing unreasonable in this doctrine, it does not appear to contradict those ideas which the general appearances of nature and the series of events, suggest, concerning the benevolence and wisdom of the Deity, by which he regulates the affairs of the universe. We often fancy ourselves able to comprehend things to which our understanding is wholly inadequate; we frequently persuade ourselves, that the whole extent of the works of the Deity must be well known to us, and that his designs must always be such as we can understand. We are then ready, whenever any difficulty arises in considering the conduct of providence, to model things according to our own ideas, to deny that the Deity can be the author of things for which we are not able to account, and to assert that he must act on every occasion in a manner consistent with our narrow views. This is the pride of reason, which seems to have suggested the strongest objections against the reality of demoniacal possession. But the Deity may certainly connect one order of his creatures with another. We perceive mutual relations and a beautiful connection in every part of nature within the sphere of our observation. The inferior animals are connected with mankind, and subject to their authority, not only in instances in which it is exerted for their advantage, but even where it is tyrannically abused to their destruction. Among the evils to which mankind have been subjected, might not demoniacal possession be one? The Supreme Being may employ whatever agents he thinks proper in the execution of his purposes: he may either commission an angel or let loose a devil, as well as bend the human will, or communicate any particular impulse to matter. All that revelation makes known, all that human reason can conjecture, concerned the existence of various orders of spiritual beings, good and bad, is perfectly consistent with, and favourable to, the doctrine of demoniacal possession. It is mentioned in the New Testament in such language, and such narratives are related concerning it, that the gospels can be regarded only as parts of an imposture and Jesus Christ be considered as a person who took advantage of the weakness and ignorance of his contemporaries, if this doctrine be only a vulgar error. In short, it teaches nothing inconsistent with the general conduct of providence; and the pride of reason alone, not the canton of philosophy, suggests objections against this doctrine. Farmer’s Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testament; Dr. Worthington’s Impartial Inquiry into the case of the Gospel Demoniacs; Fell’s inquiry into the Heathen and the Scripture Doctrine of Daemons.

The positive element found in this second argument is that it kneels to the truthfulness of Yahshua Jesus’ teachings. Since the Messiah did in fact teach against the existence of said beings, He has eradicated this second argument leaving us with the first and only the first to choose from.

Three inquiries on the following scriptural subjects 1854 Walter Balfour

That Christ should adopt the common language of the day on this subject, as well as on others, is certainly no matter of surprise. Nor does it follow that by so doing he confirmed the people in the doctrine of real possessions. It is common, always and everywhere, to employ, on given subjects, the popular lan­guage of the day, and that without being held accountable for the errors from which it took its rise. We use the word lunacy, but we do not believe that the moon has anything to do with insanity; and we speak also of St. Anthony’s fire, and St. Vitas’ dance, without believing in the power and existence of these saints, much less that they are the authors of the disorders bear­ing their names. And so we say of a man that ‘he is out of his head,’ ‘ has lost his senses,’ &c.; which expressions are far from being philosophical, yet are universally used. We speak, like­wise, of ‘catching cold,’ as if it were something to be laid hold of, or seized with the hands; of a fever leaving a patient, as though it had a personality ; of a disorder attaking him, as if it came upon him like an armed man ; which phrases, according to the strict construction of language, are grossly incorrect, and yet are everywhere’ current. Now it would be just as unreasonable to conclude, that because a physician calls a certain disease St. Anthony’s fire, he therefore believes it to be caused by that saint, or because he says a fever leaves a patient, it has an individuality, and goes about from place to place,— as to conclude that because Christ adopted the popular language of his age respecting demo­niacal possession, he really believed it, or because he represents the demon as departing, or going out of the insane, he supposed it to be anything more than the disorder. (pg. 392)

Perhaps it will be said, this reasoning, though plausible, is not satisfactory; for we cannot think that Christ would have adopted the phraseology of his times on this subject, if he had not received the opinion in which it originated. Suppose we grant this, do we thereby avoid difficulty 1. If we admit the existence of demons, we must admit also the common opinion that they produced insanity, fits, and various other diseases. Dr. Barnes unhesitatingly adopts this absurdity, in opposition to all medical science. While that science explains the causes of diseases, and accounts for them on natural principles, and treats them in accordance with their origin, he places himself in direct opposition to it, and attributes insanity and other diseases to demons. Hear him: "We still see a multitude of cases that no man can prove not to be produced by the presence of an evil spirit. Who would attempt to say that some evil being may not have much to do in the case of madmen ?"—Com. on Matt. 4: 24. Rev. H. J. Hipley, in his Notes on the Gospels, endorses this idea. Now we are frank to confess that we cannot thus array the Bible against medical science; and we find it much easier to suppose that Christ adopted the common language of his age in regard to demons, without intending to endorse it, than to suppose that medical science is entirely wrong in the idea that disease has a natural cause. Medical men of this age are not alone in their theory in regard to diseases. Many of the learned in the age of Christ had the same theory. Aristotle said that those supposed to have demons were merely under the influence of melancholy. Hippoc­rates wrote a work to prove that epilepsy was the effect of natu­ral causes. Plotinus says only the vulgar held that diseases were caused by demons. Origen says this was the opinion of physi­cians in his times. Fasidonius, the most eminent physician of his times, affirms that insanity was owing, not to demons, but to a redundancy of peccant humors. The opinions of such men are worthy of consideration, for they judged from a knowledge of men and disease, and were not swayed by vulgar superstitions. (393-394)

Demons cannot be fallen angels

Now if demons were fallen angels the fact was unknown to the Jewish people. Their idea of them was entirely different. We have the best authority for saying that the common opinion among them was, that demons were the spirits of the dead. Josephus, in his writings, makes frequent reference to them ; and in his Jewish War, book vii., chap, vi., sect. 3, speaking of a very remarkable root he says, " Yet after all this pains in getting, it is only valuable on account of one virtue it hath, that if it be only brought to the sick persons, it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them." Here was the Jewish opinion. Demons were the spirits of the wicked, and not fallen angels. Admit, then, that in the time of Christ such spirits did actually possess men, and it affords not a particle of-proof that angels fell from heaven. Dr. Barnes, therefore, gains nothing to sustain his theory respecting fallen angels, and is reduced to the necessity of admitting that demons were only the spirit of dead men. (395)

in conclusion, let me say, in thus adapting himself to the lan­guage of his times, Jesus shows that it was better to allow a mere superstition, which affected none of the vital questions con­cerning God, or "the plan of salvation, or the principles of duty, to be removed by time and the general influence of his religion, than for him to turn aside from his great work to refute it. He came to establish his divine system of truth, and to this work he consecrated his whole time, leaving minor errors, and especially those pertaining to science, to be corrected by others. On theology and on religious and moral duty, instead of passing over errors, he was entirely different, and sought to displace error by truth. (395)

The Cyclopaedia of Biblical literature, Vol 1. 1881 John Kitto

To these arguments the opponents of the theory of real demoniacal possessions reply, generally, that there can be no doubt that it was the general belief of the Jewish nation, with the exception of the Sadducees, and of most other nations, that the spirits of dead men, especially of those who lived evil lives, and died by violent deaths, were permitted to enter the bodies of men, and to produce the effects ascribed to them in the popular creed ; but the fact and real state of the possessed were afflicted with some peculiar diseases of mind or body, which, their true causes not being generally understood, were, as is usual in such cases, ascribed to supernatural powers ; and that Jesus and his apostles, wishing of course to be understood by their contemporaries, and owing to other reasons which can be pointed out, were under the necessity of expressing themselves in popular language, and of seeming to admit, or at least of not denying, its correctness. They further plead that the fact, admitted on all hands that the demon so actuated the possessed, as that whatever they did, was not to be distinguished from his agency, reduces the question, so far as phenomena are concerned, to one simple inquiry, namely, whether these phenomena are such as can be accounted for without resorting to supernatural agency. They assert that the symptoms predicated of demoniacs correspond with the ordinary symptoms of disease, and especially of hypochondria, insanity, and epilepsy ; that the sacred writers themselves give intimations, as plain as could be expected under their circumstances, that they employed popular language ; that consequently they are not to be considered as teaching doctrines or asserting facts when they use such language ; and that the doctrine of the agency of departed spirits on the bodies of men is inconsistent with certain peculiar and express doctrines of Christ and his apostles.

With regard to the symptoms related of the demoniacs, it is urged that such persons as were called demoniacs in other countries, and who seem to have laboured under precisely the same symptoms, are recorded to have been cured by the use of medicines. Helleboro quoque purgatur lymphatieus error (Sereb. Sammon. c. 27. v. 507), ‘Insane delusion is remedied by hellebore.’ Josephus and the Jewish physicians speak of medicines composed of stones, roots, and herbs, being useful to demoniacs (Gattei, f. 67). The cure of diseases by such methods is intelligible ; but is it rational to believe that the spirits of dead men [can be ejected] from human bodies by medical prescriptions? Maimonides (in sabat. ii. 5) says, ‘ all kinds of diseases which are called melancholy, they call an evil spirit’ (comp. Matt xi. 18; John vii. 20; x. 20).

1. With regard to the two demoniacs at Gadara (or one, according to Mark and Luke), it is concluded that they were madmen, who fancied that there were within them innumerable spirits of dead men. Accordingly they dwelt among the tombs about which the souls of the dead were believed [in the Talmud] to hover, went naked, were ungovernable, cried aloud, attacked passengers, beat themselves, and had in their phrensy broken every chain by which they had been bound. Strength almost superhuman is a common attendant of insanity. The subject is illustrated by Westein, in extracts from Greek medical writers. P. AEgineta, Actuarius, Caelius Aurelianus, also tell that such persons fancied themselves to be gods, demons, wolves, dogs, &c. ; hence the disorder was sometimes called [Greek words left untranslated]. Their question, ‘Art thou come to torment us?’ refers to the cruel treatment of the insane in those times, and which they had no doubt shared, in the endeavours of men to ‘ tame ‘ them. Both Mark and Luke the physician describe the demoniac as … in ‘his right mind,’ when healed, which implies previous insanity (see also Matt. xii. 22 ; xv. 28 ; xvii. 18 ; Luke vii. 21 ; viii. 2 ; ix. 42). It is true that these demoniacs address Jesus as the Son of God, but they might have heard in their lucid intervals that Jesus, whose fame was already diffused throughout Syria, was regarded by the peoples as the Messiah. They show their insanity, ‘ their shaping fancies,’ by imagining they were demons without number, and by requesting permission to enter the swine. Would actual demons choose such a habitation? They speak and answer, indeed, in a rational manner, but agreeably to Locke’s definition of madmen, ‘they reason right on false principles, and, taking their fancies for realties, make right deductions from them. Thus you shall find a distracted man fancying himself a king, and with a right inference require suitable attendance. Others, who have thought themselves glass, take the needful care to preserve such brittle bodies’ (Essay in Human Understanding, vol. 1. ch. 11, & 12). It is true that Jesus commands the unclean spirit (so called because believed to be the spirit of a dead man), but he does this merely to excite the attention of the people, and to give them full opportunity to observe the miracle. It is not necessary to suppose that the madmen drove the swine, but merely that in keeping with all the circumstances, the insanity of the demoniacs was transferred to them, as the leprosy of Naaman was transferred to Gehazi, for the purpose of illustrating the miraculous power of Christ ; and though this was a punitive miracle, it might serve the good purpose of discouraging the expectation of temporal benefits from Him. If the demoniac is represented as worshipping Jesus it should be remembered that the insane often show great respect to particular persons.

2. The men who were dumb, and both blind and dumb, are not said to have been disordered in their intellects, any more than the blind man in John v. These diseases in their organs were popularly ascribed to the influence of demons. It is observable that in the parallel passage (Matt. ix. 32), the evangelist says the man was dumb.

3. The symptoms of epilepsy in the youth described Matt. xvii. 15, are too evident not to be acknowledged. If the opinion of relatives is to be pressed, it should be noticed that in this case the father says his ‘son is lunatic.’ It was most probably a case of combined epilepsy and lunacy, which has been common in all ages. Epilepsy was ascribed to the … moon in those times. The literal interpretation of popular language would therefore require us to believe that he was ‘moonstruck,; as well as a demoniac. A curious instance of the influence of popular modes of speech, even on those who are conscious of its incorrectness, is offered in the case of Hippocrates, who though he wrote a book to prove that epilepsy is not a sacred malady … is nevertheless in the habit of applying to it that very appellation. In the same way a learned physician still speaks of lunacy, St. Anthony’s fire ; and persons of education speak of the rising and setting of the sun, falling stars as we all use phrases derived from the rites and religion of gentiles.

4. The damsel at Philippi is said by Luke to have been possessed with [greek word], a spirit of Apollo. It was her fixed idea. The gift of divination is said by Cicero to have been ascribed to Apollo (De Divinat. i. 5). Insane persons, pretending to prophecy under the influence of Apollo, would be likely to gain money from the credulous. A belief among the common people that the ravings of insanity were sacred was not confined to Egypt. The larvati, the lymphatici, the cerriti of the Romans signify possessed persons. The apostle, who taught that an ‘idol is nothing in the world,’ did not believe in the reality of her soothsaying. Many demoniacs are mentioned, the peculiar symptoms of whose diseases are not stated, as Mary Magdalene (Mark xvi. 9), out of whom Jesus cast seven demon, i.e. restored from an inveterate insanity (seven being the Jewish number of perfection), supposed to be caused by the united agency of seven spirits of the dead. Yet she is said to have been healed (Luke viii. 2).

5. If Jesus forbade the demoniacs to say he was the Christ, it was because the declaration of such persons on the subject would do more harm than good. If he rebuked them he also rebuked the wind (Matt. viii. 26), and the fever (Luke iv. 39). If it be said of them, they departed, so it is also said of the leprosy (Mark i. 42).

6. It may be questioned whether the writers of the New Testament make a distinction between the diseased and those possessed of demons, or whether they specify the demoniacs by themselves, as they specify the lunatics (Matt. iv. 24) merely as a distinct and peculiar class of the sick. It is, however, most important to observe that St. Peter includes ‘all’ who were healed by Jesus, under the phrase [long list of greek words], many of whom were not described by the Evangelists as subjects of demoniacal possession, which is urged as a striking instance of the usus loquendi [usage of speaking]. Sometimes the specification of the demoniacs is omitted in the general recitals of miraculous cures (Matt. xi. 5), and this, too, on the important occasion of our Lord sending to John the Baptist an account of the miraculous evidence attending his preaching (Matt. xi. 5). Does not this look as if they were considered as included under the sick?

7. It cannot be proved that all the demoniacs knew Jesus to be the Messiah.

8. It is admitted that Jesus addresses the demons, but then it may be said that his doing so has reference partly to the persons themselves in whom demons were supposed to be, and partly to the bystanders ; for the same reason that he rebuked the winds in an audible voice, as also the fever. It is also remarkable that the case of the demoniac (Mark v.8), it is said – [greek], the man, [greek], not [grk]. The same words occur in Luke viii, 30.

9.With regards to our Lord’s reply to the seventy, it will not be urged that it was intended of a local fall of Satan from heaven, unless it may be supposed to allude to his primeval expulsion ; but this sense is scarcely relevant to the occasion. If, then, the literal sense be necessarily departed from, a choice must be made out of the various figurative interpretations of which the words admit ; and taking the word Satan here in its generic sense, of whatever is inimical or opposed to the Gospel, Jesus may be understood to say, I foresaw the glorious results of your mission in the triumph which would attend it over the most formidable obstacles. Heaven is often used in the sense of political horizon (Isa. xvi. 12, 13 ; Matt. xxiv. 29). To be cast from heaven to hell is a phrase for total downfall (Luke x. 15 ; Rev. xii. 7-9). Cicero says to Mark Antony, You have hurled your colleagues down from heaven. Satan is here used tropically. Our Lord does not, therefore, assert the real operation of demons.

10. In the refutation of the charge that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, he simply argues with the Pharisees upon their own principles, and ‘judges them out of their own mouth,’ without assuming the truth of those principles.

11. The fact he seems to assert respecting the wandering of demons through dry places (Matt xIi. 45), were already admitted in the popular creed of the Jews. They believed that demons wandered in desolate places (Baruch iv. 35). Upon these ideas he founds a parable or similitude, without involving an opinion of their accuracy, to describe the end of this generation. The observations respecting prayers and fasting seem to have relation to that faith in God which he exhorts his apostles to obtain. Prayer and fasting would serve to enable them to perceive the divine suggestion which accompanied every miracle, and which the apostles had not perceived upon this occasion, though given them, because their animal nature had not be sufficiently subdued.

12. The application of the term Satan to the case of the women, who had a spirit of infirmity, is plainly to heighten the antithesis between the loosing of an ox from his stall, and loosing the daughter of Abraham whom Satan, as they believed, has bound eighteen years.

13. The objection taken from the supposed consequence of explaining the casting out of demons to signify no more than the cure of diseases, that it tends to lower the dignity of the Saviour’s miracles, depends upon the reader’s complexion of mind, our prior knowledge of the relative dignity of miracles, and some other things perhaps, of which we are not competent judges.

It remains to be observed, that the theory of demoniacal possessions is opposed to the known and express doctrines of Christ and his Apostles. They teach us that the spirits of the dead enter a state corresponding to their character, no more to return to this world (Luke xvi. 22, &c. ; xxiii. 13 ; 3 Cor. v. 1 ; Phil. i. 21). With regard to the fallen angels, the representations of their confinement are totally opposed to the notion of their wandering about the world and tormenting its inhabitants (2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude, ver. 6). If it be said that Jesus did not correct the popular opinion, still he nowhere denies that the phenomena in question arose from diseases only. He took no side ; it was not his province, It was not necessary to attack the misconception in a formal manner ; it would be supplanted whenever his doctrine respecting the state of the dead was embraced. To have done so would have engaged our Lord in prolix arguments with a people in whom the notion was so deeply rooted, and have led him away too much from the purposes of his ministry. ‘It was one of the many things he had to say, but they could not then bear them.’ It is finally urged that the antidemoniacal theory does not detract from the diverse authority of the Saviour, the reality of his miracles, or the integrity of the historians.

For further explanation of demonic possession and those supposedly demon possessed called demoniacs, we will allude to the first century Aramaic perspective on the matter, to gain even greater clarification and light.

Demons and Mental Illness from a 1^st century Aramaic Syriac stand point

To say that demons were cast out of someone is to say that they were cured of a mental illness, or an illness which was not understood at the time. People living in the first century tended to blame everything which they couldn’t understand on these imaginary beings called "demons‟. Mental illness being hard to understand with their level of medical knowledge, the people spoke of those afflicted as "demon possessed‟. In Old Testament times, an evil or unclean spirit referred to a troubled mental state (Jud. 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14;18:10); and in every Old Testament reference to evil spirits, they were sent by God … In New Testament times, the language of evil spirit/demon possession had come to refer to those suffering mental illness. The association between demons and sickness is shown by the following: “They brought unto him (Jesus) many that were possessed with demons: and He cast out the spirits with a word… that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” (Mt. 8:16–17). So human infirmities and sicknesses were described as being synonymous with “demon” possession and indwelling “evil spirits”.

When we read of unclean spirits crying out in Acts 8:7, the Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: “Many who were mentally afflicted cried out”. This is because, according to George Lamsa “unclean spirits” is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics” (3). It should be noted that Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic terms. He grew up in a remote part of Kurdistan which had maintained the Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus. It’s significant that Lamsa’s extensive writings indicate that he failed to see in the teachings of Jesus and Paul any support for the popular conception of … demons – he insisted that the Semitic and Aramaic terms used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused in order to lend support for their conceptions of … demons.

Here is how the Aramaic Pishetta renders Matt 8 showing how the Aramean viewed demonic possession:

“8:16 And when it was evening, they brought before him many demoniacs, and he cast out their devils by a word; and all those who were heavily afflicted he healed. 8:17 So was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Eshaia, who said, that he should take our griefs, and bear our infirmities.”

Philo and other writers comment how the demon–possessed were laughed at and mocked especially by children – indicating that “demon possessed” people refer to the mentally ill rather than the physically sick. … The "demon possessed‟ man in Mk. 1:23 sits in the synagogue and then suddenly screams out – showing he was mentally afflicted. People thought that Jesus was mad and said this must be because He had a demon – “He has a demon, and is mad” (Jn. 10:20; 7:19–20; 8:52). They therefore believed that demons caused madness. (Demons and Sickness: The real Devil 208-209)

“George M. Lamsa’s book, “New Testament Light,” which gives the Aramaic view and understanding of idioms used in the NT. On the subject of “The Unclean Spirit” in the passage in Mark 1:23-27, he says, “The Aramaic word “rokha tamtha” means ‘the unclean spirit,’ [which means] a person who is unruly, insane or has an evil inclination”…. The term ‘spirit’ in Aramaic also means ‘inclination,’ ‘rheumatism,’ ‘temper,’ ‘pride’ or ‘a person … Wrong inclination is considered unclean…. [In this passage] Jesus rebuked the insanity and the man was restored…. The mentally disturbed man [who] spoke out, ‘I know who you are, Holy One of God,’ [spoke] sarcastically” (pp. 58-59). Lamsa says that the unruly man in the synagogue could not control his anger toward Jesus for His speaking out against the religion of the scribes and Pharisees.

On a section regarding; “The Lunatics and the Swine” (Mark 8:31), he states that, “‘Cast out’ is an Aramaic phrase which means to restore to sanity, to remove the cause which produces insanity…” (pp. 64-66).

Ending remarks: Call to repentance

It is the authentic Christians duty to test all things and hold fast to those which are true, and this means rejecting pagan explanations for phenomenon that have already been explained in the Old Testament, or exist in the New Testament in a state where it is unclear due to so many “apparent” contradictions (which moves you to investigate further). In order to grow, we must raise ourselves from the dust of ignorance, and understand our Creator for who He says He is. The true Christian is one that’s freed from the practices of pagan superstition, He is a human of superior mind and spiritual strength, and this is because he knows the truth about everything that needs to be necessarily understood for living perfectly before his King. Blind leaders have lead Israelites to doom forever, and the same blind ancient uneducated ideas of the past are those that will lead you into the exact same folly as those before you, and if not folly a life of worry over things that should be dispelled. Many generations have lived and died believing in the existence of demons, and these same generations have feared their imaginations, like groups of self guided children, this is opposed to respectfully fearing the only living Creator, Yahweh. The scripture says “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent”, and this time is now. If you have read this information and are thoroughly convinced, repent of both idolatry, believing lies, not doing your duty by studying enough, and granting reverential fear to false gods, than return to Yahweh through the blood of Jesus who died that you could live. Ask for further wisdom so you can know your Creator and live the way He intended you to.

All glory be to Yahweh the Father, the Source of All life, and His co-eternal Son, who is the creator of all life, Yahshua Jesus the messiah our hope.

Children, keep yourselves from superstitions.

Blessings in Yahweh.

[1] “The basic belief in the evil eye consists of the notion that there are people, animals, demons or gods who have the power to cause harm to those of whom they are envious or jealous, just by looking at them (cf Nicholson 1999:18). People may become ill, have accidents, misfortunes, or even die. Those who possess the evil eye may cause harm to others, knowingly or unknowingly. Some people are not aware that they have the ability to harm another with an envious glance. The eye is believed to be the window to the soul, physically exposing a person’s inner being. Through this window evil spirits/demons enter the body, empowering the jealous or envious person to cause harm to others (Moss & Cappannari 1976:2).” (p. 1027-28 The Greek evil eye, African witchcraft, and Western ethnocentrism Anastasia Apostolides and Yolanda Dreyer)