Then entered Satan...

[Amulek]

So, as fate would have it, the interfaith bible study that I frequently participate in just happened to be covering the same material as Come Follow Me this past week.

The topic we happened to linger on related to what they referred to as the "other guest" at the last supper. The scriptures state:

     Luke 22:3 - Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

     John 13:27 - And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

The common interpretation among most of my friends was that Satan was physically present at the last supper and that he literally possessed Judas - possibly twice since the two accounts differ on when they say Satan entered into him.

I have to confess, I have never seriously considered that as a real possibility. I mean, 'the devil made me do it' sounds very much like a cop-out to me, and I always just assumed this was an instance where the gospel writers were projecting their own after-the-fact explanation / justification into the account. John in particular seems to do this with some regularity.

Still, it made me wonder. If Satan was really in possession of Judas, then when Christ says, "That thou doest, do quickly," is he really talking to Satan at that point and not Judas? And why would he suffer one of his apostles to be possessed and not cast the devil out from his midst? And is Judas really even a "son of perdition" as John later recounts Christ as having said, or was he really just talking about Satan there again? Lots to think about.

Anyway, I figured I would poll the audience here and get people's thoughts about Satan being physically present at the last supper and see what you think about him "enter[ing] into Judas."

Thanks!

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

Here's what a few different commentaries have to say about John 13:26-27:

Anchor Bible:

Quote

 

26. morsel of food. Psōmion has been used in Greek Christianity for the eucharistic host, and so some scholars suggest that Jesus was giving the Eucharist to Judas. Loisy and W. Bauer use 1 Cor 11:29, which speaks of the condemnation of those who eat the body of the Lord without discerning, to explain why Satan entered Judas after he ate the (eucharistic) morsel. But would the writer expect his readers to understand that the morsel was the Eucharist when he has not described the institution? That would be feasible only in the dubious hypothesis that he was observing the disciplina arcani by hiding the institution from outsiders who might read the Gospel.

dipped the morsel. The same action is described in Mark 14:20 and Matt 26:23, but the vocabulary is different; and John’s account seems to be independent. The Marcan and Matthean reference to the dipping into the dish precedes the description of the institution of the Eucharist, but the Lucan reference to the traitor (22:21–23—Luke does not mention the dipping) follows the institution.
[and took it]. Omitted in a strong combination of witnesses, this may be a scribal harmonization with a similar phrase in the Synoptic account of the institution of the Eucharist (“having taken” in Matt 26:26–27). Yet ZGB, §367, points to it as a possible example of the redundant coordinate verb construction frequent in Semitic usage.

Simon the Iscariot. So read the strongest witnesses here; contrast 13:2.
 

27. Satan entered into him. The same vocabulary for the “entering in” of evil spirits is found in Mark 5:12 and Luke 8:30. This is the only time “Satan” occurs in John.
So Jesus told him. The implication is that Jesus knew that Judas had made up his mind; for Jesus’ knowledge of men’s hearts see 2:23–25.
Be quick. This translates an adverb in the comparative. Either the comparative has the weakened sense of a simple positive or it is elative (“as quickly as possible”): BDF, §2441.

what you are going to do. Literally “what you do”; there is probably a conative inflection in the present tense used here (MTGS, p. 63). This command resembles the words spoken by Jesus to Judas in Gethsemane according to a variant of Matt 26:50: “Friend, do [or let it be done] what you have come for.” See W. Eltester, NTPat, pp. 70–91.

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 29A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 575.

 

The Navarre Bible:

Quote

 

13:26–27. The morsel which Jesus offers him is a sign of friendship and, therefore, an invitation to him to give up his evil plotting. But Judas rejects the chance he is offered. “What he received is good”, St Augustine comments, “but he received it to his own perdition, because he, being evil, received in an evil manner what is good” (In Ioann. Evang., 61, 6). Satan entering into him means that from that moment Judas gave in completely to the devil’s temptation.

Saint John’s Gospel, The Navarre Bible (Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press; Scepter Publishers, 2005), 146.

 

Sacra Pagina:

Quote

 

Jesus and Judas (vv. 26–30). Jesus responds to the disciple’s question by telling him he will share an intimate gesture with the betrayer: dipping the morsel at table and sharing it with him (v. 26a). With stark brevity the narrator reports: “So when he had dipped the morsel he took it and gave it to Judas, the Son of Simon Iscariot” (v. 26b). After the reception of the morsel Satan enters into Judas (v. 27a). The narrator had earlier reported that Satan had decided that Judas was to betray Jesus (v. 2), and in v. 27a Satan takes possession of him. Judas is now part of a satanic program diametrically opposed to the program of God revealed in Jesus. Yet in a final gesture of love Jesus shares the dipped morsel with his future betrayer (v. 26), only to be definitively rejected as Satan enters into Judas (v. 27a).
Several indications in the text suggest that this sharing of the morsel has its roots in the eucharistic traditions of the Johannine community. Jesus’ use of Ps 41:9 [10]b in v. 18 is the first of these indications. The LXX of the passage “The one who ate my bread” reads: ho esthiōn artous mou, but the Johannine text has ho trōgōn mou ton arton. There appears to be the deliberate replacement of a more “proper” word for human eating (LXX: esthieien) with a less delicate term, “to munch,” or “to crunch with the teeth” (trōgein). In itself this could be insignificant, but the only other place where this verb appears is in 6:54–58, the most explicit eucharistic passage in the Gospel. It is used there four times (6:54, 56, 57, 58). The use of Ps 41:9[10] may have been part of the early Church’s traditional explanation of what happened at the Last Supper (cf. Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21), but the Johannine author has refashioned the psalm, linking the gift of the morsel to Judas with Christian traditions that surrounded that event. One of the many textual difficulties in v. 26b can now be resolved. Some early manuscripts do not contain “he took it” (lambanei kai), words that recall Jesus’ deliberate action of taking bread in all the Gospel bread miracles (Mark 6:42; 8:6; Matt 14:19; 15:36; Luke 9:16; John 6:11), and in the synoptic and Pauline reports of the Last Supper (Mark 14:22; Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23). Scribes could not tolerate the idea that the sharing of the morsel between Jesus and Judas might have eucharistic overtones and thus they eliminated words that made this association explicit. Just as baptism is a sub-theme to the footwashing, eucharist is a sub-theme to the meal and the gift of the morsel. Within the context of a meal indicated as eucharistic Jesus gives the morsel to the most despised character in the Johannine narrative: Judas. Disciples always have and always will display ignorance, fail Jesus, and deny him. Some may even betray him in an outrageous and public way. But Jesus’ never-failing love for such disciples, a love that reached out even to the archetype of the evil disciple, reveals a unique God (cf. vv. 18–20). This is what it means to love eis telos (v. 1).
Jesus knows Judas’ intentions. He has reached out in a gift of love, but Satan’s designs for Judas (cf. v. 2) begin to happen: Satan enters Judas (v. 27a). Jesus knows this and, always presented as in command of the situation, sends Judas on his way, recommending that he do his task as quickly as possible (v. 27b). These dramatic words and events lead into the narrator’s report of the overwhelming and universal ignorance of the disciples (vv. 28–29). Not one of the people at the table understood (oudeis egnō). The “not one” (oudeis) includes the Beloved Disciple. It is difficult to believe that no one understands after the clarity of the words and gestures of vv. 25–26. The Beloved Disciple, lying so close to Jesus (vv. 23, 25), who questioned Jesus on the identity of the betrayer, should have known. But universal ignorance and confusion reign. The best some of the disciples (tines) can do is guess that Jesus is telling Judas, the guardian of the money box, to make some purchases for the feast or give something to the poor (v. 29).

Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 4, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 383–384.

 

Cyril of Alexandria:

Quote

 

23 There was at the table reclining in Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him to ask who it might be of whom He spake. 25 And he leaning back, as he was, on Jesus’ breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus therefore answereth, He it is to whom I shall give the sop when I have dipped it.

We might naturally be filled with admiration, and especially from this further instance, at the zealous ardour displayed by the holy disciples in their love to God, and at the excessive strictness of their devotion. For being unable of themselves to know the guilty person, whoever he might be, and refusing also to place confidence in the uncertainties of deceitful conjectures, they again give vent to their curiosity by questions, and make one who was preeminent among them, I mean Peter, the representative of their eagerness to learn the truth. Peter shrinks from putting the question by his own mouth, and entrusts the interrogation to him who is reclining next to Christ and who is beloved for his more conspicuous purity, I mean John, the author of the book before us; who, in speaking of himself as beloved by Christ, has concealed his own name, burying it in silence, lest he might seem to any to be making a boastful display. For the mind of the saints is untainted by any such ambition. And so, turning himself gently towards his Master, in a secret whisper he sought to learn who was to be the son of perdition. But the Saviour vouchsafes to him no further indication of the fact save what had been proclaimed of old by the voice of the prophet in the words: He that eateth my bread did magnify himself contemptuously against me. For when He has dipped the sop, He gives it to Judas, thereby showing who it was that was eating His bread. And He thus both removes the fear felt by the holy disciples, and seems to remind them of another prophecy, that runs thus: But it was even thou, O my companion, my guide, and mine own familiar friend: eating at the same board, thou didst make my food sweet to me: we walked in the house of God as friends. For there was a time when even the traitor himself was a companion and a familiar friend to the Saviour, eating at the same board with Him, and sharing in everything that is reckoned to denote true discipleship; inasmuch as he had his allotted portion among the other holy disciples, who, with their whole lives devoted to the Saviour, traversing in His company the length and breadth of Judæa, were zealous attendants on Him in all His mighty works, and hastened on all occasions to do whatever might redound to His honour and glory. And yet this familiar friend and companion exchanged the grateful service owed to One Who had so honoured him for slavery to disgraceful passions.

Notice again how effectually the very wise Evangelist spurs us on to a desire to live, as far as possible, in the manner most accordant with reason, and to train up the keenness of our intellectual powers so as to be able, and that with perfect ease, to act in obedience to the Divine intentions, and to endeavour, as far as in us lies, to thoroughly fulfil the conditions of the vision of God. He tells us that he was himself the object of special honour and love on the part of Christ our Saviour, so as even to recline next Him, actually in the very bosom of the Lord, deeming this circumstance a token of His surpassing affection towards him. Nearest therefore to God, and as it were in the highest place in His honour, will most especially be those whose heart is pure: and to them also the Saviour Himself assigns conspicuous honour when He says that the pure in heart shall be blessed, for they shall see God. And we shall bring forward, as evidence of the truth of this saying, even this very wise Evangelist himself. For he has seen the glory of Christ, according to his own words, for he says: I beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. For surely not with bodily eyes could any one gaze at the nature of Him Who to every creature is absolutely invisible. For, according to the Saviour’s words: No man hath seen the Father, save He Which is from God, that is, the Son; He hath seen the Father. To those however who keep their mind untainted by worldly stain, and freed from vain imagination whose only concern is with this life, it seems that Christ reveals His own peculiar glory by a subtle and perhaps incomprehensible process, thereby showing forth also the glory of the Father. For it must have been with this meaning that He said: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

27 So when He had dipped the sop, He giveth it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop, Satan entered into him.

Most distinct was the token to mark the traitor that the Saviour showed to His own disciples. For when He had dipped the sop He gave it to him, thereby making clearly evident who it was that did eat of His bread, and was now about to lift up his heel against Him. Nevertheless the very wise Evangelist tells us that the guide and instigator of his impiety and accursed cruelty to Christ, and the deviser of the whole scheme, had rushed into the heart of the traitor, even that Satan in all his evil power had taken up his abode within him after the giving of the sop. And let no one suppose on the contrary that the sop was to the traitor the cause of his being possessed by Satan. For we shall not have so nearly reached the verge of madness, nor shall we even prove ourselves so bereft of proper intelligence, as to suppose that such a gift could have afforded the evil one any pretext for an entrance; but we will rather say this, keeping our statement about the traitor well within the limits of the truth:—Seeing that, although perfect love had been shown towards him, and nothing was in any way lacking of the things that are generally reckoned to imply a disposition to confer honour, he still clung fast to the same evil endeavours, never correcting by repentance his wicked thoughts, never turning his heart away from its ungodly designs, never weeping in bitter sorrow for the wickedness he had so much as dared to conceive; but still thirsting more and more to accomplish to the full his impious purpose, and so to be finally ruined by his own evil recklessness: Satan consequently entered into him, finding his heart ready and open like a gate to receive him, unprotected by sobriety; and seeing that his mind was not locked against him, but rather already inflamed with a willingness to do whatsoever he might wish and suggest.

And by searching thoroughly the inspired Scripture we shall find this to be an accustomed habit, as we may say, of the evil one. He at the beginning opens his attack by trying the hearts of those who worship God, first of all sowing the seed of evil questionings, and inciting us with the bait of paltry pleasures to false steps of various kinds. And he above all most violently assaults us at any point where he sees we have already suffered and been vanquished before. For he always uses somehow our own weakness as an auxiliary to his wicked devices, and employs again the passion which previously injured our soul. Thus, for example, he harasses one man perhaps with violent assaults through the senses which become the most depraved incentives to fleshly pleasures; whereas in the case of another who is overcome by base gains, to make a profit of unholy wealth seems somehow held up to honour as the best thing possible. Whenever therefore he makes war against us, he uses as an auxiliary force the passion that has before held sway in warring against us, and by its agency he ever devises the scheme of our perdition. For just as a commander, skilled in generalship, when laying siege to a city, hastens with all speed and by every device to attack the weakened parts of the wall, thither ordering his battering-engines to be brought into action, well knowing that in those quarters the capture will be easy; even so methinks Satan, when intending to lay siege to a human soul, sets to work at its weakest part, thinking that he will by this means bring it into easy subjection, especially when he sees it receiving no assistance from those helps by which it is likely the passion would be defeated, such as noble emotions, provocations to manly courage, suggestions to devotion, and the mystic Eucharist. For this most of all is effective as an antidote to the murderous poison of the devil.

Therefore it happened that the traitor was not dismayed at rebukes uttered as yet quietly and secretly, nor did he even regard the invincible might of love, nor honour and glory and grace, nor the gift that he received from Christ. But hurrying on, without pausing to reflect or checking himself for a moment, his eyes fixed on that, and that alone, which had proved too strong for him once before, I mean the curse of avarice, he was now finally ensnared, and fell to utter ruin. For no longer has he Satan merely as a counsellor, but he takes him now to be master of his whole heart and absolute dominator of his thoughts, who was at first merely an adviser who whispered suggestions. For Satan entered into him, according to the language of the gospel.

We must therefore be on our guard against, and very carefully avoid, the harm that may result from the first approaches of evil; and we ought as a duty to remember him who said: If the spirit of the powerful one rise up against thee, leave not thy place, for a remedy will keep in check great sins. For necessity would compel us again to grant authority over our thoughts to the spirit of the powerful one. If there is not in us the power to resist altogether, still we are at any rate able to check a growing impulse at the outset, and not to allow it to take deep root by lazily yielding and giving way to it: rather we should hasten to extirpate it, as the germ of bitterness, desiring that our minds should be free from its vexations. Else we must surely know that Satan will prevail little by little through continual flattery, and we shall probably experience something like what the Psalmist did, who says: Before I was humbled, I went wrong. For before we suffer the full effect of the sin, we go astray in yielding assent to evil thoughts, cherishing them with approval, and so by this means giving Satan a place of access. And the case of the traitor will be to us a type and example of the whole matter.

Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John, vol. 2 (London: Walter Smith, 1885), 196–201.

 

 

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, as fate would have it, the interfaith bible study that I frequently participate in just happened to be covering the same material as Come Follow Me this past week.

The topic we happened to linger on related to what they referred to as the "other guest" at the last supper. The scriptures state:

     Luke 22:3 - Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

     John 13:27 - And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

The common interpretation among most of my friends was that Satan was physically present at the last supper and that he literally possessed Judas - possibly twice since the two accounts differ on when they say Satan entered into him.

I have to confess, I have never seriously considered that as a real possibility. I mean, 'the devil made me do it' sounds very much like a cop-out to me, and I always just assumed this was an instance where the gospel writers were projecting their own after-the-fact explanation / justification into the account. John in particular seems to do this with some regularity.

Still, it made me wonder. If Satan was really in possession of Judas, then when Christ says, "That thou doest, do quickly," is he really talking to Satan at that point and not Judas? And why would he suffer one of his apostles to be possessed and not cast the devil out from his midst? And is Judas really even a "son of perdition" as John later recounts Christ as having said, or was he really just talking about Satan there again? Lots to think about.

Anyway, I figured I would poll the audience here and get people's thoughts about Satan being physically present at the last supper and see what you think about him "enter[ing] into Judas."

Thanks!

 

I think it is a figure of speech. As the group symbolically partook of of the flesh and blood of Jesus (Jesus, rather, the work and glory of Jesus, "entered them"), Judas in his rebellion symbolically partook of the spirit of Satan, whose ambition "entered him" and he acted accordingly. The relationships with Jesus and with Satan generate opposing choices, but the sacred ordinances can serve as points of decision. 

[Jaydes]

I always assumed Judas was literally possessed, never even did any other explanation occur. Where does John say he was a son of perdition?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Where does John say he was a son of perdition?

In John 17:12 he recounts Christ as saying, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it is a figure of speech.

Same. I don't see why a literal reading is required by the text in this case. I was just kind of surprised at how many people interpreted it that way.

 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Same. I don't see why a literal reading is required by the text in this case. I was just kind of surprised at how many people interpreted it that way.

 

I guess it's because possession is 9/10ths of the law.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

'the devil made me do it' sounds very much like a cop-out to me, and I always just assumed this was an instance where the gospel writers were projecting their own after-the-fact explanation / justification into the account.

We are talking about invisible forces. I don't suppose they saw Satan. When Satan was in Peter, Jesus only called it out after Peter vocalized doubt or a statement contrary to what He told them, left him to conclude he was possessed, based on things he was saying (Matthew 16:23). 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Same. I don't see why a literal reading is required by the text in this case. I was just kind of surprised at how many people interpreted it that way.

 

I've always assumed it was just a figure of speech as well.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

When Satan was in Peter, Jesus only called it out after Peter vocalized doubt or a statement contrary to what He told them, left him to conclude he was possessed, based on things he was saying (Matthew 16:23). 

Or it could have been Jesus warning Peter he was listening to the dark side too much rather than possessed. 
 

I find possession highly problematic in terms of agency. The only thing that is keeping the door open on that for me at all is what I know of addition and the loss of agency with that. If God allows that type of loss of agency, perhaps he might allow possession…but I just don’t see it as likely. Influences, yes…actually two or more spirits in a body…unless spirits work very differently than we are usually taught, as in our spirits look like our bodies and our bodies basically cloth our spirits, then I see it as highly unlikely. But there is a mass of questions that idea of the body as a glove for the spirit doesn’t make sense of, such as how an eternal spirit coordinates with a baby body. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it could have been Jesus warning Peter he was listening to the dark side too much rather than possessed. 
 

I find possession highly problematic in terms of agency. The only thing that is keeping the door open on that for me at all is what I know of addition and the loss of agency with that. If God allows that type of loss of agency, perhaps he might allow possession…but I just don’t see it as likely. Influences, yes…actually two or more spirits in a body…unless spirits work very differently than we are usually taught, as in our spirits look like our bodies and our bodies basically cloth our spirits, then I see it as highly unlikely. But there is a mass of questions that idea of the body as a glove for the spirit doesn’t make sense of, such as how an eternal spirit coordinates with a baby body. 

I guess I can kind of see possession as where someone gives themselves over to evil influences so completely that the evil influence has free reign basically.  But I'm with you on possession as it is usually described, with a spirit taking over someone else's body and inhabiting that body as if it were their own.  That makes zero sense to me.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it could have been Jesus warning Peter he was listening to the dark side too much rather than possessed. 
 

I find possession highly problematic in terms of agency. The only thing that is keeping the door open on that for me at all is what I know of addition and the loss of agency with that. If God allows that type of loss of agency, perhaps he might allow possession…but I just don’t see it as likely. Influences, yes…actually two or more spirits in a body…unless spirits work very differently than we are usually taught, as in our spirits look like our bodies and our bodies basically cloth our spirits, then I see it as highly unlikely. But there is a mass of questions that idea of the body as a glove for the spirit doesn’t make sense of, such as how an eternal spirit coordinates with a baby body. 

In the cases I have seen it is more of a shared thing. The original spirit is still in charge. At least that is how I would interpret it.

[Pyreaux]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it could have been Jesus warning Peter he was listening to the dark side too much rather than possessed. 

Or it's a distinction without a difference? Is Satan and the Holy Spirit/the Light of Christ more or less our conscience? Would surrendering our agency to listening to the left shoulder devil's voice a "possession" of sorts? Might every thought of doubt be from a devil inside us?

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Or it's a distinction without a difference?

I think it is a massive difference. Most people look at possession as the person is a victim of the invading spirit, where if the reality is the person is still fully in charge, they are no victim, but the perpetrator.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

We are talking about invisible forces. I don't suppose they saw Satan. When Satan was in Peter, Jesus only called it out after Peter vocalized doubt or a statement contrary to what He told them, left him to conclude he was possessed, based on things he was saying (Matthew 16:23). 

I think "Satan" is being used metaphorically for Peter's rebuking and countermanding Him: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou [Peter] savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Interestingly to me, "Get thee behind me" can metaphorically mean getting out of the way, getting in or back in line, or start supporting.

[rpn]

I don't see Judas as a Son of Perdition because he never had the Holy Ghost to testify that Jesus was the Christ.   None of the apostles recognized Him upon seeing Him after His resurrection.   Peter himself denied the Christ and we don't think of Him as a Son of Perdition.   I think in order to be a Son of Perdition one has to know Him as a resurrected Lord (when it's impossible to confuse Him for just another someone just like them) and then reject Him directly knowing Him as the resurrected Christ.    I think there are very few mortals who will be Sons of Perdition.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

And why would he suffer one of his apostles to be possessed and not cast the devil out from his midst?

Agency.

We all have to open the door ourselves. There is no such thing as sin without intent, or "original sin" would be a fact, and we are all born evil.

No so.

After you hear that knock, you better know who is on the other side.

You must NOT live in LA.

😳

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

Anyway, I figured I would poll the audience here and get people's thoughts about Satan being physically present at the last supper and see what you think about him "enter[ing] into Judas."

John has a theme going with Judas:

John 6:70:  "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

John 13:2:  "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him"

This isn't a case of possession, but it is what Judas had in his heart and how he was influenced.  In the John 6:70 verse, Judas IS a devil.

[The Nehor]

I found a documentary on how the devil can get inside.

 

[manol]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Or it could have been Jesus warning Peter he was listening to the dark side too much rather than possessed.

 

I think you're right. Ime when we align ourselves with darkness, or become acclimated to darkness, it can become our default mode without us realizing it.

 

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I find possession highly problematic in terms of agency. The only thing that is keeping the door open on that for me at all is what I know of addition and the loss of agency with that. If God allows that type of loss of agency, perhaps he might allow possession…but I just don’t see it as likely. Influences, yes…actually two or more spirits in a body…unless spirits work very differently than we are usually taught, as in our spirits look like our bodies and our bodies basically cloth our spirits, then I see it as highly unlikely.

 

A complete “take-over possession” seems unlikely to me too, but “influence possession” seems plausible. 

The extent to which a person's frame of mind rolls out the "welcome mat" is unknown to me, but I think it often plays a big role without the person being aware of how powerful their thoughts are.

I had two rather intense experiences wherein the person who was “seemingly possessed” described being aware of the presence of a "negative entity” during the “possession” incident. In one case the person was in a very negative frame of mind and suddenly became aware of being the OBSERVER to an internal dialogue, rather than being an active participant IN this internal dialogue, and heard things being said that THEY never would have even thought to say. In the other case the person became unable to hear or coherently interact with the people around them, and during this time they were having an intense “internal” interaction with a being they could see and hear very clearly, who was laughing at them in a way that frightened them. In both of these cases the “negative entity” left when calmly commanded to do so in the name of Jesus Christ, at which point the person was instantly relieved of what had been happening and described to those present what they had been experiencing during the incident, including describing the moment the “entity” left as corresponding with when the command was verbalized.

In a third incident I never got a clear description of what happened from the point of view of the person affected. In this case they became very angry and very negative and unnaturally strong but with poor physical coordination. In this instance whatever was happening was seemingly impervious to the commands which had worked in the other instances so a different approach was used. The person affected basically used affirmations over the course of many days to shift their spiritual energy from a very negative state to a more positive state. Whatever it was, to the best of my knowledge it never happened again (have known this person for almost forty years), and while they still have a pessimistic worldview they seem to be better at managing their negative side.

In the “observer” incident the person had been in a very negative frame of mind, and had come close to suicide earlier that day. In the “laughter” incident I don't know much about the person's background except that they came from a culture which was very much open to interaction with negative non-physical beings.  In the “unnaturally strong” incident the person had been in a very negative frame of mind.

My opinion is that the first two incidents may have involved an external entity, and that the third one most likely involved an aspect of that person rather than something external to that person. I think the third one may have been along the lines of "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting”, because what worked was consistent effort focused on aligning with and acclimating to the light rather than defaulting to the darkness.

Edited June 21, 2023 by manol

[blackstrap]

What shall we do with the story of " Legion " , or the story of Christ in the wilderness for 40 days ? 

[Kenngo1969]

@manol

Nice to Cyber-see you, My Friend.  I hope you are well.

-Ken

[InCognitus]

On 6/20/2023 at 9:52 PM, blackstrap said:

What shall we do with the story of " Legion " , or the story of Christ in the wilderness for 40 days ? 

 

[The Nehor]

On 6/20/2023 at 10:52 PM, blackstrap said:

What shall we do with the story of " Legion " , or the story of Christ in the wilderness for 40 days ? 

A possibly crazy person combined with an unclean spirit who took on the name of the Roman occupier’s military unit to try to cope with the political situation.

[Dario_M]

I hate Satan anyway. If i read about him....in The book of Mormon or anywhere else i just feel such a hate for that individual (oops i may not hate i should love anyone😇). No but i really dislike everything about the devil. I imagine him dressed in black and red and that alone allready gives me the chills.