Pre-Adamite origin

[Staropramen]

Matthew 8:28-34
King James Version (KJV)
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

33 And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

34 And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.

What exactly took place here? Is this a situation where spirit demons came out of broken cisterns and took up residence inside the flesh of swine thereby causing the swine to behave contrary to their nature and commit suicide? It has occurred to me that some of the random examples of homosexual behavior in animals that the left love to point to might be explained by this phenomena. Or is this a situation where these broken cistern demon people were being physically cast out of the tombs and driven amongst the swine? Were the pigs simply scared by the "exceedingly fierce" behavior of the demon creatures and accidentally drowned? I'm thinking that if these were jews they may have tried to have sex with the pigs and that scared them away.

[Joe]

Are you sure they were broken cisterns? Why would Jesus even help such people, I thought the only one he really helped was the daughter of the dog.
I also remember many times when he was casting out demons from people who I supposed to be Israelites, such as the boy with seizures.

[Staropramen]

Are you sure they were broken cisterns? Why would Jesus even help such people, I thought the only one he really helped was the daughter of the dog.
I also remember many times when he was casting out demons from people who I supposed to be Israelites, such as the boy with seizures.

I'm not sure. The passage says that the owners of the pigs went to the city to tell everyone what happened to the individuals possessed by devils. If they were healed in some way [a demon exited the body] then the reaction should have been favorable. But it wasn't, they told Jesus to leave. This could mean that the two individuals were healed but the people were more concerned about their pigs. Or it could mean that Jesus simply drove them physically out of the tomb, they scared the pigs, the pigs died and the people were angry.

Can spirit-being demons possess Israelites? Can they actually live inside an Israelite? Is Charles Manson possessed by demons or just plum crazy?

[Fenwick]

Can spirit-being demons possess Israelites?

Is it not possible they were simply mentally ill? When you have people saying god told them to murder prostitutes, it doesn't necessarily mean that's true.

[wmfinck]

Well, I won't say its perfect, but I spoke about this incident three times, in my presentations for Matthew 8&9, Mark 4&5 and Luke 8. Here are the links, and one conclusion I offered:

http://christogenea.org/content/matthew ... 05-27-2011
http://christogenea.org/content/mark-ch ... 10-21-2011
http://christogenea.org/content/gospel- ... 07-13-2012

As it was also noted in the Matthew commentary given here, one thing that is obvious is that these people would rather continue to suffer with the status quo, than to see change come even if it were for the better. They preferred the world – and their swine – to the Word of God. That, to me, is a very good portrait of most of our own race today. Most so-called Christians would never trade in their swine for any amount of the Truth.

[Joe]

I read Bill's view on this from Mathew yesterday, I will read the other two. I found that Henry had a similar opinion, obviously he was before CI but he has some good ideas at times. As Bill said in that paper, you cannot determine the race of the possessed.
Here are some of the views I came across.

-In many ways the people from the town resemble the devils that possessed the tomb-dwellers.
-The people of the village blame Christ for what happened to the swine, not the devils that were cast-out. The devils say “Art thou come hither to torment us", seems the townsfolk had a similar attitude.

Their covetousness made them willing to be rid of him. Instead of inviting him into their city, or bringing their sick to him to be healed, they desired him to depart out of their coasts, as if they had borrowed the words of the devils, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God? And now the devils had what they aimed at in drowning the swine; they did it, and then made the people believe that Christ had done it, and so prejudiced them against him.
..Note, There are a great many who prefer their swine before their Saviour, and so come short of Christ, and salvation by him. They desire Christ to depart out of their hearts, and will not suffer his word to have a place in them, because he and his word will be the destruction of their brutish lusts - those swine which they give up themselves to feed. And justly will Christ forsake those that thus are weary of him.

Some bits are wrong, but he had some good ideas.

I also came across Marks paper on this, which is very different:
http://kinsmanredeemer.com/madmen-gadera ...Some intriguing excerpts similar to Fenwick's idea.

Let’s launch our study in the book of Mark being that he was the first disciple to write this story and notice the other two gospels differ slightly in subtle ways so that by two or more witnesses shall a matter be established. In Mark 5:1-20 Jesus arrived at the country of the Gaderenes. There he is met “immediately” by a man with an unclean spirit, which has been explained as a mental illness, who was living among the tombs i.e. in a graveyard. He was so fierce that men had tried to bind him in shackles and chains, but he always broke away from them. Likewise, God’s people had so often been taken into captivity in fetters and chains (II Chron. 33:11, 36:6).

“I adjure [implore, request] thee by God, that thou torment me not” Mark 5:7. Mt. 8:29 enhances this plea with, “To torment us before the time.” The Scofield perception here is that it is not the mentally ill who are talking to Jesus, but rather the demons. However, the lunatic(s) recognized Jesus, perhaps from the contingent following Him and the lunatic(s) came to greet Him, which would dispel the notion that a demon possession was controlling the lunatic(s). Wouldn’t it be rather naïve to think that demons would direct the lunatic(s) to come and fall before the feet of the Messiah? It being simply a man with mental problems who was still able to act on his own volition.

Which I am still reading, as I came to the realisation that I need to understand Mark's 'no-satan' idea and then read Clifton's counter-points in his papers on Mark's 'no-satan' idea. Which will take some time.

[Kentucky]

Which I am still reading, as I came to the realisation that I need to understand Mark's 'no-satan' idea

The term "no satan" is misleading and I have never used it to describe my theological understanding of that particular word as used in the Bible. A better term would be 'no dualism' which adds another God to Christianity. If sawtawn means adversary, then who would say God has no adversary? Even within Christian Identity there are some who mistakenly adhere to the catholic-judeo-Hollywood "Satan," which has little bearing on faith, salvation or glory. When you hear someone mockingly using the straw-man shell game that "the devil is just the flesh... yeah right," then you're hearing a dishonest representation on two fronts. The first is that the flesh is only one aspect of what diabolos suggests or that the flesh is marginalized. Strong's defines it as a "false accuser," which is to say a liar. We fall into sin all the time when we give in to the lies of our five senses i.e. the flesh (the polite term is rationalization). The second is when we make false accusations or slander against others, "thou shalt not bear false witness." The easiest way to understand it (at least for me) is to say that this adversary/false accuser is the opposite of the Truth. Jesus declared Himself to be the Truth. Therefore, those who cannot be true to themselves or to Christ are devils. 'No devils"? Hardly.

Mark

[GermanSaxon]

Brother Bill,

After reading your reply:

“To attribute the non-White races to the creation of God is to contest with these simple concepts of Scripture. All those who do are hopelessly blind, or have an agenda because they too are part of the corruption.”

I hope you are not implying that if sometime doesn’t believe in Clifton or Your view on creation or what has been label as “Dual Seedline exterminism” are hopelessly blind and have a agenda because they are corrupt. Isn’t this a little extreme as your theory is based on Clifton’s theory that have only existed maybe 20-30 years and can not be found in existence before that in any Christian Writings.

Are you really wanting to offend your kinsmen and kinswoman on a theory that only holds up with only exclusively using the Jewish 10th Century Masorectic Text and a Commentary Quote by one scholar in the Interrupters Bible.

Why divide the Body of Christ over a 30 year old theory by Clifton. Can we not agree to disagree with without being accused of having a agenda or thought to be race mixed broken cisterns.

Your Brother in Christ, Steve

[Joe]

Mark says

The easiest way to understand it (at least for me) is to say that this adversary/false accuser is the opposite of the Truth. Jesus declared Himself to be the Truth

That is a keen way to see it, opposite of Truth and Life ...death and lies.
I don't know why I said 'no-satan', I had already read a few of your words on this where you talk about the 'no-satan' label, and was reading Clifton's papers too. Sorry, lol, must have slipped my mind.

@GermanSaxon
I don't think Bill cares about offending people, I think he is trying to be honest in his study. Obviously I can't speak for the comment you quoted.

A theory that only holds up with only exclusively using the Jewish 10th Century Masorectic Text and a Commentary Quote by one scholar in the Interrupters Bible.

I don't think this is only supported by the masoretic and a commentary quote, I think Clifton uses multiple translations and in my opinion he generally uses commentary only to elucidate ideas, not as the basis of them.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, just want to know your have different ideas and where you started to learn them from.

[Filidh]

here is the truth, understand it if ya'll are able.

there was one in the sky who was called the morningstar, and the dragon, who was on father's left hand. he was jealous of father's power, and wanted to be like him.

he made to overthrow father, and he enlisted a third of the host of the sky to join with him in his overthrowing, and he led them against father in fight.

yet father commanded one called michael, he who is like father, to lead the loyal host of the sky in fight against the dragon, who is the enemy, and father was victorious, and the enemy, who is the evil one and the perverter, and the third that had joined with him were cast down to the earth.

they are the ones who are heard of from of old, who ruled for thousands of years, and tens of thousands, on earth.

then father created a man called adam, and placed him on the earth. and then he created the realm of the other nations of man, and let adam tend to them and uplift them.

but the man adam was lonely, so father created eve, she who is mother of the living, from of his rib to be his helper.

and father commanded them, adam and eve, that they may produce offspring with all of the other nations that father created, but he forbade them to produce offspring with the rebellious nation of the fallen host of the sky, that which was like father in their knowledge of good and evil, and is of knowledge and death.

yet one of the fallen tempted eve, and she gave in, and told adam, and he gave in, and they both knew sexuality, and clothed themselves to hide the source of their shame, as to that point they had no knowledge of what nakedness was.

and father saw what had occured, and knew that they had given into laying with the fallen ones.

and father cast them out of the realm.

and eve then bore the son she had gotten from the fallen one, and he was called cain.

and then adam lay with eve and bore abel, and ya'll know the story from here.

look away from the traditions of the elders of the churches, and see with eyes unclouded!

---------------

edit: and germansaxon, steve, it is no theory, but fact. it is found in the septuagint, the targum of pseudo-jonathan, the book of enoch, and thruout all of the holy scripts!

why do you doubt? is it not written by jude that there were angels who left their first estate (the sky) and mixed their seed with every kind?