Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Does Demon Possession get confused with the Concurrent Resurrection of the Spirit Body within the Physical?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00

Terraphim

A Branch of Witness
Member
Yes, confusion does occur in this area, which becomes problematic. This is essential reading.
This is a complex area of consideration which requires more than 1000 words, which is why I saved this file to Dropbox.
Demon Possession vs. Concurrent Resurrection; Ancient Antediluvian Annihilation, Sons of God/Nephilim, Noah's Arc.
 
What do you mean by "Concurrent Resurrection of the Spirit Body within the Physical"? Are you suggesting that people have undergone, or are undergoing, resurrection of the spirit body as mentioned in 1 Cor 15?
 
Apparently, I have to multi-quote first, as I couldn't add it as an edit. So, I copied and pasted this original post below, then deleted it here.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by "Concurrent Resurrection of the Spirit Body within the Physical"? Are you suggesting that people have undergone, or are undergoing, resurrection of the spirit body as mentioned in 1 Cor 15?
Yes, and yes.

Luke20:37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB.'
The word "are" is present tense, which means that the concurrent resurrection of the spirit body 1Cor15 had been ongoing in Judaic life throughout the OT period, and continues to be so in all living branches, Judaic or otherwise.

St. Teresa of Ávila, also called Saint Teresa of Jesus, original name Teresa de Cepeda y Ahumada, (born March 28, 1515, Ávila, Spain—died October 4, 1582, Alba de Tormes; canonized 1622; feast day October 15), Spanish nun, one of the great mystics and religious women of the Roman Catholic Church, and author of spiritual classics. She was the originator of the Carmelite Reform, which restored and emphasized the austerity and contemplative character of primitive Carmelite life. St. Teresa was elevated to doctor of the church in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, the first woman to be so honoured.
Her mother died in 1529, and, despite her father’s opposition, Teresa entered, probably in 1535, the Carmelite Convent of the Incarnation at Ávila, Spain. Within two years her health collapsed, and she was an invalid for three years, during which...
 
Last edited:
Yes, and yes.
So, when we consider the context of 1 Cor 15, we see that:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
...
1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
...
1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. (ESV)

Very clearly then, Paul states that the resurrection of the dead occurs when Christ returns, not before. His language shows that even he did not consider himself or those he was writing to as having been resurrected already. It's all future tense.

And in case there is any doubt:

Act 23:6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” (ESV)

Act 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (ESV)

Php 3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (ESV)

All future tense.

2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
2Ti 2:17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
2Ti 2:18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. (ESV)

The teaching is consistent that there will be a future resurrection when Christ returns, not before, and that to believe it has already happened is to swerve from the truth.

Luke20:37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB.'
are=present tense
Looking at the context of Luke 20:37:

Luk 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Luk 20:37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
Luk 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” (ESV)

Note that Jesus isn't saying people are now resurrected. His point in verse 37 is stated in verse 38--that there will be a resurrection since all are alive to God, even though they are physically dead. The resurrection was something the Sadducees denied, as stated in verse 27. In Jesus's time, clearly Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not alive, they were not resurrected; they were physically dead but spiritually alive in the presence of God.

The general resurrection is yet to come and Jesus's language in verse 35 is proof of that--"that age and to the resurrection from the dead." Further, in verse 36, Jesus states that those who are raised "cannot die anymore," which is clearly not the case in life for anyone.
 
An admirable effort. Thank you. Truly wonderful. Having spent a substantial amount of time on the intricacies of the writing of my document, I am not about to put substantial effort into the defense of it, at present. However, I cannot resist a few points. All quotes of mine are from the NKJV.

1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

The second coming of Jesus Christ physically, is a different thing than His spiritual manifestation.
Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
Both things are referred to as His coming.
Act 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (ESV)
The resurrection of the just and the unjust refers to the two methods of salvation, under the Law or under Grace. These are also the two witnesses of Revelation. Replacement theology is untrue.
2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
2Ti 2:17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
2Ti 2:18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. (ESV)
This is not irreverent babble leading people into more ungodliness. But you did not assert that. That is the scriptural lead-in to the relevant passage, concerning those who say that the resurrection has already happened. I did not say that, so this quotation is irrelevant. The resurrection has been an ongoing process in history, which continues to the present time. Thank you for your concern, however. Perhaps you shall consider my concern, as well.
Php 3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (ESV)
Again, I did not assert that the resurrection is past. Paul continues His discussion, thus;
Php 3:12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
Php 3:13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
Php 3:14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Php 3:15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.
Php 3:16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.
When Paul said in the last verse, "already attained" he was including along with the lower generations, those who have been resurrected; all who are therefore spiritually in a cloud of witnesses, and not just those listed in Hebrews12:1. Paul then posits a plea for unity, which is an admirable goal. Shall one obtain the mind of Christ at the outset? Or shall all be relegated to a basic level of understanding?
Indeed, Paul said, "I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.". As we become clothed and further clothed in spirit, we also come to a better understanding of God's work in our persons. That is the rule to which we are called. Press, try, and strive.
Many of the particulars which you address I have elaborated upon in my document, which was very carefully edited.
Thank you, be well.
 
Last edited:
The second coming of Jesus Christ physically, is a different thing than His spiritual manifestation.
Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
Both things are referred to as His coming.
His second coming only refers to his physical coming just prior to judgement. That is what the NT refers to as "his coming," such as in the verse I gave.

The resurrection of the just and the unjust refers to the two methods of salvation, under the Law or under Grace. These are also the two witnesses of Revelation. Replacement theology is untrue.
It's all under grace. Either one has accepted Christ as Lord and is "just," or they have not and are "unjust".

This is not irreverent babble leading people into more ungodliness. But you did not assert that. That is the scriptural lead-in to the relevant passage, concerning those who say that the resurrection has already happened. I did not say that, so this quotation is irrelevant. The resurrection has been an ongoing process in history, which continues to the present time. Thank you for your concern, however. Perhaps you shall consider my concern, as well.
What is the determining factor of who is resurrected and who is not? According to your position, the resurrection has happened for some and not for others. This makes the quotation applicable. Yet, when Paul and Jesus both speak of the resurrection, it is always a single future event. It is never spoken of as an ongoing process.

Again, I did not assert that the resurrection is past. Paul continues His discussion, thus;
Php 3:12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
Php 3:13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
Php 3:14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Php 3:15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.
Php 3:16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.
When Paul said in the last verse, "already attained" he was including along with the lower generations, those who have been resurrected; all who are therefore spiritually in a cloud of witnesses, and not just those listed in Hebrews12:1. Paul then posits a plea for unity, which is an admirable goal. Shall one obtain the mind of Christ at the outset? Or shall all be relegated to a basic level of understanding?
Indeed, Paul said, "I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.". As we become clothed and further clothed in spirit, we also come to a better understanding of God's work in our persons. That is the rule to which we are called. Press, try, and strive.
Many of the particulars which you address I have elaborated upon in my document, which was very carefully edited.
Thank you, be well.
But, again, the resurrection is never spoken of as an ongoing process and always as a single future event at the return of Christ. That believers who die are with the Lord in spirit now, is the very reason why they will be reunited with their bodies in the future resurrection. That is the whole point.

Have you ever come across a single, legitimate scholar or theologian, throughout the history of the Church, who shares these views?
 
Thank you for being concerned enough to defend the faith. This is wonderful to me. Thank you.
His second coming only refers to his physical coming just prior to judgement. That is what the NT refers to as "his coming," such as in the verse I gave.
We clearly differ in our opinions. In the the scripture that I quoted, Jesus was clear that His manifestation was to be to particular believers who have qualified, and as I will later assert in more detail, who have been recently elected (chosen) by their spiritual hierarchy. Whereas, in other scriptures He is referring to His physical coming at the end of the Times of the Gentiles (which is the time period by which the Great Tribulation is properly defined, from AD 70 to His second coming).
It's all under grace. Either one has accepted Christ as Lord and is "just," or they have not and are "unjust".
For those of us who do not accept replacement theology, but rather accept scripture, the old covenant is still active.
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
For Christians, yes, it is all under grace, and I am a Christian. As a moderator, you surely know that Christians have different perspectives from your own, concerning the notion that the the Judaic church was replaced by the Christian Church. I will later assert in more detail, the manner in which the two methods of salvation are integrated, and how the following scripture is understood in a comprehensive manner (in relation to other passages).
Act 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (ESV)
However, I here maintain that, in the above verse, Paul did not intend to say that a universal resurrection would occur. Universalism is untrue. Universal salvation and resurrection is not a correct interpretation of scripture. I cannot be more adamant in making an assertion; though maintaining all due respect to our moderators, and to others who hold to a similar belief. As I said in the above post, this scripture refers to the two methods of salvation, which are the two witnesses. As salvation precedes resurrection, the future tense is used. The concurrent resurrection of the spirit body, is as it sounds; not all at one time, and not en-mass, and further, not universal. This is not speculative theology, this is Life. Believe it or not, it's your destiny, though not necessarily in this present life-time. It would therefore be better to be prepared by properly understanding what will happen, to you or to others. But now I must explain destiny, to an extent. For a being who has free-will, one's destiny is dependent upon the exercise of that free-will. Therefore, choose well, and be well.

The other passages are applicable to the discussion, yes, but they are speaking of a different scenario than the one that I am positing. They are speaking of resurrection as being entirely in the past.

Your understanding of the resurrection as a single future event is based upon one interpretation. That interpretation has consequences, as people try to understand their experience by what they have been taught. I am presenting a perspective that is different from what is usually taught. It is consistent with the method of comprehensive interpretation, which is the method of scripture interprets scripture, and it is what I know from experience to be true.

You have solicited an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and so it is not an efficacious exegetical technique. Even so, I do not preemptively discount established Church authority. I do, however, examine and sometimes eventually question the hermeneutics which are put forth as mainstream theology. The reasons for this are manifold, as any Protestant knows. It has been rightly said that one of the best proofs of Christianity, is that it continues to survive despite it's leaders. That doesn't mean that I speak evil of dignitaries.
2Pe 2:10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,
2Pe 2:11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
We are made clean by faith in the Lord Jesus.
Joh 15:3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
Further, an authority has dignity as a result of properly understanding the truth of the Word, and by bringing one's life into conformity with their understanding. This does not happen for anyone all at once. There is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. A bully is not a counselor. A Church member who uses bully-boy tactics is not an authority, and does not have dignity. The coercion which Jesus spoke of was in reference to the force of persuasion, through an application of truth through logical method. A true authority operates according to these principles, even if he is downtrodden by the establishment. God is the judge, and He does promote a defense, apologetically speaking.
Have you ever come across a single, legitimate scholar or theologian, throughout the history of the Church, who shares these views?
A scholar's legitimacy is determined by one's adherence to truth. That is, one's legitimacy is determined by the principles which he uses in determining truth, and by his ability to live his life by the well-considered truth that he has found. Ultimately, God is the judge of the legitimacy of any scholar, and his work. If my perspective has not been clearly presented by any other scholar throughout the history of the Church, then it is long overdue. What I have presented in my (almost) first post in this thread is an example of a mystical ecstatic, St. Teresa of Avila, who was living and working under the authority of the church militant. Being a doctor of the Church militant, she nevertheless accomplished a great work, with the touch of a woman who knows. She was not able, given her circumstances, to present a forthright theological treatise on the subject, even if she had the explicit knowledge to so do. What she did, however, is blessed and amazing, and a treasure well worth considering. That does not mean that I have agreed to everything that she wrote, and it doesn't mean that the Catholic faith does not have serious theological problems, even now. Even so, we are in the midst of history, not at the conclusion thereof. As they say, 20/20 is hindsight. In the present, we cope with the difficulties that life presents to us, and in so doing, we find that the paradigms by which the world often operates are not correct. Further, we often find that people usually do not very quickly apprehend a corrected paradigm. So, actual progress is slow. Even so, my work has been the culmination of many years of experience by an above average scholar, who chose to suffer in the way, and so be true. Thank you all again for your time, and if any other scholars, or believers having relevant experience, would like to comment, pro or con, then perhaps you will find further substantiation by witness.
 
Sorry, I was caught mid-edit, and couldn’t post the edited version. Fortunately, it was only a couple of simple additions, which are underlined below.

Act 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (ESV)
As salvation precedes resurrection, the future tense is used. Further, the future tense was used because most of the history of the Christian Church was in the future.

Further, an authority has dignity as a result of properly understanding the truth of the Word, and by bringing one's life into conformity with their understanding. This does not happen for anyone all at once. There is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. A bully is not a counselor. A Church member who uses bully-boy tactics is not an authority, and does not have dignity. One who has converted against their will, is yet an unbeliever still. The coercion which Jesus spoke of was in reference to the force of persuasion, through an application of truth through logical method. A true authority operates according to these principles, even if he is downtrodden by the establishment. God is the judge. He does promote a defense, apologetically speaking.
 
For those of us who do not accept replacement theology, but rather accept scripture, the old covenant is still active.
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
For Christians, yes, it is all under grace, and I am a Christian. As a moderator, you surely know that Christians have different perspectives from your own, concerning the notion that the the Judaic church was replaced by the Christian Church. I will later assert in more detail, the manner in which the two methods of salvation are integrated, and how the following scripture is understood in a comprehensive manner (in relation to other passages).
I don't have time for a full response now but, before you get too far, I am not advocating for replacement theology.

However, I here maintain that, in the above verse, Paul did not intend to say that a universal resurrection would occur. Universalism is untrue. Universal salvation and resurrection is not a correct interpretation of scripture.
I have not advocated for Universalism. All will be resurrected, but not all will be saved.

The other passages are applicable to the discussion, yes, but they are speaking of a different scenario than the one that I am positing. They are speaking of resurrection as being entirely in the past.

Your understanding of the resurrection as a single future event is based upon one interpretation.
It really is the only interpretation. People came back from the dead physically, but the resurrection, where we receive our glorified physical bodies, happens only at Jesus's return. There is not one mention in Scripture that it happens on an ongoing basis. Indeed, it doesn't make sense of all that Scripture reveals.

You have solicited an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and so it is not an efficacious exegetical technique.
I don't believe I have. But since you think I have, where did I do so, specifically?

A scholar's legitimacy is determined by one's adherence to truth. That is, one's legitimacy is determined by the principles which he uses in determining truth, and by his ability to live his life by the well-considered truth that he has found. Ultimately, God is the judge of the legitimacy of any scholar, and his work. If my perspective has not been clearly presented by any other scholar throughout the history of the Church, then it is long overdue. What I have presented in my (almost) first post in this thread is an example of a mystical ecstatic, St. Teresa of Avila, who was living and working under the authority of the church militant. Being a doctor of the Church militant, she nevertheless accomplished a great work, with the touch of a woman who knows. She was not able, given her circumstances, to present a forthright theological treatise on the subject, even if she had the explicit knowledge to so do. What she did, however, is blessed and amazing, and a treasure well worth considering. That does not mean that I have agreed to everything that she wrote, and it doesn't mean that the Catholic faith does not have serious theological problems, even now. Even so, we are in the midst of history, not at the conclusion thereof. As they say, 20/20 is hindsight. In the present, we cope with the difficulties that life presents to us, and in so doing, we find that the paradigms by which the world often operates are not correct. Further, we often find that people usually do not very quickly apprehend a corrected paradigm. So, actual progress is slow. Even so, my work has been the culmination of many years of experience by an above average scholar, who chose to suffer in the way, and so be true. Thank you all again for your time, and if any other scholars, or believers having relevant experience, would like to comment, pro or con, then perhaps you will find further substantiation by witness.
So, I take it the answer is "no," which doesn't surprise me. If something you believe to have found in Scripture, something you even strongly believe to be true, if it cannot be found taught or written about in all of Christian history, that is a huge red flag.
 
It really is the only interpretation.
By the same token, I could say that your perspective is not worthy of consideration.


You have solicited an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and so it is not an efficacious exegetical technique.
I don't believe I have. But since you think I have, where did I do so, specifically?
This was clearly an appeal to authority:
Have you ever come across a single, legitimate scholar or theologian, throughout the history of the Church, who shares these views?


If something you believe to have found in Scripture, something you even strongly believe to be true, if it cannot be found taught or written about in all of Christian history, that is a huge red flag.
By this logic, the Protestant reformation could be viewed as having had insufficient reason. Still, caution is advisable when examining a seemingly new perspective, correct. That means that one who wishes to do the work involved would have to become as a little child, without preconceptions. It is not easy to do this, and some may be incapable of it, due to various circumstances. But if one is able, it is worth the effort to consider it carefully, and to work the material which has been presented. Be blessed.
 
Lest we become inconsiderate, however, I did not say that your perspective is not worthy of consideration. I have considered it very thoroughly over a long period of time, and I realized that scripture that is written about the general resurrection is generally written in a tongue, which was done to somewhat obscure a sensitive topic, a mystery, especially as it jointly concerns women. As it is written in this way, it has to be understood allegorically. That means that it is still written truly, but in order to discern the actual facts, one must go deeper than the apparent meaning.

However, if someone wishes to see things differently, then I fully respect one's right to hold that position, and I am happy to hold a common, if basic level of faith, and I wish to encourage that.

I have not advocated for Universalism. All will be resurrected, but not all will be saved.
Though I respect your methodology and position, yet I do not agree. Partial universalism is still a sort of universalism. Aside from the scripture which we have already debated, does it make sense for God to invest such vast resources to resurrect so many physical bodies, then place all the souls of all who have ever lived into them, then to levitate them into the upper atmosphere, where they physically cannot live. Your version probably differs from what I presented, but it is not likely to be very much different.

Jesus cautions us about being overly reliant upon Church tradition, the traditions of man. It is possible to understand what the general resurrection is about. I am making the effort in this regard, as the usual misunderstanding has consequences.

Another example of a historical, though non-biblical figure who I believe experienced the concurrent resurrection is Francis of Asissi. Though the record is not substantial in this regard, it is clear that something extraordinary occurred while he was in prison, and thereafter. Francis was a merchant, and Clare and her sisters were nobles. As the world denied them their preference, they managed to found an order, and a sisterhood. Francis was a mendicant in a primitive agricultural society, the lay people of which did not always appreciate a rich man's son begging from them. Even less were the prospects of the cloistered and dependent Poor Clares. Yet, such was their love for God and for each other, that such vicious hardships, well beyond what most of us have known, were endured with thanksgiving.

Scripture cannot be broken. Consider that. That is because God's love cannot be broken.
 
Mark 5:1-20 is the definitive passage on demon possession and its effects in the Bible. Some of the details about demons the Bible reveals in this passage are:

1. Devils want to be near dead human bodies or tombs (vs. 2, 3, 5).
2. They can cause unusual strength (vs. 3-4).
3. They can make a person unreasonable or immune to sensible persuasion (vs. 4).
4. They cause excessive crying (vs. 5).
5. They cause sadistic and masochistic behavior (vs. 5).
6. They have an affinity for heights (vs. 5).
7. They recognize Christ as "the Son of God" and appeal to Him (vs. 6-7).
8. They know they deserve torment and dread it (vs. 6-7).
9. They have names (vs. 9).
10. More than one can possess the same body (vs. 9).
11. They desire to stay in the same geographical region or "country" (vs. 10).
12. They would rather indwell an animal body than none at all (vs. 12).
13. They can cause animals to kill themselves (vs. 13).
14. They desire to be in a body when it dies (vs. 13).
15. They have a desire for water (vs. 13).

Mark 9:17-29 gives us even more details about devils:

16. They can cause dumbness and deafness (vs. 17, 25).
17. They cause rabid animal like behavior (vs. 18).
18. They can indwell from childhood (vs. 21).
19. They cause suicidal behavior (vs. 22).
20. They resist leaving a body and violently "rent" it while leaving (vs. 26).
21. There are different kinds of devils. Some have more power than others (vs. 29).
22. Some can only be removed by prayer and fasting of believer (vs. 29).

Ephesians 6:12 states Satan has a hierarchy of "devils" in his kingdom, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Thus some devils have more power and authority than others.

In Daniel 10:13 (as well as Mark 9:29) there is an example of this. "The prince of the kingdom of Persia" withstood the angel sent to explain Daniel's vision to him for 21 days. He could only break free when the angel Michael came and helped him overcome the powerful "prince." The "prince" may have been Satan, but more likely he was a very powerful devil.

Spiritually born again Christians who are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19, could never have a demon possess them, but one can oppress them like that of Paul's thorn in the flesh. The Holy Spirit would not allow a demon to possess the same person He is dwelling in.

1 Peter 1:13-25; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20, God would not allow a demon to enter into one of His own as we are a new creation in Christ covered by His blood. We wage war with Satan and his demons on a daily basis, but not from within ourselves as we are of God and through Christ we have overcome them because greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world, 1 John 4:4.

Ephesians 6:10-20 we put on the full armour of God everyday in order to stand against the evil one and his demons. The believer has overcome the world of demons and nowhere in scripture does it say that one of God's own can be demon possessed
 
Nephilim has been traditionally taught, to be angels who came down and procreated with women by marrying and having children with them.

Angels have no gender (Matthew 22:30) and are innumerable (Hebrews 12:22). They are incarnate in human form at times (Genesis 18:2-8) for the purpose of God's ministry and have no sexual organs like humans do in order to procreate.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The way I read this verse is that there were giants in the earth in those days before the flood and also after the flood when the sons of God (Godly line of Seth named in Genesis 5) all had sons and daughters, but not all of these sons and daughters obeyed God and fell away from Him. Let's not forget the unGodly line of Cain that some of these sons and daughters might have married into Cain's line and came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them. Some had the hereditary autosomal dominant pituitary gene such as AIP that produces Nephilim/giants as they became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. This gene had to start with Adam to present day as we see anyone being over seven feet being called a giant as they tower over others.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance - Nephilim
Part of Speech: noun masculine
Transliteration: Nephilim
Phonetic Spelling : nef-eel
Definition: "giants", name of two people, one before the flood and one after the flood

By this definition these angels would have to have come down two different times to marry the daughters of men. Once before the flood and again after the flood, but we only find this one time in Genesis 6:1, 2.

There is no such thing as a half angel, half human hybrid called Giants. Nephilim is just a name given to giants that we read about in scripture and even those that are living today being over 6 feet and taller.

Rephaim - race of giants Genesis 14:5-7; Deuteronomy 3:11-13; 2 Samuel 21:16-20, Og the king of Bashan was the last of the Rephaim
Anakim - race of giants Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:10; 9:2 Anak son of Arba Joshua 15:13 descendent of Canaan, son of Ham
Emim - the proud deserters, terrors, race of giants Genesis 14:5-7; Genesis, 19:37; Deuteronomy 2:10, 11 descendants of Canaan, son of Ham
Zuzim/Zamzummims the evil ones, roaming things Genesis 14:5-7, 19:38 Deuteronomy 2:20 descendants of Canaan, son of Ham

It's just like the name Lucifer/Satan/prince of darkness/Beelzebub/father of lies and many more names given to this fallen angel. Satan is nothing more than a fallen angel that goes to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it as he still has access to the throne room of God as he stands accusing the brethren as Jesus sits and makes intercession for us. Satan is the opposite of God's goodness as his evil hierarchy includes the third of the angels that have followed after him as he sends them throughout the earth for his destructive purpose in man, 1 Peter 5:8.
 
Terraphim here are a couple of scriptures you need to take into consideration.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
 
The biblical examples/descriptions of actual demon possession did not contain a hint of confusion as to the source .
And there is nothing new under the sun in that regard.
 
The believer has overcome the world of demons and nowhere in scripture does it say that one of God's own can be demon possessed
So, first of all, thank you for making that point, it is of primary importance, and I was glad that someone eventually noted that. It may not be as apparent to some people, especially in distress, so it must be emphasized.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Yes, to which I will add;
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
Physical man does not ascend or descend in the juxtaposed kingdom of heaven. The soul, then soul/spirit body does.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So, physical man does not inherit incorruption in the sense of becoming physically immortal. But, one does put on incorruption. That is the present-tense concurrent resurrection of the spirit body within, and around, the physical body.
The translation of Enoch and Elijah is a higher process than the concurrent resurrection. It is called spontaneous somatic combustion by the world. Though it appeared to Elisha that Elijah had ascended, it was not Elijah's physical body which moved up, it was his spirit body, which had previously been resurrected within him.
Jesus, was the Word made flesh, and so His flesh was not corruption, which is why He ascended both physically and spiritually.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
We must complete this passage by including a preceding verse;

Joh 5:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

So, when Jesus said all, He was talking about believers, and we all start out as being dead, and in the graves, regarding our spirit bodies. So, if one attains to the concurrent resurrection of the spirit body, then one may abide, or one may begin to fail again. Physical failure means spiritual descent, and if one descends far enough then one becomes subject to the death of the spirit body again, and if further, then to the second death in the Lake of Fire, which is perdition, which is ages of ages of torment unto the final death of the soul.

Heb 6:6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God;
Heb 6:8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

Therefore, in retrospect, one who fails has undergone the resurrection of (unto) condemnation. There is no resurrection of the unjust, in the sense of the Godless. The resurrection of the just and the unjust is in regards to the two methods of salvation, by Law or by Grace. For Christians it is salvation by grace, and so we are the unjust, in ourselves, though we receive the forensic justification of the vicarious atonement. As we are the unjust, the following concurrent resurrection was referred to by Paul, in Luke's account in Acts, as the resurrection of the unjust. As with the resurrection of condemnation, the resurrection of the unjust is not in reference to the Godless. The Godless are not resurrected.

Pro 11:7 When a wicked man dies, his expectation will perish, And the hope of the unjust perishes.

The first part of this remains true, though the second part may now come under the blood of the Lamb.

In response to your final quotations concerning the resurrection at the last day, the question is, what are the days of the Lord? What does the term, heavenly day mean? Why the supplication;

Psa 90:12 So teach us to number our days, That we may gain a heart of wisdom.

from the Psalmist, who was lettered and learned already? Yes, this also may become known.

@Terraphim where do you get your theology that resurrections have continued throughout history as it is not found in scripture.
Rather, it is not apparent to you that it is in scripture. Do not be surprised that there is confusion;

Mar 9:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, He commanded them that they should tell no one the things they had seen, till the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
Mar 9:10 So they kept this word to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant.

This is in regards to the special resurrection, but it also shows that the general resurrection was not well understood, either. It's evident that the term was used in several different ways, for several different things. I am focusing on the general resurrection, which I maintain to be concurrent, and in regards to the rebuilding of the spirit body, without which the soul is mortal.

This is probably the place in scripture where the concurrent resurrection is most obviously described.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So, physical man does not inherit incorruption in the sense of becoming physically immortal. But, one does put on incorruption. That is the present-tense concurrent resurrection of the spirit body within, and around, the physical body.
For a more complete exegesis, please refer back to the dropbox file.
Thank you again for your contribution to this discussion. I don't know if I can contribute much more at present. I have given a fairly thorough presentation of the topic, for now. Please feel free to review, as I am beginning to belabor the repetition. Be well.
 
Thank you for joining the discussion. I value your person, and your perspective even if I do not agree with it. Forgive me for this unsolicited reply, but your statement provides an opportunity for me to present additional material.
The biblical examples/descriptions of actual demon possession did not contain a hint of confusion as to the source .
Mat 10:25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!
The world, as well as religionists, do make false accusations concerning the works of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that you are an authority on par with God, I would urge you to reconsider carefully, as this is a serious matter, with serious consequences.
And there is nothing new under the sun in that regard.
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
There are three spiritual experiences which precede the concurrent resurrection. They are, the Holy Spirit, the Glory, and the Manifestation. The manifestation of Jesus Christ to a believer is referred to as the coming of the Lord, as is His second coming. When a believer further begins to undergo the concurrent resurrection of the spirit body within the physical body, things happen which are not according to mundane physical processes. Even well intentioned people make errors in judgement in regards to this, and most people are not well intentioned. Here are two verses which give some detail about the fulfillment of the new Life in the spirit body of the concurrent resurrection.

Jer 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth—A woman shall encompass a man."

Isa 60:3 The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.
Isa 60:4 "Lift up your eyes all around, and see: They all gather together, they come to you; Your sons shall come from afar, And your daughters shall be nursed at your side.

So, there are new things under the sun in this regard, which are the spirit children of God, who are regenerated following spiritual death, which culminates with the concurrent resurrection of the spirit body. People do err in regard to understanding this, and they consequently do err when responding to an incidence of this. Further, there is overt harm that is done to those who undergo this process, by the forces of evil in positions of worldly power. This is therefore an important discussion, which must not be brushed aside in a trite manner.

I know that it is somewhat complex, and that the complexity of it is not easy to grasp, if one is even trying to understand it, from the perspective of a different paradigm. Further, I cannot say everything that is relevant at once. Some things must be given at a later time, God willing.
 
Thank you for joining the discussion. I value your person, and your perspective even if I do not agree with it. Forgive me for this unsolicited reply, but your statement provides an opportunity for me to present additional material.

Mat 10:25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!
The world, as well as religionists, do make false accusations concerning the works of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that you are an authority on par with God, I would urge you to reconsider carefully, as this is a serious matter, with serious consequences.
Thank you as well.
Mat. 10:25 is Jesus referring to just one out of the laundry list of accusations against Him by the religious leaders their ulterior motive being to sully Him, taint Him, & turn the populace away from Him.
Just one of the many charges thrown up against the wall by the religious elite against Jesus in hopes of sticking.
His purpose in bringing this up to make His followers aware they will face the same false charges.
What I brought to the table were the actual instances of demon possession in scripture.
Possession so clear that it made any need for accusations immaterial .
There was no doubt.

The difference between the false accusations of demonic possession Jesus is warning His disciples of in Mat.10:25
and all other actual accounts of possession given in scripture, such as the demon possessed man in the tombs:

Unchecked Copy Box
Mar 5:5
And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
:
is clear and undeniable .
No need for anybody to make the accusation.

To me the term "confusion" in your thread's title speaks to an honest inability to differentiate and the peaceful pursuit of understanding.
The chapter you cite Mat:25 completely contradicts the meaning of honest "confusion" contained in the title of your thread.
In Mat.35 Jesus is speaking about the sinful determined effort to perpetrate lies & dishonesty by the forces of evil against His followers.
Sheep going forth among wolves:

Mat 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.


If your intent was to cite a scripture containing an instance of honest confusion where demonic possession is concerned then you picked a loser with the wolves going after the sheep in Mat.10:25

Also notice in contrast to Mat. 25:10 Every biblical instance of someone actually labeled as demonically possessed
They are being identified as being possessed out of concern/love in hopes of them being freed from spiritual bondage.
In all accounts of actual demonic possession the intent is to help not to hurt .
In contrast all charges of demonic possession leveled against Jesus were done with malicious intent.

Even right up to the very last moment Jesus treated the Satanically controlled Judas, as a friend .


Mat 26:50
And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
 
Back
Top