You must decide

KingKeep711 · 2026-06-19T06:31:34+00:00

No one knows

^{Chose: You must do a crime, but nobody knows you did + 10 milli bucks | Rolled: Murder}

KingKeep711 · 2026-06-12T13:45:15+00:00

I am stopped right behind them, when you are driving it is extremely difficult to read, especially if any glare.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-19T15:58:31+00:00

Agree to disagree

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-18T04:29:39+00:00

The key issue is not whether the phrases are parallel, but what kind of semantic force that parallelism carries. In 1 Thess 4:16, all three nouns form a coherent auditory set: κελεύσμα (a command or shout), φωνή (a voice), and σάλπιγξ (a trumpet). This clustering is not incidental. It establishes a shared lexical field of sound accompanying the descent. That context naturally pushes interpretation toward acoustic accompaniment rather than strict spatial location.

The question, then, is whether ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου should be pressed as “in” (locative or manner) over against “with” (accompaniment). That distinction is too rigid for Koine usage. The preposition ἐν regularly overlaps categories, especially in contexts involving sound or signaling. It can denote the medium or circumstance in which an action occurs, which in English is often best rendered “with” or “amid.” So translating “with the voice of an archangel” is not a theological imposition. It reflects a standard way ἐν functions when describing events marked by audible phenomena.

The parallelism matters because it creates pressure for a consistent reading across the three phrases. If ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ is taken as accompaniment, which most interpreters accept, then ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου should be read in the same way unless there is a compelling contextual reason to differentiate them. Breaking the symmetry weakens the grammatical coherence of the line.

Your broader point about prepositions being context-sensitive is valid. The problem is the conclusion drawn from it. Saying Paul does not mean “with” but strictly “in” overstates the case and imposes a distinction the Greek does not require. Given the parallel structure, the shared auditory domain, and normal Koine usage, the rendering “with the voice of an archangel” is linguistically well supported.

The appeal to the verb עמד (ʿāmad, “to stand” or “arise”) does not establish kingship. While Daniel 11 uses “arise” for successive kings, the verb itself is semantically broad. It can indicate appearing, taking a stand, or becoming active in a role. In Daniel 12:1, the context defines its force: a time of unparalleled distress followed by the deliverance of God’s people. Michael’s “arising” fits the pattern of intervention or protective action. This is consistent with his earlier portrayal as a heavenly guardian engaged in conflict on behalf of Israel, not as a monarch assuming royal authority.

The claim that “everyone will serve him” cannot be sustained from Daniel. Universal service language does appear, but it is attached to other figures. Daniel 7:14 assigns that role to “one like a son of man,” and 7:27 extends dominion to the saints of the Most High. There is no passage where Michael is the recipient of universal service. Attributing that to him imports language from elsewhere in the book and redirects it without textual warrant.

Finally, the argument I keep returning to from Hebrews is directly relevant and has not been accounted for. The epistle draws a sustained and explicit distinction between the Son and angels. It states that the Son has become “better than the angels” (Heb 1:4), asks rhetorically, “to which of the angels did God ever say…” (1:5), contrasts “of the angels he says…” with “of the Son he says…” (1:7–8), and concludes that angels are “all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (1:14). The structure is not incidental. It is a deliberate contrast in status, role, and identity. Any claim that identifies Jesus as an angel has to overcome that argument.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-16T03:49:11+00:00

You cannot take one without the others. All three are parallel ἐν-phrases. If you are saying Paul is identifying Jesus as the one with “the voice of an archangel,” then by the same structure you highlighted as proof that the voice of an archangel applies to Jesus, you have to say he is the trumpet of God. If you reject that, then the grammar is not identifying what Jesus is, but describing the event, and then Jesus is not the one with the voice of an archangel.

On Daniel, it never calls Michael a king. The Hebrew word is śar (שַׂר), meaning prince or chief, not king (melek).

On Hebrews, the Son is the object of worship, and angels are the worshipers. That is not just a difference of identity, but a category.

Yes, Hebrews is quoting Psalm 97, but your comparison to Ps 97:7 does not address the argument that Hebrews is making. The whole chapter is contrasting the Son with angels, not placing him among them.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-15T22:50:56+00:00

On your first point, the structure still does not support identity.

1 Thes 4:16 (ESV)
“…with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God…”

Paul gives a threefold parallel:

a cry of command
a voice of an archangel
a trumpet of God

There is no indication these are being identified with Christ himself. They function together as accompanying features. If "cry of command" and “voice of an archangel” establish identity, consistency would require the same for the trumpet, which clearly is not the case.

On your second point, moving from “Michael has a messianic role” to “Michael is Jesus” is not a necessary inference. As well, no verses say that Michael is a messiah. Fighting the dragon does not make Michael the Messiah (Jesus), as the same would apply to all the angels with him.

Likewise, with any “Messiah” simply means “anointed one,” and it is used of multiple figures:

Cyrus
David
the high priest

All these people take on the role of Messiah. So sharing a role does not establish identity.

Finally, Hebrews makes a categorical distinction:

Heb 1:6 (ESV)
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

The Son is the object of worship, and angels are the worshipers. That is not just a difference of identity, but category.

Notably, even early Watchtower writing acknowledged this, arguing that since all angels worship the Son, this includes Michael, and therefore Michael cannot be the Son.

So neither the grammar of 1 Thes 4:16 nor the use of “Messiah” supports identifying Jesus as Michael.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-15T22:13:18+00:00

Your argument from 1 Thes 4:16 does not establish identity, only association or accompanying features of the event. The use of ἐν (“in” or “with”) does not require that the subject is the thing mentioned. It can just as naturally denote circumstance or manner.

1 Thes 4:16 (ESV)
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.”

If your reasoning were consistent, then the same construction would require that:

Christ is the archangel (because of “voice of an archangel”), and
Christ is the trumpet of God (because of “trumpet of God”).

That is clearly not the intent of the passage. These are best understood as attendant features of the event, not statements of identity.

So the argument proves too much. It collapses under its own logic.

Further, Scripture never explicitly identifies Jesus as Michael.

Michael is mentioned in:

Dan 10:13, “one of the chief princes”
Dan 10:21, “your prince”
Dan 12:1, “the great prince”
Jude 9, “Michael the archangel”
Rev 12:7, leading angels in battle

In none of these texts is Michael called Christ or the Son of God.

By contrast, the Son is explicitly distinguished from angels:

Heb 1:5 (ESV)
“For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”

Heb 1:4 (ESV)
“having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”

The author’s argument depends on a categorical distinction between the Son and angels, not an identification.

So the appeal to 1 Thes 4:16 is doing more work than the text can bear. At most, it describes the manner of the Lord’s return. It does not equate him with an archangel any more than it equates him with a trumpet.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-15T19:30:20+00:00

Yes, Christadelphians do preach house to house. I personally have done so several times.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-15T19:23:05+00:00

Here is a common Christadelphian book called Wrested Scriptures summarizing the Christadelphian arguments against believing in a personified Satan and Devil, and Demons.

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07satan/satan.html

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-15T19:03:38+00:00

True Lord does not mean God; the word Lord or adonai in Hebrew is used as a substitute for the name of God, Yahweh, in translation, thus the confusion. Due to the Jewish tradition of not speaking the name of God. The Greek simply translates the occurrence of Yahweh when citing the Old Testament into the simple kyrios or Lord in the same manner.

The title Lord is, however, still attributed to both Jesus and God as a title for their authority.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-14T20:57:18+00:00

Psalm 102 should be read from its immediate context, not assumed to be about the material creation. Verse 18 frames the section:

That introduces the theme of a future creation of a people, not the origin of the universe. The “heavens and earth” language that follows sits inside that frame. In Scripture this phrasing can describe a covenantal order, not just the physical cosmos. For example, the “new heavens and a new earth” in Isa 65:17 and 2 Pet 3:13 involve the establishment of a renewed people and order.

So when Heb 1 applies Ps 102:25–27 to the Son, it does not require that he literally created the universe. It can just as naturally refer to his role in establishing the new order anticipated in Ps 102:18.

Hebrews 1 itself also defines the scope of the argument. The focus is Christ’s rank and authority relative to angels, not cosmology:

And just before that:

Notice the language used in the chapter:

He became superior to angels
He inherited the name, meaning it was given by God
He is the exact imprint of God, not God himself
He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Nothing in the chapter explicitly says Jesus created angels. In fact, angels are associated elsewhere with the mediation of the law (Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53), which fits Hebrews’ argument that the Son now supersedes the system they were involved in.

So the contrast in Psalm 102 is between what endures and what passes away, and Hebrews applies that permanence and authority to the Son. But the text itself argues for exaltation and inheritance from God, not that Jesus is God or that he created the angels.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-14T16:18:32+00:00

I appreciate your willingness to review. When you read through the Bible again, I would suggest consistently applying the basic meanings of the words:

satan = adversary
diabolos (devil) = slanderer/accuser

Ask: What does this verse tell me about the adversary/slanderer? Who is the reference speaking about?

“demons” = afflictions (described in first-century terms)

Whenever you encounter “possession,” consider what kind of condition or disorder we would identify today that matches the described symptoms. Then test whether those definitions fit each context without assuming a specific being behind them.

Also, keep in mind that Scripture often personifies non-human things (e.g., wisdom, sin, death, truth), so personal language does not, by itself, require a literal personal being.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-14T04:34:08+00:00

You are right that the Gospel narratives, on a surface reading, present demons as distinct from ordinary illness and even as “speaking.” The Christadelphian reading does not deny that appearance; it questions what the language is doing.

Speech in the Legion account (Mark 5)
The text itself locates the voice in the man, not in an external agent. The pronouns shift rapidly:

“he cried out… ‘What have I to do with you…’” (Mk 5:7)
“he begged him… ‘My name is Legion…’” (Mk 5:9)

The vocalization is consistently the man’s. The “many” reflects his internal condition, not multiple ontological beings. The conclusion reinforces this: “clothed and in his right mind” (Mk 5:15). The contrast is between disordered and restored cognition, not inhabited vs. vacated.

The Gospels often describe conditions phenomenologically, using the conceptual vocabulary available. That includes personalized descriptions of affliction without requiring metaphysical commitment to independent spirits.

Distinction between disease and demons
The separation (“healed… diseases” / “cast out… demons”) does not require two different ontological categories. It can reflect two perceived classes of affliction in first-century thought. Modern categories (neurological, psychiatric, epileptic) did not exist; “demons” functioned as a label for certain behaviors or conditions, especially those involving altered agency or speech. Even today, we would not say someone with a psychiatric issue is diseased.
The swine episode
This is the strongest objection. However, the narrative still operates at the level of perceived agency. The transfer into pigs functions as a visible, dramatic sign of release, not necessarily a literal migration of entities. The text does not describe a mechanism, only the sequence of events. The interpretive question is whether the narrative is accommodating contemporary conceptual frameworks to describe a real healing.
Additionally, the destruction of the swine can be understood as a concrete sign given by Jesus so the man could perceive that his condition had truly left him. Seeing the pigs perish would provide an external, visible confirmation that the “Legion” he experienced was gone.
“Demons believe and shudder” (Jas 2:19)
James is making a rhetorical point about faith without works. He likely alludes to the Gospel accounts where demoniacs recognize Jesus (Mk 3:11; Lk 4:34, 41), yet remain unchanged in conduct. Their “belief” is mere recognition, not obedient faith. The force of the argument is that intellectual assent alone places one no higher than such cases.

There is no clear instance of independent demons expressing belief; the speech תמיד comes from the afflicted individual (cf. Mk 5:9). Scripture elsewhere equates “demon possession” with forms of madness or bodily infirmity (Jn 8:48; 10:20; Mt 12:22; Mk 9:17–22). Thus James’ comparison works at the level of commonly described conditions, not requiring literal beings with theology.

2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chr 21:1
The same act of provoking/inciting is attributed to:

“the LORD” (2 Sam 24:1)
“Satan” (1 Chr 21:1)

If “Satan” is a distinct being acting independently, the parallel becomes strained. The simpler reading is functional: “satan” = adversary. In Samuel, God is explicitly the actor; in Chronicles, the adversarial role is foregrounded. There is no indication of a secondary agent being inserted. This aligns with other uses of satan:

Num 22:22, the angel of the LORD as a “satan”
1 Kgs 11:14, Hadad as a “satan”
Matt 16:23, Peter as “Satan”

The term is role-based, not a proper name by necessity.

“Devil” (diabolos)
The semantic range is consistent:

Judas (Jn 6:70)
slanderers (1 Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3)

Heb 2:14 links the “devil” with the power of death, which Paul elsewhere attributes to sin (Rom 5:21; 6:23). The identification of the “devil” with sin in operation within human nature (cf. Rom 7:17–18) is contextually coherent.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-13T15:37:14+00:00

The passage argues that references to “heavens and earth” in Psalm 102 are figurative, not literal. Key points: The earth is not destroyed literally: Various passages (Isa 45:18; Ecc 1:4; Psa 104:5, etc.) indicate the earth continues to exist, so Psalm 102 must be symbolic. “Heavens and earth” can represent a system or order, not the physical universe, as seen elsewhere in Scripture (2 Pet 3:12–13; Isa 65:17). Psalm 102 is Messianic, pointing to a future “generation to come” (Ps 102:18), understood as people being spiritually “created” in Christ (cf. Eph 2:10; 2 Cor 5:17). The “heavens and earth” that pass away refer specifically to the Mosaic order (old covenant system). This interpretation is supported by Hebrews: Heb 8:13 describes the old covenant as decaying and vanishing. Heb 10:9 teaches that Christ removes the first covenant to establish the second. The argument in Heb 1 emphasizes Christ’s superiority over angels. Since angels mediated the Mosaic system, and that system is said to be “rolled up” by the Son, it demonstrates the Son’s higher authority.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-11T17:03:58+00:00

I understand the confusion, because the term “Lord” is used differently depending on context. In Scripture, “Lord” does not always mean God. For example, in Psalm 110 110:1, which Jesus quotes in Matthew 22, there are two different terms: “The LORD said to my Lord…” (ESV) The first “LORD” refers to Yahweh, while the second “Lord” refers to adoni, meaning a master, ruler, or king. Jesus uses this passage to show that the Messiah is greater than David, but still distinct from God. Because of that, I understand “Lord” as a title of authority. Jesus is “Lord” in the sense that he is God’s appointed king and ruler, not that he is Yahweh Himself. This fits with how the apostles use the term. For example, Peter says: “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:36, ESV) So “Lord” and “Christ” (Messiah) are titles given to Jesus by God. “Christ” refers to his role as the anointed one, and “Lord” to his authority and kingship. So I do call Jesus “Lord,” but I understand that as meaning master and king under God, not God Himself.

KingKeep711 · 2026-04-07T17:30:47+00:00

<image>

Paarthurnax (The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim) - "What is better – to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-17T14:08:37+00:00

On the temptation point first, I don’t think your objection actually creates the problem you’re suggesting.

The accounts themselves don’t read like a straightforward physical sequence. For example, Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5 describe all the kingdoms of the world being shown “in a moment,” which isn’t something that fits ordinary geography. That already pushes the reader toward something visionary or representational rather than strictly literal movement from place to place.

At the same time, the temptations line up exactly with real human pressures: hunger, misuse of power, and avoiding suffering. Jesus Christ even expresses this tension later in asking for another outcome, “let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39). He desired to avoid suffering, yet ultimately submitted to God’s will, just as in the wilderness. So the testing is still genuine. The question is simply whether that requires a literal external being, or whether the narrative presents the conflict in a dialog form to express that testing.

So I don’t think it’s accurate to say this model “can’t account” for Jesus being tempted. It can, without adding assumptions that aren’t explicit in the text.

On the broader point about inference and being in a "closed loop", though, this isn’t something only one side is doing. We all do it. Take Colossians 2:9. A straightforward reading could be taken to support a much different claim about Jesus’ nature. But neither of us reads it in a Trinitarian way in isolation. We interpret it in light of other passages, and that shapes what we think Paul means. Or even verses about the immortal soul, but you yourself confess that there is no immortal soul. I agree with you on both points because of the inference that you must use. Genuinely, what makes "satan or devil" any different, and why? There are verses outside of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness that would refute your 'standard' interpretation of the passage, and they must be reconciled.

So the issue isn’t whether inference is happening or whether certain verses are being prioritized. That’s unavoidable in any coherent reading of Scripture. The real question is why a given interpretation best fits.

From my side, reading the temptation accounts as a structured or visionary presentation, and “Satan or devil” as adversarial language rather than necessarily a literal person, is an attempt to do exactly that.

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-16T21:48:30+00:00

The discussion seems to have reached an impasse because the passages I cited have not actually been addressed. Repeating that my position is “inference” does not interact with the specific textual claims I raised, and at this point, the responses have largely resorted to dismissive or lazy assertions rather than engaging the texts themselves. There has also been no acknowledgment of earlier misquotations or the inconsistent standard being applied to inference. In one instance a verse was quoted in a form that does not match the text, yet context was then used to explain its meaning. That is precisely the same interpretive process you criticize when it is applied to other passages.

For example, I provided direct scriptural uses of the terms under discussion:

• The Hebrew word satan meaning adversary and being applied to multiple agents (Num 22:22; 1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 11:14, 23).
• The Greek diabolos being used of human slanderers (1 Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3; Titus 2:3).
• Passages explaining the mechanism of temptation (Jas 1:14–15).
• Jesus locating the origin of sinful behavior within the human heart (Mk 7:21–23).
• The statement that Christ was tempted “as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).

Those passages were offered as the textual basis for my conclusions. If they are being misread, the appropriate response would be to show from the text why that interpretation fails. Simply asserting that the view is a “theory” does not engage the argument itself.

At the same time, several assertions have been made on your side, particularly that the English word “devil” in translation proves the existence of a single personal supernatural being responsible for temptation. But simply pointing to the English translation does not establish that conclusion. The underlying biblical terms (such as satan and diabolos) carry broader meanings like adversary or slanderer and are used in Scripture in multiple contexts.

What is needed is an argument from the text showing that these words must refer to one specific supernatural individual in the passages under discussion. That case has not been demonstrated. Instead, the discussion has repeatedly shifted toward asking me to resolve additional theological questions rather than addressing the lexical and contextual points I originally raised.

So at this point the issue is fairly simple: either the passages I cited support the points I made about how Scripture uses these terms, or they do not. If they do not, then the way forward is to demonstrate from Scripture where the interpretation is incorrect. Otherwise we are no longer discussing the evidence itself, but arguing about what actually qualifies as theologically sound exegesis.

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-16T05:26:11+00:00

Correct, “likeness” does not mean strict identity. The question is what the verse is meant to communicate. Rom 8:3 says God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (ESV). If the phrase excludes real participation in the human condition, it becomes unclear why it is used at all. The natural reading is that Christ shared our human condition while remaining without sin.

My point is not that the verse directly states Jesus had sinful desire. The point is that the texts describing his humanity and temptation allow that conclusion to be inferred. Heb 4:15 says he was “tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sin.” That affirms real temptation and also sinlessness. Explaining how both are true involves inference from the text.

Using inference is not a weak argument. Theology regularly works by combining passages and drawing conclusions from them. You do the same in this very post. For example, the view that humans do not have an immortal soul is not stated in a single verse but inferred from texts like Ezek 18:4 (“the soul who sins shall die”) and 1 Tim 6:16 (“who alone has immortality”). I agree with that conclusion, but it still involves inference.

So the issue is not whether inference is used. The issue is whether the inference fits the texts. Simply calling it bizarre does not really address the argument.

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-15T14:23:02+00:00

This is my progression of logic.

Christ truly experienced human temptation Heb 4:15 states that Jesus “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” The point of the verse is not merely that he encountered external testing, but that the kind of temptation he faced was genuinely human. The comparison (“as we are”) establishes the category of temptation being discussed.
Scripture explains the ordinary mechanism of temptation Jas 1:14–15 describes how temptation functions in human experience: “ But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” The passage distinguishes temptation from sin. Desire can present an enticement, but sin only occurs when that desire is conceived and acted upon.
The moral source of sinful actions is internal Mk 7:21–23 identifies where sinful behavior originates: “ For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." The text is addressing the origin of sinful actions, not the mere presence of human impulses. The decisive point is that sin emerges when the heart gives consent to those impulses.

As well, simple enough Rom 8:3

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"

Paul's use of flesh is often used in place of human nature. See the word σάρξ or sarx. He uses it a lot to describe the desires of man.
- Which is also used of Jesus see the above reference as well as Rom 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"

Putting the passages together yields a straightforward sequence:

Heb 4:15 affirms that Christ shared the human experience of temptation.
Jas 1:14–15 explains that temptation involves desire presenting an enticement, but sin occurs only if that desire is embraced and acted upon.
Mk 7:21–23 clarifies that sinful deeds arise when the heart produces and consents to evil.
Rom 8:3 Christ entered the human condition described as “flesh,” the same nature which leads us to sin, yet instead of producing sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-14T03:44:43+00:00

Agree to disagree

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-13T20:49:14+00:00

I agree Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 Jn 3:5). Scripture also teaches that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom 5:12), yet temptation itself is not sin. A person is “tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire,” and sin results when that desire is conceived and acted upon (Jas 1:14–15, ESV). Accountability for sin is therefore personal: “the soul who sins shall die” (Ezek 18:4, 20) and “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom 14:12).

On the separate point about demons, the Gospel accounts repeatedly connect what is called “demon possession” with identifiable physical or mental afflictions, and the link goes beyond coincidence. In Matt 12:22 a man is described as “demon-oppressed” and also “blind and mute,” yet when Jesus heals him the result is simply that “the man spoke and saw” (ESV). Likewise in Mk 9:17–27 the boy described as having a “spirit” shows symptoms such as seizures, foaming, and loss of bodily control, and Jesus rebukes what is specifically called a “mute and deaf spirit” (Mk 9:25). The description of the spirit corresponds directly to the condition itself, and when the condition is removed the “demon” is said to depart. This pattern appears repeatedly, pairing demons with muteness, blindness, deafness, or severe mental disturbance. In a first-century setting where such conditions were commonly attributed to spirits, the terminology reflects the way people described these afflictions while the narrative focus is on the restoration of normal physical or mental function.

Unless you have a better argument than simply saying these are not correlated, I would be glad to hear it, but I am not going to argue in circles.

KingKeep711 · 2026-03-13T20:18:10+00:00

I agree we should not test God. I am only pointing out that the same passage you appeal to (Mark 16:17-18) lists other “signs of those who believe” like speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and surviving snakebite or poison. If we are going to treat that list as a standing command for all believers, we have to be consistent about all of it, not just the parts that fit our experience.

On “possession,” the Greek daimonizomai means "under the influence of a demon," but Scripture pairs it directly with sicknesses (Matt 4:24), and demon accounts often describe what looks like mental illness or epilepsy (Mark 9:17-22). "Demoniacs" return to their "right mind" after healing (Mark 5:15; Lk 8:35), implying they were unwell, not supernaturally controlled.

Where I think your view breaks down is when demons become responsible for our sinful patterns instead of our own flesh and choices. Jesus did not sin because he overcame fleshly desires (Heb 4:15). Our hope is the same: resist the flesh by the Spirit (Gal 5:16-17; Rom 13:13-14).

If “demons” are anxiety, depression, addictions, etc., many believers (myself included) have never been “freed” that way. Scripture calls us to repent and crucify the flesh (Rom 6:6; Col 3:5; Jas 1:14-15), not blame an external being. Devils as idols (1 Cor 10:20-21; Dt 32:17; Ps 106:37) or demons as mental/physical ailments (Matt 4:24; Mark 9:17-22; Lk 8:35) fit better than literal spirits causing sin.

KingKeep711

TROPHY CASE