Epilepsy = Demonic Possession!

[floo]

Ah....................shit at Geography as well.

I was good at geography when at school, but I have no idea what Falmouth, which is situated in the south of Cornwall, got to do with this thread? Mind you, why am I surprised as what passes for thought where you are concerned is so convoluted, it is difficult to make head nor tail of your posts!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was good at geography when at school, but I have no idea what Falmouth, which is situated in the south of Cornwall, got to do with this thread? Mind you, why am I surprised as what passes for thought where you are concerned is so convoluted, it is difficult to make head nor tail of your posts!

Not that good at geography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par,_Cornwall

[floo]

Not that good at geography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par,_Cornwall

OK I hadn't heard of Par, but what has it to do with this thread?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK I hadn't heard of Par, but what has it to do with this thread?

I'm just pulling your leg.

[floo]

I'm just pulling your leg.

I still don't get it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I still don't get it?

I wouldn't worry about it.

[floo]

I wouldn't worry about it.

I am definitely not worried about it!

[Sassy]

According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons! In those far off days, it might have been forgivable for people to believe in such nonsense as a major epileptic seizure is very scary indeed. I have witnessed several as my husband has the condition after his brain haemorrhage in 2006, fortunately his meds control the seizures. In this day and age of modern medicine we know the cause of this condition, and of course mythical demons have nothing to do with it.

Unbelievable as it sounds, I have come across on forums some ultra extreme Biblical literalists who not only believe demons actually exist, but epileptics are possessed by them. Hopefully no one on this forum is that silly?

Epilespy and demon possession are two different things.Did you forget you have discussed it before?

People with epilepsy don't have demons speaking through them when having a seizure.
Major fits are not frightening only worrying regarding the person having them. Demonic possession would leave you not doubting they existed.

Why you insist on doing  the same debates and not acknowledging that we have already reached the fact they are not the same thing leads me to believe you are not genuine in your reasons for writing such a thread.

[Shaker]

Epilespy and demon possession are two different things.Did you forget you have discussed it before?

People with epilepsy don't have demons speaking through them when having a seizure.

We know that know. Jesus apparently didn't.

[floo]

Epilespy and demon possession are two different things.Did you forget you have discussed it before?

People with epilepsy don't have demons speaking through them when having a seizure.
Major fits are not frightening only worrying regarding the person having them. Demonic possession would leave you not doubting they existed.

Why you insist on doing  the same debates and not acknowledging that we have already reached the fact they are not the same thing leads me to believe you are not genuine in your reasons for writing such a thread.

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

[floo]

We know that know. Jesus apparently didn't.

It would appear he didn't if those verses in the NIV are correct.

[DaveM]

It would appear he didn't if those verses in the NIV are correct.

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.     

[floo]

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.     

The NIV definitely says seizures whether you like it or not.  Jesus was silly enough to play a game of exorcism hocus pocus if the gospel account is correct. Carrying out any such nonsense on a child is very WRONG indeed. It still happens to this day and has even caused death. It should be illegal to carry out exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.

Luke's medical background? A fully qualified doctor was he?

[Shaker]

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.     

The truly amusing thing is that I'm sure you genuinely think that your logic-chopping exegesis is something to which we're all supposed to go: "Ohhhhh ... I see now ... demon possession. Well, that suddenly makes it all so much more credible."

[DaveM]

The truly amusing thing is that I'm sure you genuinely think that your logic-chopping exegesis is something to which we're all supposed to go: "Ohhhhh ... I see now ... demon possession. Well, that suddenly makes it all so much more credible."

Profound response.

[Shaker]

I know.

[Dicky Underpants]

The NIV definitely says seizures whether you like it or not.  Jesus was silly enough to play a game of exorcism hocus pocus if the gospel account is correct. Carrying out any such nonsense on a child is very WRONG indeed. It still happens to this day and has even caused death. It should be illegal to carry out exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.

Luke's medical background? A fully qualified doctor was he?

If Jesus truly was God incarnate, then we might have expected better of him (since it is highly unlikely that demons do exist). However, since it is far more likely that he was a somewhat deluded wandering preacher (with a number of life-enhancing things to say), then it is a bit much to expect anything more from him than acting according to the accepted beliefs of the time. I've a feeling that Hippocrates was rather loath to invoke spiritual forces in explaining signs of mental disturbance, and so probably were a number of his ancient Greek contemporaries, but they always tended to be a bit ahead of the game, didn't they?

We've no idea who Luke was, or whether he really wrote the gospel and Acts attributed to him. That a certain Luke mentioned in the Bible was a "beloved physician" probably indicates that there was a trusted doctor around among the disciples, and by the standards of the time, he was probably quite adept.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, (before getting too caught up in the idea of the inexorable progress of history) that modern medicine doesn't always work; and ancient medicine didn't always fail. I'd trust myself more with modern methods of dealing with appendicitis or bladder stones though

[DaveM]

If Jesus truly was God incarnate, then we might have expected better of him (since it is highly unlikely that demons do exist). However, since it is far more likely that he was a somewhat deluded wandering preacher (with a number of life-enhancing things to say), then it is a bit much to expect anything more from him than acting according to the accepted beliefs of the time. I've a feeling that Hippocrates was rather loath to invoke spiritual forces in explaining signs of mental disturbance, and so probably were a number of his ancient Greek contemporaries, but they always tended to be a bit ahead of the game, didn't they?

We've no idea who Luke was, or whether he really wrote the gospel and Acts attributed to him. That a certain Luke mentioned in the Bible was a "beloved physician" probably indicates that there was a trusted doctor around among the disciples, and by the standards of the time, he was probably quite adept.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, (before getting too caught up in the idea of the inexorable progress of history) that modern medicine doesn't always work; and ancient medicine didn't always fail. I'd trust myself more with modern methods of dealing with appendicitis or bladder stones though

In fact Hippocrates (5BC) rejected the view that epilepsy had a spiritual cause and in fact argued and taught in his medical school that he considered the underlying cause to be linked to problem(s) in the brain.  Very much the minority view for the time.  But it is quite possible that Luke would have had knowledge of this and perhaps even accepted Hippocrates' view.

Incidentally Josephus, the first century Jewish historian. provides a somewhat amusing account which supports your contention that ancient medicine was not necessarily as primitive as is often thought.  During the time of the Greek Empire many Jews embraced much of the Hellenistic philosophy, particularly the emphasis of the physical body.  Many young Jewish men were attracted to this and were participants in the Greek Games.  But, of course, the athletes participated stark naked.  This was the source of considerable embarrassment for them due to their circumcision.  They found themselves to be the butt of much laughter and amusement,  particularly by the young ladies present.  Josephus tells us that many of them had their circumcision reversed, i.e. the underwent tricky (and painful) skin grafts to restore their foreskins.

Not sure how successful these procedures were but the fact that the medical profession of the day was prepared to even attempt skin grafts represents quite complex medical ability and knowledge for the time.       

[floo]

In fact Hippocrates (5BC) rejected the view that epilepsy had a spiritual cause and in fact argued and taught in his medical school that he considered the underlying cause to be linked to problem(s) in the brain.  Very much the minority view for the time.  But it is quite possible that Luke would have had knowledge of this and perhaps even accepted Hippocrates' view.

Incidentally Josephus, the first century Jewish historian. provides a somewhat amusing account which supports your contention that ancient medicine was not necessarily as primitive as is often thought.  During the time of the Greek Empire many Jews embraced much of the Hellenistic philosophy, particularly the emphasis of the physical body.  Many young Jewish men were attracted to this and were participants in the Greek Games.  But, of course, the athletes participated stark naked.  This was the source of considerable embarrassment for them due to their circumcision.  They found themselves to be the butt of much laughter and amusement,  particularly by the young ladies present.  Josephus tells us that many of them had their circumcision reversed, i.e. the underwent tricky (and painful) skin grafts to restore their foreskins.

Not sure how successful these procedures were but the fact that the medical profession of the day was prepared to even attempt skin grafts represents quite complex medical ability and knowledge for the time.     

Chapter and verse please.

[Spud]

The NIV definitely says seizures whether you like it or not.  Jesus was silly enough to play a game of exorcism hocus pocus if the gospel account is correct. Carrying out any such nonsense on a child is very WRONG indeed. It still happens to this day and has even caused death. It should be illegal to carry out exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.

Luke's medical background? A fully qualified doctor was he?

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).

[Shaker]

A friend of mine suffered from epileptic seizures as a young adult but managed to overcome it through prayer

I assume there'll be no evidence of this claim, of course - there never is.

I further assume there were no controls put in place. (How do you know it was due to prayer?).

I go on to assume that you're unaware that many, many cases* of epilepsy in young people spontaneously disappear over time (i.e. are 'grown out of' - multiple accounts from the Epilepsy Foundation here: https://tinyurl.com/ydekyyxu ).

* 80% according to some sources.

[Robbie]

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).

Spud, I've no wish to pour water on your flames but there are many young people who develop epilepsy as young adults or at puberty, who actually outgrow it.  It's also not uncommon for people to have epileptic seizures following head injury but they cease in time.

I know someone who was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a young person and claims God's healing for this condition but, again, young people sometimes display schizophrenic symptoms, eg psychotic episodes, which die out as they get older.   They are misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.

What I believe is that prayer can help lift spirits and make people feel better;  it is comforting to have support from others but it is unwise to claim healing in the sense of curing.   There's nothing wrong with feeling better!   We'd all want that for ourselves and others in times of illness.

[Spud]

Shaker, yes there is no direct evidence that her healing was due to prayer, I just thought I'd mention it though. Since it is hearsay from your perspective, I could mention a personal experience where I once had a very painful shoulder that I cured by hanging from branches of trees. I seem to remember that it was talking to a friend about it that motivated me to do that. This illustrates the faith aspect which is described in the account of the boy. Often sickness doesn't clear up until there is confession by the sufferer or by someone on their behalf.

[Robbie]

Which I think illustrates the psychological benefit of care and prayer, Spud.

[Spud]

Robinson,
Yes actually this case of epilepsy was probably cause by previous head injury.