wmfinck wrote:Much of the Bible is allegory. This is especially true where we have parables. Additionally, many historical events are also described in parables of sorts, with allegorical language representing different aspects of the event in question.
The serpent existed, but it was not a literal snake. Jezebel existed, but she is also used allegorically in the Revelation.
But many Biblical accounts are indeed narrative records of actual events. These are represented as historical narratives, where you see identifiable historical figures walking about and interacting with other identifiable historical figures in identifiable historical places. Where the records are contemporary, they must be accepted as real, historical events.
It is patently unfair to label any particular event which is presented as historical narrative as an "allegory" without good reason to do so, and even if the historical narrative is an allegory, or a "type" as such allegories are often labelled, that does not mean that they did not happen as they are literally related.
David was a "type" for Christ. Joshua was also a "type" for Christ. But the historical David and the historical Joshua both existed. So did the historical Goliath and the historical Og of Bashan, the giants that they slew.
In the account of the madman of Gadara, the swine are real, the swineherds are real, the city is real, the man infected with the demons is real, and the water is real. The apostles described as being with Christ are real, and Christ Himself is real. Even the boat they used to get there was real.
Thanks for your input Bill. Isn't it possible for historical events, as recorded in the Bible, to incorporate figures of speech (perhaps "allegory" is misapplied here) for one reason or another? Probably the most combined literary device for using various forms of expression is the narrative in Genesis. We believe the premise of Creation and can synthesize most of the principles found there, but the language itself is open to a myriad of interpretations because some words are not literal. The parables were used not to be flowery, but because Christ did not want some to know or understand or be healed, lest they convert to what He said (Mt. 13:13-15). By the same token, the story from Gadera was most certainly and without dispute a real event. However, because of the politics, He had to be careful in the way He told the story, lest the Roman occupation, being completely embarrassed by the rout of madmen, would react in way that would cause more harm than good. In other words, Christ speaking diplomatically and with perfect precision, which would not be entirely grasped by Roman authorities, and therefore dismissed as some kind of religious rambling, protecting the Christians from persecution, as if they needed even more. Surely the intent of the story was not to impress upon the 1st century church the power of demons, which it has become today, but the power of Christ to heal... even mentally disturbed people, for which there was no medical nomenclature at the time that they could ascribe it to.
The demons, whatever you may want to think of them, are legion, because that is a term which represents the concept of many. That is how the apostles themselves described its meaning in their accounts.
What concerns me is not so much the plurality or singularity of what this word means as much as finding a specifically stated theology about demons, which other non-Christian religions are more than happy to provide. The RCC will fill volumes of hierarchies of demons and angels and how Rome is in the thick of it protecting humanity, but the Bible is significantly silent about any such things.
The demons spoke to Christ from out of the man, as the apostles told the story.
That would seem to be the crux of the matter, because Christ said in Mark 5:8, "For He had said to him." The "him" would seem to be the man, not the demon. This is the pivotal conversation as to whether we are to believe there is a third party in the dialogue. In my humble opinion, the demons/unclean spirits never actually say anything in the narrative; it’s always the man himself who speaks.
If everything else is real, then the demons, whatever one wants to thinks they may be, must also be real.
Yes, I agree. Whatever they may be, they are not an illusion or hallucination, albeit the latter may be what is seen by dirty preachers from the South on drugs. lol
and I would prefer to understand the word for demon in the manner in which it was understood in the comman Greek language in which they wrote.
Exactly. Did not Greek culture indulge in the common mythologies of the day, which used the word 'daimonion.'? The etymology of which opens a big can of worms, not necessarily dovetailing with the popular contemporary interpretation of Mt. 8:23-28, Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39.
Simply because one may acknowledge the possibility of there being demons, does not make one an idolater. Otherwise, what is Christ saying in Revelation 16:14 or 18:2?
I think He's saying 'diabolos' in the sense of false accuser, slanderer and liar, who has taken the Big Lie to such extraordinary heights, that they think of themselves as God i.e. the Messiah. Look at how much mileage the jew has gotten in fomenting wars through the exigency of bearing false witness; it truly is the spirit of evil. When Babylon falls, I hope to God it's talking about Wall Street, Big Pharma, synagogues of satan and all the rest of the two legged bipeds that make life on earth a living hell. Those who support such a satanic system must surely be idolaters, the modern equivalent of wood and stone carvings.
Where we may disagree, is on the nature of what constitutes a demon.
And if we disagree there, that does not mean that we should ridicule each other, or beat each other over the head. I think we all know that our primary struggle here in this world is two-fold: first with the foul spirits of embodied demons, and also with our own weaknesses.
It is my opinion, that since demons are not fully explained in Scripture, at least from our modern scientific viewpoint, that we can disagree on their essence, and we shall continue to do so until it no longer matters, or until we are all better informed.
Spoken as an 'ambassador of Christ' Bill. It should be a non-issue, as it has nothing to do with my salvation. I don't think on the day of Judgment, the first question posed to me will be "Why didn't you believe in demons?" For some people it is the most important thing in their theology, which makes me wonder what their priorities are in life? It's interesting that those who are obsessed with demons, have nothing else better to do with their lives than demonize those who don't believe like they do. A bit of irony there.
But we should not disagree on their existence. Scripturally, a demon is indeed a tangible entity, even if its existence remains outside of our personal experience. The word demon appears over 60 time in New Testament Scripture, and every time it appears it is a tangible entity.
It's the intangible ones in churchianity that give demons a bad name.
Mark