Epilepsy = Demonic Possession!

[floo]

The thing that demonstrates this boy's illness to have been caused by spiritual forces is his response to Jesus: when he first sees him, and when Jesus speaks to him he immediately has a seizure.
A friend of mine suffered from epileptic seizures as a young adult but managed to overcome it through prayer (she had been offered either drugs to control it or surgery, I can't remember which, and declined the treatment).

Epilepsy is a neurological problem, nothing to do with so called 'spiritual forces' whatever they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that prayer is going to cure anything, unless it acts as a placebo, which in the case of epilepsy I would have thought improbable.

[Spud]

Floo,
I was just pointing out that when the boy first saw Jesus he immediately had a fit, and again when Jesus spoke. Plus he was apparently healed following this final fit. It's not a usual characteristic of epilepsy that meeting a stranger would precipitate a fit, nor lead to complete healing from the condition, as far as I know.

[Gordon]

Floo,
I was just pointing out that when the boy first saw Jesus he immediately had a fit, and again when Jesus spoke. Plus he was apparently healed following this final fit.

So the story goes, Spud: but it is anecdotal and from this distance beyond verification, especially the 'healing' bit - how do you know these apparent details aren't propaganda for Jesus?

It's not a usual characteristic of epilepsy that meeting a stranger would precipitate a fit, nor lead to complete healing from the condition, as far as I know.

So, given this isn't usual, would you not be sceptical that either the boy wasn't epileptic since what we understand of this condition now obviously wasn't understood then? So that if he wasn't suffering from any neurological condition then he couldn't be 'healed' from it, and then there is the problem of knowing whether or not there is any accuracy at all in this anecdotal account.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Epilepsy is a neurological problem, nothing to do with so called 'spiritual forces' whatever they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that prayer is going to cure anything, unless it acts as a placebo, which in the case of epilepsy I would have thought improbable.

There is nothing to forbid the spiritual interacting with the physical.

If I read a moving piece of literature, eg Bluehillsides history of typewriters, I feel moved to tears with the beauty of it and a neurological response ensues.

[floo]

There is nothing to forbid the spiritual interacting with the physical.

If I read a moving piece of literature, eg Bluehillsides history of typewriters, I feel moved to tears with the beauty of it and a neurological response ensues.

It depends on how you define 'spiritual'.

I have put this topic on an American forum on which I post, and can't believe some of the responses I have got. The belief in demons seems to be rampant in that country! Apparently some believe all mental illnesses are caused by demonic possession, including Alzheimer's disease!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It depends on how you define 'spiritual'.

I have put this topic on an American forum on which I post, and can't believe some of the responses I have got. The belief in demons seems to be rampant in that country! Apparently some believe all mental illnesses are caused by demonic possession, including Alzheimer's disease!

yes American religion and irreligion is a bit of jamboree isn't it.
Mainstream Christian denominations don't believe all mental illnesses are demon possession which they consider to be quite a distinctive thing.

[floo]

yes American religion and irreligion is a bit of jamboree isn't it.
Mainstream Christian denominations don't believe all mental illnesses are demon possession which they consider to be quite a distinctive thing.

Belief in demons is crazy in this day and age, I don't think we have any in captivity have we?

[Sassy]

And you have seen someone possessed of a demon have you?

Have you?

You ask stupid questions... What do you think stopped the person being possessed?

You see the bible talks about demon possession. What epilepsy stops when demons cast out?

Do you really need everything spelling out for you? Can you not reason anything through for yourself?

[Sassy]

We know that know. Jesus apparently didn't.

So now he cured epilepsy? Well! you appear to know what Jesus did and did not do.
Do you think he could not tell the difference between a fit and demonic possession?
Either way you are saying he cured epilepsy or even the truth cast out demons.

[Sassy]

There is perhaps one small problem with the NIV in these verses.  It quotes the father as saying that his son had 'seizures'.  In fact the literal translation would be that he was 'moonstruck'.  Both the old KJV and the modern NASB translate this as, 'he is a lunatic'.  Not a very politically correct word to use today but 'moonstruck' was a general term to imply mental health problems.  Certainly in Jesus' time those manifesting epileptic symptoms would been considered as moonstruck and many attributed this to demon possession.  Clearly this was the father's understanding of his son's underlying problem.

But you are misinterpreting these verses if you conclude that Jesus linked epilepsy to demon possession. There is nothing in the text to justify such a conclusion.  Nowhere does Jesus make such a connection.  In fact the Scriptures make a very clear distinction between those who are 'moonstruck' and those who problems are the result of demon possession.  The father's words are a reflection of his personal understanding but nowhere is this endorsed by Jesus.
 
It is always worth considering what 'the beloved physician' Luke has to say in instances where sickness and healings are covered.  Luke's medical background is always clear in such instances.  In his parallel account Luke makes absolutely no mention of the boy being 'moonstruck'.  He simply records the father as telling Jesus that a spirit seizes his son leading to these manifestations.  With his medical hat on Luke recognizes quite clearly that the problem here is not a mental health one but a spiritual one.  So, while he probably had access to Matthews Gospel (as would many of his readers), in order to give clarity to his readers Luke is careful to place the diagnosis in its correct medical perspective.  This is not a boy afflicted by epilepsy, he has a deep seated spiritual problem which Jesus deals with decisively by casting the demon out.     

Matthew 17:14-21King James Version (KJV)

14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,

15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.

16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.

17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

Cured he was.... The devil rebuked and he departed out of him.

Now no one saying epilepsy is demonic possession.

[floo]

Have you?

You ask stupid questions... What do you think stopped the person being possessed?

You see the bible talks about demon possession. What epilepsy stops when demons cast out?

Do you really need everything spelling out for you? Can you not reason anything through for yourself?

Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it true when it isn't remotely credible like demonic possession.

[Shaker]

So now he cured epilepsy? Well! you appear to know what Jesus did and did not do.

No; I'm simply taking the alleged report of alleged events at face value. There's absolutely no demonstration or acceptance that a scrap of it is true.

Do you think he could not tell the difference between a fit and demonic possession?

No. Ignorant man, ignorant times.

Either way you are saying he cured epilepsy or even the truth cast out demons.

No I'm not. Let's try it one more time: I'm simply taking the alleged report of alleged events at face value. There's absolutely no demonstration or acceptance that a scrap of it is true.