₦airaland Forum

If you read a book like Mythology: The Voyage of The Hero, by David Adams Leeming (1998), you’ll find that a number of stories in the Bible are similar to stories also found in other cultures. I see the recurrence of these stories as enhancing their authenticity and credibility. Who wants to keep on re-telling stories that are meaningless and foolish? And why would they be found in different places and survive many generations? Rather than attribute the existence of these stories to plagiarism, there is a simpler and better explanation: dispersal of Adam’s descendants who continued to re-tell these stories and with passage of time, they get variously modified in different cultures. Dr. Halley offered this more persuasive explanation after referencing other traditions, including Persian, Hindu, Greek, Chinese, Mongolians and Tibetans and the Teutons that have similar accounts of our first parents and the Garden of Eden. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (25th ed.) at p.93.

Thanks for mentioning Dragons' Den. Obviously, Mark Burnett, the British producer of Shark Tank (and other shows like the Voice and the new 10-part Bible series that debuted two sundays ago on the History Channel)was influenced by the UK's Dragons' Den, which in turn was influenced by the original version that started in Japan. This link not only says that but also states that there was a Nigerian version on AIT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons'_Den

God2man: Am i missing something? What about the money to execute the divine idea? I am not here to contradict an inspiring message, i am here to learn more, i stand to learn. Pls. Explain better.

God bless you.

God2man.

If you have a good idea, the money to bring it to fruition wil come. A whole industry exists to fund good projects, including angel investors, venture capitalists, investment banks and finance companies. Even in Nigeria, there are people that would support innovators for mutual benefit. In the US, there's a current TV program called "Shark Tank." People pitch their ideas (well, products or services) to 5-6 billionaire and millionaire investors who front all or part of the needed funds to grow the idea. Even when they reject your pitch, you could attract other investors who saw or head of the pitch. I know of a particular guy who was rejected, went on to attract another investor and has now done business of over $5 million dollars in a year or so.

Regarding the original post, I wote here about 2 years ago that the Isaac passage is not primarily about giving. It is about investing and hardwork. We tend to interpret "seed" and "sowing" ALL the time it appears in the Bible as symbolizing money. But I don't think that's correct. And even in cases that money is the secondary meaning, people tend to lose sight of the primary meaning. If people can develop a good relationship with God and also study widely, they'll come up with all the ideas, favor and resources they need to prosper. That's why Jesus said, seek first the kingdom and everything will be added to you. Then, they'll be in a better position to give abundantly and freely, instead of playing kalo-kalo with God and wondering why after many years of giving more and more, their lot has not changed.

christemmbassey: yes, that's the word 'REALITY', Jesus said "I am the way, the truth(reality) and the light....., again Jesus said "and ye shall know the TRUTH (reality) and the truth shall make xou free" jn 8:32(jkv). Now, what is the truth(reality)? For a christian, The truth is what God says and not what i feel, the bible (GOD'S word) says "my body is the temple of the holy ghost", that means, the holy ghost lives in me, i may not feel him, but he is there, and demons cant cohabitate with the holy ghost, that's the truth and another truth is, "as he thinketh, so is he", if u think, u are posses, u are posses, if u think u are sick, you are sick. The bible says "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship, one with another..,....1jn1:7(kjv) ie, if we walk in the reality of the WORD of God, there is a mingling/koinonia/oneness of God's Spirit with our spirit, then we now have this understanding, we may not see him, but he's there, we may not feel him, but he's there, i cant be afraid, intimidated, sick, possesed, or oppressed, it doesnt matter what i feel, see, smell, hear or taste, because i know, "there is therefor now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk NOT after FLESH but after the spirit"..... Rm8:1(kjv), "be not conform to this world(greek,aion) but be transformed(greek,metamorphoo) by the renewing of your MIND....Rm12:2, its a metamorphosis, be transformed, from that state of being oppressed, suppressed and possesed. James 1:25, says that the mam that will be blessed in his deeds is the man that hears and does not forget, So Face reality, and dont use a 'church goer' or "baby christian" experiences or 'flesh' to judge the truth about ur life as a christian. God bless you.

I read some of your posts on this topic and wonder whether you are for real or you're just trying to "shock" us. The self-contradictions therein are mind-boggling. You need some time to digest the word of God more fully. It pains me that many people are in bondage and they are not getting the help they need, partly because we're masking our powerlessness with sweet-sounding statements that are not properly grounded in the Word of God.

wordthots: My broda, sorry ds is coming alittle late been quite busy...
I love your line of Thought
I agree that my post seems alittle off balance cause for now I still go with Hagins position about this topic, but at this point I think I need more personal study on this...
About christians falling sick; most definitely christians can fall sick. It all boils down to knowing what christ has done through his finished work. Like you rightly said theirs the Vital and legal position. Not all christians their position in Christ...the reason a christian would still get oppressed by the devil is ignorance...the devil thrives on ignorance

Good points, my brother. I agree with you that the key issue is ignorance. Right from the Old Testament, God has made clear that His people are led into captivity because of lack of knowledge (Is. 5:13). Yet, an ignorant christian is still a christian. So, if we're saying that an ignorant or baby christian can be oppressed, we are saying a christian can be oppressed. Again on Hagin, he believes that a christian can be oppressed. What is interesting is that many of the things that are written here to make the contrary argument are based more or less on his teachings about new creation realities and the authority of the believer. Goes to show that we need to understand the complete point he's making. I agree with you that we need to continue study on this issue.

Snowwy: Hmmmmn. Very very reflective. What about desires which I believe could either be a need or a want? One thing is sure, our desires should align with God's will.

Good observation. God is ready and willing to meet not just our needs but also our wants. He expects us to help others and that can only happen constantly if we have an overflow - beyond our needs. If our wants are not realized, it is not because God has not promised such, but because they may be outside of God's will for us (at the time) or because our faith is not (yet) strong enough to appropriate them.

Bidam: @nlMediator, thank you for indept and incisive ANALYSIS of this topic. It shows you as a brother who rightly divides the WORD OF TRUTH.Some of our brothers who claim they have "abundance of revelations" have NOT told us their practical and personal experiences in the FIELD out there. Like i said Christianity is not only revelational but also EXPERIENTIAL.

Yes, my brother, I'm really waiting to hear of those experiences. I have a feeling that many people that aspire to be Bible teachers have very little experience in the field. They have beautiful ideas that have not been tested. When people suggest that a christian bound by demons should simply shake it off or resist the devil, they miss the crucial point that some of those christians have already gone past that stage. That is, they are too weak to fight on ther own. What they need is freedom from the bondage, at which point they can maintain their victory by resisting any further attacks. Of course, that's not to say that some forms of demonic intrusion cannot be resisted. But that's not a basis for confusing such situations with those in which the evil spirit needs to be cast out. I also sense that many people here are confusing our LEGAL position in Christ with our REAL ("vital" position. The legal is the ideal that we can work toward so we can experience fully all that Jesus has for us. But we also know that not everybody is working or walking at the same pace. The devil may trip some people up and it's no consolation to tell them they were never saved or that they need no help and that it's all in their power to shake it off.

reveal: Our Lord Jesus, told a story of what happens to a man whom evil spirit has been driven out in Mat 12:43, how the unclean spirit comes back to see the place vacant and gets 7 spirits more evil than him to occupy that man.This happened because the man the evil spirit met him empty.
A Christian is one who has accepted Jesus to come and live in him and be Lord over his life. He is not empty, so an evil spirit cannot come and dwell in him or oppress him in anyway, because Jesus who is stronger dwells in him(the christian). He is not a christian just because he attends church.
Many people in Nigeria are being deceived by so-called deliverance preachers, because the have not truly received the gospel that saves. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Christians do not need deliverance, they need to be taught the word of God. That is what Paul did when he noticed unwholesome attitude in the Corinthians and Galatians, he did not organise deliverance sessions for them

Several things make one uncomfortable with your post. First, you're convinced you know who qualifies as a christian. So, the moment the person is OPPRESSED by the devil, you conclude he was never a christian. Where does the Bible teach that we know we have passed from death to life if we're never subject to the devil's attack? Second, you talk of the house being empty. Sure, that's in reference to the spirit. A christian cannot be possessed because his spirit has the Holy Ghost resident there and is not empty. But you are making a giant leap from that conclusion to the next, which is that his body is not subject to attack. Third, deliverance and its abuse is not a Nigerian thing. It exists in other parts of the world. In fact, Hagin wrote AGAINST endless deliverance sessions decades ago in the US. But he still accepted that christians can be set free from demonic attacks. In addition to preaching renewal of the mind with the word, probably more than anybody in the past 100 years. Finally, Paul approached the Corinthians the way he did, probably because he had already cast demons out of them before salvation. With the works of the flesh and other effects of demonic activity, they needed God's word. Look closely at Paul's ministry and you see that casting out demons was so prevalent that even the sons of Sceva tried to mimic him. When was the last time that an unbeliever tired to mimic you or any pastor about casting demons? That's because it's not what we do that often these days.

Goshen360: This question carries two sides.

1. A christian has been delivered from sickness....That is, If the 'sickness' is in question is demon inflicted in the first place or caused by demons. Not all sickness needs deliverance in order to go or be cured. We need to understand those Jesus healed or cured their sickness were not Christians yet. Hence, it is okay to heal the sick, cast OUT demons out of those who are not Christians.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. - Luke 13:11

2. Can a christian fall sick? ....simple answer, YES! But will all sickness need deliverance?....simple answer, NO! Is all sickness caused by devil or demons? .....the simple answer is NO!




Looking from scriptures, I DO NOT think a 'Christian' can be OPPRESSED in a sense of evil spirit DWELLING IN THE BODY OR SOUL. If your question was, if a Christian can be HARASSED or OPPRESSED from the OUTSIDE\EXTERNAL, that would have YES, because a Christian can be harassed or oppressed from the OUTSIDE by demons\devils BUT not DWELLING IN HIS BODY OR SOUL.....because scripture says, the BODY is the temple of the Holy Spirit and when we become Christians, we're given the MIND of Christ (Philippians 2:5, KJV) which requires constant renewal in the word of God.




Gift of discerning is for within the church and outside the church. But remember, not all who attend worship places are Christians. An unbeliever can come worship among Christians also.

I appreciate your answers, though #3 is incomplete.

1. Sickness can be caused by natural causes or by evil spirits. The Bible makes clear that part of our redemption package is deliverance from sickness. Yet, christians fall sick all the time. First, are you suggesting that all sicknesses and diseases suffered can only be attributed to natural causes and never caused by evil spirits? Do you have Scripture for the assertion? Second, assuming all of these sicknesses suffered by christians are due to natural causes, it still leaves the question as to how a christian can fall sick when he has already been delivered FOR ALL TIME through the finished work of Christ. If what one has been delivered from (sickness) can still show up, how is it not be possible that another thing a christian has been delivered from (demon powers) can still show up? If you're insisting that Jesus has delivered us and we cannot have what He has delivered us from, then you have to apply that to sickness and also argue that a christian cannot fall sick. But you know you cannot.

2. The Bible says our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But we know that the Holy Spirit does not live in our physical body. He lives in our spirit. Our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit only in the sense that our body houses our spirit which then houses the Holy Spirit. Again, using sickness as an example, how can sickness co-exist with the Holy Spirit if both of them exist in the BODY of the christian? That's not possible.

3. You have not answered the second part of the discerning of spirits gift, which is whether it can be used for the benefit of christians. You suggested that it can be used in the church, but only on those congregants in the church who are not really christians. Do you have scriptural support for this? Does this position of yours apply to any of the remaining gifts of the spirit or did God single out discerning of spirits for non-application to true christians?

^^^
Again, you're beginning to act like a master prevaricator! At no point did the brother say that ALL sickness is caused by demons. Yet, in your response, you read that into his post. All the while not making clear whether you believe SOME sickness is caused by demons! Such a method of discussion certainly does not advance knowledge.

On my own part, I asked a number of questions (restated below) but have received no direct answer from any of you, even in the midst of a multitude of posts. How can people learn, if issues are not directly addressed?

1. A christian has been delivered from sickness. Can a christian fall sick?

2. Can a christian be oppressed in the sense of an evil spirit dwelling in his body or soul (not spirit)?

3. Does the gift of discerning of spirits operate in the church (among christians) or is it given only for addressing needs of non-christians?

Very simple answers would suffice!

Goshen360: Well, I cannot verify this story but I can verify scriptures. The clear point in this story is the man was harrassed, tormented and oppressed NOT POSSESSED. To be harrassed, tormented and oppressed are EXTERNAL while to be possessed is INTERNAL. Like the story says, he saw the demon OUTSIDE the man's body not INSIDE the man. My point is very clear, NO DEMONS CAN LIVE INSIDE A CHRISTIAN AT THE PERFECT GIFT OF SALVATION.

In other words, you accept that the man here needed deliverance? Because that's the only logical conclusion from your answer. So, why the argument that the christian does not need deliverance? Or you think deliverance from oppression is not deliverance and that deliverance can only be used in the case of possession?

I understand you cannot verify the story. That's why I told you there are many more like that. I'd be interested in hearing of your own experiences from the field - seeing demons operating in people's lives and telling them they are mere church goers or that they should just 'shake it off' like Paul.

I'm sorry to say, but some of you are adding unnecessary confusion to the issue. Nobody is arguing with you that the Holy Spirit lives in the spirit of the christian. Therefore, a christian cannot be possessed - that is, have an evil spirit living in his spirit. The question is whether there are other operations of evil spirits, short of possession, in the life of a christian for which he would need deliverance. What I see is dancing around the issue and erecting straw men. Simply answer the question: Can an evil spirit temporarily reside in the body or soul of a christian and cause him calamities, ailments, and other problems? If Yes, can such a christian be delivered from such hold of darkness? Please note that my question is not about the works of the flesh. So, don't distract us with that.

Goshen360: On the highlight in RED, who is this person? A Christian or just a church goer? If your definition is that, ...it enables a CHRISTIAN to see...Now, can one Christians be POSSESSED and another seeing devils in the other?

On the highlight in BLACK - Your second paragraph immediately answers the first highlight. If someone is delivered BEFORE salvation, tell me what deliverance such person constantly go for again. That's the whole point I've been making. It is those that are not saved yet and washed in the blood of Christ that needs deliverance. They don't keep going for deliverance AFTER the are saved and become Christians. Hence, you don't read such among the early church fathers.

On your questions about discerning of spirits, I'll recount this story by Kenneth Hagin. He went to preach - I believe it was in Oregon - in the late 1950s. A little while before that, Jesus had appeared to him to tell him that the gift of discerning of spirits would start manifesting in his ministry. So, while ministering in Oregon, one man came up for prayers. He recounted his problem. Hagin asked him if he was a christian. He said he was saved and had received the in-filling of the Holy Spirit. After praying for the man, Hagin asked him to go and sit down. He sat down on the front row. While Hagin was ministering to others, he looked in the man's direction and saw a monkey-like creature - an evil spirit - sitting or standing on the man's head with his hands in a vice-like fashion. Hagin called the man to come up again. He then commanded the evil spirit to leave. The evil spirit responded by saying that he guessed he'd have to leave if Hagin wants him to, but that he did not want to. Hagin insisted that the spirit leave. People in the church were listening to what Hagin was saying but were not seeing the spirit. The spirit left and the man felt free - physically. I think he had a kind of mental problem. Hagin said 14 years later when he saw the man, he was still free.

The point is that this man was not possessed in his spirit by the evil spirit. But he was harrassed, tormented and oppressed by this spirit. It took somebody operating in cooperation with the Holy Spirit to set him free. From what I'm hearing from you guys, this man is either not a christian or the story cannot be true. That's pretty convenient, if you ask me. Because a number of people doing God's work in the field can recount countless similar stories.

ifeness: And the main problem is these people are deep into their religion, they remain servants to their INVINCIBLE god and his preachers. This to me is a waste of life and permanent form of slavery. They are forever in a school they will never graduate from. How could anyone be a student forever? Poor things!

For an "intellectual" discussion, I am not sure whether you are referring to an "invincible" or an "invisible" God. Clarity and correct usage of terms are essential to a demonstration of intellectual prowess.

The vision is consistent with the Bible. Hagin said himself that he told Jesus in the vision that he would not believe what He was saying unless Jesus could support it from Scriptures. And Jesus did. That's the safe way to go. There are many visions that are contrary to the written Word of God and following such could be dangerous.

"Keep going for deliverance" and "going for deliverance" are 2 different things. The issue is whether a christian can ever at any point be demonized and therefore in need of deliverance. Do you think that's a possibility at all? You misunderstood the bolded portion. I was saying that demons were cast out of people often in the early church before they received Jesus into their lives. Today, we ask people to receive Jesus often without casting out the devils first. When such people receive Jesus, do the demons immediately disappear or should these new christians be prayed for to get the demons out of them? In addition, for christians that for whatever reason are not strong in the Lord, even though they have been saved for years, can demons attach themselves to those christians either through their weakness OR because of wrong associations or actions (engaging in sexual perversion, joining the occult, etc)? What I see some of you say is that people are constantly going for deliverance but that does not address the crucial question.

wordthots: Sis are you speaking based on God’s word or based on traditions because last time I checked the believer has been delivered from most of these things, pls check out the following scriptures

1. Colossians 1:13- [The Father] has delivered and drawn us to Himself out of the control and the dominion of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of His love (AMP)

Col. 2:15- [God] disarmed the principalities and powers that were ranged against us and made a bold display and public example of them, in triumphing over them in Him and in it [the cross].

2.Galatians 3:13- Christ purchased our freedom [redeeming us] from the curse (doom) of the Law [and its condemnation] by [Himself] becoming a curse for us, for it is written [in the Scriptures], Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (is crucified)

Romans 8:30- For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was aware and loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren.

My dear we belong to God’s family now and there are no curses in that family lineage

3. 2Corinthians 2:14- But thanks be to God, Who in Christ always leads us in triumph [as trophies of Christ's victory] and through us spreads and makes evident the fragrance of the knowledge of God everywhere

You are victorious already with or without deliverance, you just need to walk in this consciousness of who you are in Christ Jesus.

4. Heb. 2:14- Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death--that is, the devil—

5. 2pet.1:4- For His divine power has bestowed upon us all things that [are requisite and suited] to life and godliness, through the [full, personal] knowledge of Him Who called us by and to His own glory and excellence (virtue).

What possession again do you need?

6. John 10:10- The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have and enjoy life, and have it in abundance (to the full, till it overflows)

The day you got born again you were totally restored, there’s no more capturing my dear

7. John 8:32- And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free

Galatians 5:16- But I say, walk and live [habitually] in the [Holy] Spirit [responsive to and controlled and guided by the Spirit]; then you will certainly not gratify the cravings and desires of the flesh (of human nature without God)

On this(habits) I agree that a believer might need “deliverance” but not through deliverance sessions but through God’s word by constant meditation. Just like Romans 12:2.

8 & 9. Eph. 2:6- And He raised us up together with Him and made us sit down together [giving us joint seating with Him] in the heavenly sphere [by virtue of our being] in Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One).

Eph. 1:20-21- Which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His [own] right hand in the heavenly [places], Far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named [above every title that can be conferred], not only in this age and in this world, but also in the age and the world which are to come.

God put Christ far above ALL authority and power and we seated together with Christ, meaning we are also far above. My dear where you are there are no yokes, satanic bondages, satanic spells and also satanic dreams have no power over you if you know your rights as a believer in Christ.

Colossians 3:3- For [as far as this world is concerned] you have died, and your [new, real] life is hidden with Christ in God

10. 2Corinthians 5:17- Therefore if any person is [ingrafted] in Christ (the Messiah) he is a new creation (a new creature altogether); the old [previous moral and spiritual condition] has passed away. Behold, the fresh and new has come.

Colossians 1:13- [The Father] has delivered and drawn us to Himself out of the control and the dominion of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of His love (AMP)

There are no faulty foundations anymore, you have been recreated in Christ unto goodworks

Hope this is helpful….Pls do a study on Pauls epistles for more about who you are and what you have in Christ. Also, I will like to recommend a book Triumphant Church by Kenneth Hagin, it helped me a lot back then.

Godbless

Kenneth Hagin taught a different thing from your position. He clearly believed that a christian can be oppressed, but not possessed.

I also think that you're misapplying the Scriptures you quoted. To make clearer, I have a simple question for you: Acts 10:38 says that Jesus went about healing those oppressed of the devil. So, we know that sickness can be an oppression of the devil. We also know that we have been redeemed from sickness. Now, do you believe a christian can be sick - caused directly or indirectly by the devil?

OK. My understanding is that it is a gift of the Spirit of God that enables a christian to see spirits in operation. It can help you distinguish between the Spirit of God and false spirits. It includes ability to see the particular demons in operation in a person's life and over a given situation; at which point, they can readily be cast out.

BTW, regarding your earlier point about not seeing christians in the early church going for deliverance, I believe it is because the church had a consistent practice of casting demons out of people before salvation. Thus, the question of deliverance became moot.

[/b][quote author=Goshen360][b]@wordthots, whatz up son (of God)! I can see you are doing very very well, being grounded in scriptures. The truth is, many Christians are very far from the RICHES and BLESSEDNESS of believers in the New Testament still married to the Old; hence, they must come up with stuffs like deliverance for Christians. I don't see any believer in the early church going for deliverance session. Many Pastors are fueling the error also knowing that's what sells and what the people want. Take a look at this, ]

So the fact you don't see any christian going for deliverance in the early church is dispositive? I hope you apply it to all theological issues, but I know you do not.

The simple question I need an answer to is this: the gift of discerning of spirits in I Cor. 12, is it meant to apply only outside of the church? And please I'd appreciate answers from you and others from the Scriptures.

In Acts 8, I see some facts that perhaps explain the puzzle of whether Christians can be oppressed (primarily in their body) or obsessed (primarily in their soul – mind, will, emotions) by the devil and thus need to be set free. And why the NT church does not seem to have much record on deliverance of, or casting out of demons from, Christians.

1. The early Church combined casting out of demons and the message of salvation. Acts 8: 4-8 shows Philip preaching the word and casting out demons. This caused many to pay close attention to him. And many got saved. Lesson #1: If the gospel message is preceded by deliverance, those that are set free and then get saved at that point would not need deliverance anymore. This seems to be a pattern in the early church that is largely missing today. We simply preach the message and people line up for salvation, without much deliverance activity prior to that. Comparing the experiences of the early and modern church in this respect is therefore inapt, as results are bound to vary.

2. Philip cast out demons and people believed. That looks like an inefficient process, if salvation always wipes out demonization automatically. Why waste hours – multiplied over months and years - casting out demons when you can get the same people saved and the demons would leave immediately. Lesson #2: There must be a reason for this 2-tiered process and one plausible reason is that some of those people would have undergone deliverance after salvation, if the demons had not left upon getting saved.

3. Philip conducted deliverance on unsaved people. If this people got saved, they stayed free from demons. If they did not get saved, they lacked the power and authority to keep the devil away from their lives. The evil spirits would come back, just as Jesus taught (about evil spirits coming back stronger when the house if swept and dry). So, of what value is this approach of delivering unbelievers? One possible answer is that it would be a sign that validates Philip’s ministry and converts the sinners. That may be right. But can’t Philip accomplish the same things – validation and conversion – by preaching salvation? Once the people are saved and automatically free of demons, those that knew them before then would see the difference and flock to Philip. So, there may be other explanations to examine. Lesson #3: Casting out demons from pre-saved people may be driven by the understanding that the demons will be cast out after salvation. Since the 2-stage process may be needed, it would make sense to start, rather than end, with deliverance, as people see the signs and salvation becomes easier with the devil out of the way.

4. Simon the sorcerer became a believer and was baptized. Acts 8.13. When he sought to buy the gift of laying on of hands to fill people with the Holy Spirit, Peter rebuked him. Acts 8: 20-23. Verse 23 is instructive. I read it in various translations, but found the Amplified Version very striking: “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in a bond forged by iniquity [to fetter souls].” AV then references Is. 58:6. Two things become clear. Peter seems to be saying that Simon is in bondage to the devil, the one who fetters, bounds or chains souls. Second, Is. 58:6 that AV sees as being linked to this verse is commonly understood to be talking of demonic oppression or captivity and that fasting is an instrument for breaking such bondage. Lesson #4: Some new Christians, especially those that were involved in occult activity before salvation, may still be under bondage and should seek freedom. Ditto, Christians who dabble into the occult and other dark activities such as undergoing initiation into some fraternity after salvation may have unwittingly enslaved themselves to the devil and such ensnared beings would need any demons resident in their body or souls – or disturbing them from the outside – to be cast out.

5. Finally, as I continued to think on this issue, my attention was drawn to the gift of discerning of spirits in I Cor. 12. Nothing in that chapter or elsewhere in the Bible says that that gift (or any of the 9 gifts) is to be exercised only outside the Church and for the benefit of non-christians. If we can discern spirits in operation in Christians, wouldn’t that include cases of oppression and obsession?

Chuksxp: The thing about Simon is that he never was a true Christian. Yea sure, v.13 says that he believed. But that's no different from the "easy believism" we see rampant today. People who merely believe in Jesus but don't truly repent of sin. And of course, we saw Peter's testimony of Simon. He said to Him, "...your heart is not right before God... you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." This doesn't sound like a Christian attribute to me.

In addition, Simon was a sorcerer before the he heard the Apostle preach the gospel. So, obviously he wasn't a Christian when the devil was working heavily on him.

I admit that for a moment I thought the same way. But when I look at that scripture, it does not say that Simon "fakely" believed. What I see is that he believed AND was baptized. At no point all this time before Peter arrived when he was there in the community was the genuineness of his christianity challenged. He had a lot to lose by turning to Christ and Bible seems to indicate that he was convinced and converted by Philip's work.

Besides, what do you think of the gift of discerning of spirits in I Cor. 12? Is it meant to discern false spirits in unbelievers? Seeing that the gift is there to discern and distinguish between false and true spirits, couldn't that be quite relevant for people that have both kinds of spirits operating in their lives?

Chuksxp: The thing about Simon is that he never was a true Christian. Yea sure, v.13 says that he believed. But that's no different from the "easy believism" we see rampant today. People who merely believe in Jesus but don't truly repent of sin. And of course, we saw Peter's testimony of Simon. He said to Him, "...your heart is not right before God... you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." This doesn't sound like a Christian attribute to me.

In addition, Simon was a sorcerer before the he heard the Apostle preach the gospel. So, obviously he wasn't a Christian when the devil was working heavily on him.

I admit that for a moment I thought the same way. But when I look at that scripture, it does not say that Simon "fakely" believed. What I see is that he believed AND was baptized. At no point all this time before Peter arrived when he was there in the community was the genuineness of his christianity challenged. He had a lot to lose by turning to Christ and Bible seems to indicate that he was convinced and converted by Philip's work.

Besides, what do you think of the gift of discerning of spirits in I Cor. 12? Is it meant to discern false spirits in unbelievers? Seeing that the gift is there to discern and distinguish between false and true spirits, couldn't that be quite relevant for people that have both kinds of spirits operating in their lives?

Bidam: God bless you bro... A balanced understanding of scriptures...the Christian faith is both revelational and experiential.

Appreciate your contribution. I can see christians are suffering and a proper understanding of this will help us all.

I am all for the view that we need to pattern our lives after the NT church and anchor our beliefs on what is written in the New Testament. I caution, however, against the danger of extremes, which lead us into thinking that something is right or wrong simply because we cannot find an example of it in the NT. For one, the Bible is both a revelational and “historical” book, by which I mean that the Bible contains stories of events from which certain principles can be distilled. Yet, the Bible is not about manufacturing stories. In other words, if something did not happen, the Bible may not tell about it. If early Christians were not demonized, the Bible cannot include such stories. The conclusion we draw then may be that Christians cannot be demonized. But it could also be that the early Christians were not demonized. That would call for us to dig deeper and find out why, instead of sticking to one, and discounting any other plausible, explanation.

All my Christian life, I would say that I have been more sympathetic with the side that states that a Christian cannot be oppressed or obsessed (I think everybody believes that a Christian cannot be possessed – which is full control by the devil – so I leave that). Of late, I’m not quick to dismiss the opposing view. And I thought about this question of whether Christians need deliverance, something dropped in my heart asking: “what of Simon the sorcerer?” To tell you the truth, it’s been long since I read his story and I don’t think I’ve ever studied it. I decided to go to Acts 8 and also do a bit of Bible study on that story. I’ll share what I learnt subsequently. I’ll like my brothers and sisters here to join me in the study. I’m not claiming any deep revelation and I certainly do not want to mislead anybody.

I should also add that if I want to go by experience, I can conclude today that Christians can be demonized and need freedom if they find themselves in such a state. But I do not want to base my position primarily on experience. Without the support of the Word of God, I’d be bothered about any experience, no matter how beautiful and well-intentioned it is.

What am I missing here? You open a thread on how America was not founded by christians and here you are getting spiritual advice from one of the founding fathers - one notoriously known for not being a christian or even a theist? I hope you do not live in ConfusionVille.

frosbel: He is speaking a foreign language which no one in the congregation at that particular time and place can understand.

Therefore, for the sake of order, it is better he speaks with this foreign tongue when there is an interpreter, otherwise he will be praising God in a language which no one can understand except God.

Read also verses 10 - 13

This is absolutely poor reasoning on your part. Paul was giving instructions about future church meetings. How on earth does he or anyone know who will attend and what language they'll speak for him to categorically claim that nobody in a church meeting would be able to understand what is spoken in a known language? It's like telling a Congregation in Lagos not to speak in tongues because one is likely to speak in Russian and there would be nobody there to understand you. How do you know there would be no Russian or Russian speaker there? And since it is obvious Paul was not saying the tongues were false, why is it that God would only choose to give only those natural languages that nobody can undersand at the meeting? I'm sorry your interpretation of that particular scripture does not make an iota of sense.

wordthots: At Jo, thanks Bro


4 Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows[a] that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins!

5 But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.

6 All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him
the sins of us all.

I used to be of the same opinion that it was referring to physical healing, but right now I don't think so, I'm still doing my study on it though.

If you look thru the verses, it seems to follow same line of thought. The verses seem to have the same undertone, which is sin. In 1 pet 2:24 its the same, its like the writers were referring to healing not necessarily in the physical sense, but more like "spiritual" ( for lack of a better word) healing. The healing looks figurative.

Ofcourse this isn't to say that healing and health isn't part of the package like you rightly said. I believe its Gods will for us to live in health and be well. Jesus is the same yesteday today and forever; He did it then, he will do it now.
But I'm not so sure this was referring to physical healing, I still stand to be corrected though.

Is. 53:4-5 is primarily about physical healing. In Matt. 8:16 the Bible says that Jesus cast out demons with His word and healed all the sick, thereby fufilling Isaiah's prophecy in 53:4. There was no question in Matthew's mind that it was physical healing that was in reference.

I value your contribution to the debate. Happy to leave the discussion at this point too, with these few comments.

The girl could have consented, even if slapped in anger, if such things happen at deliverance sessions at that church and she went there knowing that that is a possibility.

It was not just a one-word response to the subjective standard diversion. It was a word that suggested you considered it a home run!

There was nothing misleading about my commentary on the case. The player knew there were holes in the field, but did not know about that particular hole. Similarly, somebody may know about rough deliverance tactics, but can't claim he did not choose one of those particular tactics (hole in the field). As you rightly said, he knew there were holes there. Same could be said of any person that goes to a church that conducts deliverance by slapping. The subjective standard that was misstated earlier would hold neither the player nor the the girl here responsible. After all, many educated and smart people would not play in such a dangerous basketball court.

Yes, the player was held partly responsible. We've discussed contributory negligence on this thread which shares responsibility.

The private deliverance session was not in reference to you. The person that softened his stance knows himself.

I appreciate your kind words, re my resourcefulness!!

Enigma:
If a court finds consent to being slapped (by the wolf in sheep clothing of a pastor) on the part of the girl in that video on the basis of known facts, then the court is incompetent being either unsound on the law or lacking integrity. QED

Said on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law.

I like the the crafty qualifier - "on the basis of known facts". Meaning that additional facts, not now known to the discussant, may change the picture. And that was exactly what I told him in my FIRST response to him on this issue. But he chose to journey along, to prove a non-existent claim. Now, he has come full circle to accept what he should have accepted earlier. And saved us all the bytes and bandwith.

Court of Claims of New York.
Robert BRAITHWAITE, Claimant,
v.
STATE of New York, Defendant.
No. 109578.
June 26, 2009.

*1 The Court finds, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Defendant is 50% responsible for personal injuries sustained by Claimant, Robert Braithwaite, on June 7, 2003 when he slipped, tripped and fell while playing basketball in the upper gymnasium at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility (“Arthur Kill”), located in Staten Island, New York. The State failed to address a dangerous condition of which it had notice. The Court also concludes, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Claimant is 50% responsible for his injury on account of his decision to play basketball on the defective court. Claimant alleges that, as a result of his fall, his ankle fractured.

A bifurcated trial, addressing liability issues only, was held on February 10, 2009 in New York, New York. There were three witnesses: Claimant; Michael Brown, a witness to the accident; and Gerald Carlo, a special education teacher at Arthur Kill. Thereafter, the parties requested and were granted additional time to submit post-trial memoranda.

FACTS
The two eyewitnesses, Claimant and Michael Brown, a fellow inmate and basketball player, agree about the particulars of the accident. A basketball game had been in progress for about 45 minutes on the one full basketball court in Arthur Kill's upper gym (Tr., pp. 9–10). Mr. Brown testified that he was standing about 18 feet away from Claimant, who, in turn, was located 15 or 20 feet from the basket, toward the base line (Tr., pp. 19–20). Claimant was defending against another player who had the ball. Mr. Brown remembered Claimant “jumping up in the air and coming down and landing on the floor” (Tr., p. 10). He did not recall any contact between Claimant and the player he was defending against at the time that Mr. Braithwaite left his feet (Tr., pp. 20–21). Claimant testified, “I jumped up in the air to intercept the pass. And I fell. My [left] heel went into the hole and I fell. I fell. I fell on my left side and I sat up. And when I sat up, I[saw] the hole right there” (Tr., p. 29; see also p. 37). Claimant agreed that it was the only hole on that portion of the basketball court (Tr., p. 38). Mr. Brown said that, when the players came over to check on Claimant, “you could see there was a hole in the floor” where he was sitting (Tr., p. 11).

Mr. Brown described the hole as a missing “piece of slat,” measuring about five inches long and perhaps two inches wide (Tr., p. 11). He said that the area was “worn” and that “the hole had been there a while” (Tr., p. 11). Claimant also said that a portion of board “wasn't on the floor,” which he reckoned to be perhaps three or four inches long, two inches wide, and an inch or two deep (Tr., p. 30). Mr. Brown did not see Claimant's foot land in the hole, but said that he was lying right next to it when Mr. Brown went over to him (Tr., pp. 11–12, 22–23). Claimant, likewise, testified that he did not actually see his heel go into the hole because his eyes were on the ball, “but I felt it,” and when he sat up he saw “a hole right next to my foot” (Tr., p. 30; see also p. 37). Several players carried Claimant down stairs and he was taken to the infirmary.

*2 Claimant and Mr. Brown both testified that they had played basketball on that court many times prior to June 7, 2003 (Tr., pp. 18–19, 31). Neither witness could say that he had seen the particular hole prior to the date of the accident, but each said there were several holes on that floor (Tr., pp. 13, 32, 36). Claimant testified “[t]o be honest with you, the floor was in bad shape. There [were] holes all over the floor” (Tr., pp. 32–33). They both agreed that they voluntarily chose to go to the gym that day to play basketball (Tr., pp. 23–24, 37). Mr. Brown also agreed that inmates had a choice as to whether to go to an outdoor yard or to the gymnasium for recreation (Tr., p. 17). Claimant noted, however, that the “outdoor court was in worse condition than the indoor , Listen, nobody would be playing outside, it was a cement floor with a whole bunch of holes and pitches and valleys and nobody played outside” (Tr., pp. 33–34). Both witnesses agreed that: the gym was not cordoned off; prisoners were not prohibited from using it; and there were no warning signs to watch for holes in the floor (Tr., pp. 24, 34).

Gerald Carlo had been a special-needs teacher at Arthur Kill for 27 years in June 2003. In the months preceding the accident, Mr. Carlo had been asked by Arthur Kill's administration to be on the facility's health and safety committee. In that capacity, he inspected the gym and was asked to provide a layperson's assessment of health and safety issues in that portion of the facility, where he did not normally have occasion to visit.

He filed monthly safety and environmental services inspection reports in February, March, May, and again in June 2003 containing his observations (Tr., pp. 42, 44–45; see Exs. 1–4). The written reports cite the gym floor as a safety hazard, in poor condition, with holes and weak spots in the floor (Exs.1–4). Mr. Carlo testified that, if he saw more than nine holes, then he noted holes in the gym floor on his reports, though he did not keep records of the exact number, size, depth or location of those holes (Tr., pp. 52, 54). He based his observations upon walks around the perimeter of the gym because there were always a couple of hundred inmates in the gym playing basketball, handball, or exercising, when he made his inspections (though he agreed that only 10 people would play on the basketball court during a game). He stated that, for security reasons, he was not allowed to visit the gym at other times (Tr., pp. 51, 64–66, 70). Mr. Carlo also made oral reports to the committee, chaired by Kathleen Gerbing, Arthur Kill's Deputy for Administration (Tr., p. 47).

LAW
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, Claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that: (1) Defendant owed Claimant a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) Defendant's breach of that duty was a substantial factor in the events that caused the injury suffered by Claimant .

*3 The State has a duty to maintain its facilities “in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk,” with foreseeability constituting the measure of liability.

That duty extends to the State's institutions, including its correctional facilities. The State is not an insurer of the safety of its inmates, however, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the occurrence of an accident. Moreover, a claimant has the duty to use reasonable care to observe his or her surroundings, to see what is there to be seen and to avoid accidents.

In order to establish a breach of that duty in a slip and fall case, it is incumbent upon Claimant to establish that: (1) a dangerous condition existed; (2) Defendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and failed to alleviate the condition within a reasonable time; and (3) such condition was a substantial factor in the events that caused the injury suffered by Claimant.

With respect to dangerous or defective conditions, there is no minimal dimension test or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable. Rather, it is generally a question for the trier of fact to determine whether such conditions exist based upon “facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance' of the injury”. Some physical defects, however, may be too trivial and slight in nature to be actionable. Where the condition is open and obvious, “the condition is a warning in itself”.

*4 “When an injury arises in the context of a sporting activity, the question of assumption of risk must be considered” to determine whether that doctrine precludes or limits liability ( Masline v. State of New York, Ct Cl, Claim No. 104521, March 31, 2004, Hard, J. [UID No.2004–032–502] ). Two categories of assumption of risk must be distinguished. One “is akin to comparative negligence; it does not bar recovery, but diminishes recovery in the proportion to which [the culpable conduct attributable to a claimant] contributed to the injuries” sustained. The other, is the “primary” assumption of risk doctrine. It asserts that when claimants voluntarily engage in sporting or recreational activities, they may be deemed to have consented “to those injury-causing events, conditions, and risks which are inherent in the activity”. Defendants are relieved from liability “when a consenting participant is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” (“The doctrine also has been extended to the condition of the playing surface. If an athlete is injured as a result of a defect in, or feature of, the field, court, track, or course upon which the sport is being played, the owner of the premises will be protected by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk as long as [the] risk presented by the condition is inherent in the sport”)

As Chief Judge Cardozo stated 80 years ago, “ Volenti non fit injuria. One who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary”

DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of all the evidence, including a review of the exhibits and listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so, the Court finds that Claimant has met his burden, and established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant was negligent in connection with his fall at Arthur Kill. At the same time, as discussed below, the Court further determines that Claimant must bear equal culpability for his accident. Each of the witnesses provided credible and forthright testimony.

Claus:
Individuals need to make up their minds and be consistent, but conclusions do not have to be unanimous. I referred to the "reasonable" principle in the Wikipedia article that YOU cited. I'm not sure how that has been translated into "everybody, citing and linking their discussions to the Wikipedia article" or advice about people needing to make up their minds about the quality of Wikipedia.

Presumably the native doctor was not liable, in a civil case, because the victim consented to the gunshot test. Brings us full circle to the question of whether the "witch" consented to being slapped.

I'm curious about the criminal element of the native doctor case though because surely that sort of manslaughter must still be a crime - somewhat similar to the euthanasia (mercy killing) laws in the UK, where it is still a crime even if the victim consented.

I didn't attack you for mentioning the wikipedia link I provided. I was only trying to confirm its utility, despite relentless attacks to the contrary.

I don't think the crminal aspect is relevant to our discussion. So, I'd rather leave it out.

On whether the girl consented, the truth is that nobody knows, without additional facts. Which is what I've hearped on since the start. Those who presume to know what the girl consented to or what usually obtains in that church are free to continue in that direction. Although I can see some softening in accepting that it may be different if it was a private deliverance session. We never heard such distinction earlier, even when opportunities to do so presented themselves.

Another thing is that I see you bought into the subjective standard diversion. The reality, however, is that you guys are misstating and misapplying the subjective standard. The principle is that if you know of danger and walk into it, you’re responsible. It’s not that if you know there’s danger, but you do not expect the danger to apply to you, you’re free of blame and the other party is responsible for the resulting danger. If you have a church (not saying Oyedepo’s church is one) that believes in deliverance by occasional slaps, advertizes the same on TV and you walk into that church for deliverance and are slapped, it would be ridiculous to claim that even though you knew of the deliverance slaps, you’re too reasonable to expect that to happen to you. However, if the church does not usually administer slaps or you did not know of that, or the practice is so unreasonable, and so you did not reasonably expect a slap, volenti will not avail the defendant. That’s the proper application of the subjective standard. If you have authorities to the contrary, please provide. And I’ll provide at least 20 authorities to support my own position.

For a start, there's this fairly recent case in New York. A prison inmate was injured in an indoor basketball court. He fell into a hole in the floor, that he likely did not even know existed. Subjectively, he could not have consented to it. But the court still held him partially responsible, relying on volenti. The case is Braithwaite v. State, 26 Misc.3d 1239(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 435 (Table)N.Y.Ct.Cl.,2009 (June 26, 2009). I'll provide more facts on it in a separate post for those interested.

Claus:
Touche.

This is what I said in my initial post on this issue: "If you submit yourself to certain situations, you take what normally goes with it. Volenti non fit injuria."

And we know the girl has not consented to being slapped, how? Knowing that consent could be express or implied.