IS WITCHCRAFT GOOD OR EVIL?

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]
DIVINE INSIGHT:

Moreover, I find the verse that you have posted to be quite interesting and I use it frequently to defend my witchcraft against Christian criticism. The Christians often claim that witches get their power from Satan (just as Jesus had been accused of in the verse you've quoted).

However, like Jesus I use my powers for good works. Therefore, for the very same reasons that Jesus gave my powers cannot come from Beelzebub (or Satan) because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Therefore my powers necessarily must come from God, for precisely the same reasons that Jesus gave.

If what Jesus spoke is truth, then clearly it must also apply to me. I cannot do good works in the name of Beelzebub, demons, or Satan because that would be a house divided against itself.

So I find it rather humorous that Jesus himself has totally vindicated all witches who do good works. Because their power (according to Jesus) can only come from God. Only God's power can be used for good works.

I would like to invite you here DIVINE INSIGHT
The above post caught my attention and I would like to bring this to the light. Now in another thread I am under the impression you study Buddhism but claim not to be a Buddhist, correct?

I am totally against WitchCraft according to the Holy Bible:
Deuteronomy 18:14 "The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so."
Revelation 22:15 "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
Leviticus 19:26 "Do not practice divination or seek omens"
...the list goes on.

Questions:
If Divine Insight claim to use WitchCraft for good, then could you or anyone else list those examples please?
Does one see WitchCraft as Good? or
Does one see WitchCraft as Evil?

Feel free to add on.

Thanks in advance,
Ace

[Goat]

I also heard that there was an independent historical record that Jesus was supposedly crucified for apostasy. But that implies that the Jewish Priest would have been behind that. I doubt that the Romans would care if Jesus had been preaching against the Jewish faith.

I would love to see what this 'independent historical record is'. I believe the Talmud mentions something like that, but it was written down 300 years later, in a manner that seems to have been a direct response to the Bible's account. That would not make it an independent source.

[Divine Insight]

I also heard that there was an independent historical record that Jesus was supposedly crucified for apostasy. But that implies that the Jewish Priest would have been behind that. I doubt that the Romans would care if Jesus had been preaching against the Jewish faith.

I would love to see what this 'independent historical record is'. I believe the Talmud mentions something like that, but it was written down 300 years later, in a manner that seems to have been a direct response to the Bible's account. That would not make it an independent source.

You may be perfectly correct. I think it was attributed to Talmud.

And you have a perfectly good point too that just because an historical account is independent of the Bible doesn't make it true either.

And this is certainly true of the writings of Josephus too. Especially if Josephus refers to Jesus as "The Christ". And I heard that he did. So Josephus himself may have already been biased in favor of the Christian rumors. Which at that time period would not have yet been officially canonized into anything nearly as specific as we have today.

In the early days of Christianity there were many arguments and rumors surrounding Jesus. The "Gospels" that we have today weren't the "Official Rumors" until much later when they were pronounced to he the "Holy Scriptures" by various people. At that point if you refused to accept the "Holy Scriptures" as the only true rumors you could face serious reprisal or even a death sentence.

Josephus would obviosly be among those who would not accept the official New Testament rumors then since he had his own belief that the Romans crucified Jesus and not the Jewish Priests. That would fly in the face of the official "Gospels".

[Goat]

I also heard that there was an independent historical record that Jesus was supposedly crucified for apostasy. But that implies that the Jewish Priest would have been behind that. I doubt that the Romans would care if Jesus had been preaching against the Jewish faith.

I would love to see what this 'independent historical record is'. I believe the Talmud mentions something like that, but it was written down 300 years later, in a manner that seems to have been a direct response to the Bible's account. That would not make it an independent source.

You may be perfectly correct. I think it was attributed to Talmud.

And you have a perfectly good point too that just because an historical account is independent of the Bible doesn't make it true either.

And this is certainly true of the writings of Josephus too. Especially if Josephus refers to Jesus as "The Christ". And I heard that he did. So Josephus himself may have already been biased in favor of the Christian rumors. Which at that time period would not have yet been officially canonized into anything nearly as specific as we have today.

In the early days of Christianity there were many arguments and rumors surrounding Jesus. The "Gospels" that we have today weren't the "Official Rumors" until much later when they were pronounced to he the "Holy Scriptures" by various people. At that point if you refused to accept the "Holy Scriptures" as the only true rumors you could face serious reprisal or even a death sentence.

Josephus would obviosly be among those who would not accept the official New Testament rumors then since he had his own belief that the Romans crucified Jesus and not the Jewish Priests. That would fly in the face of the official "Gospels".

Since Josephus had stated at the time of the writing of Antiquities that Vespasian was the 'promised' king of the Jews, I rather suspect that any reference he made to 'The Christ' would be added on. He was very specific about attacking , in no uncertain terms, anybody who made the claim for the Jewish Crown, because he was flattering his patron, the Roman Emperor.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 50 by Divine Insight]

Regarding the biblical stuff, it seems we're pretty much in agreement. I suppose I was more addressing the history aspect of the historical fiction while you were addressing the fiction part as a sort of literary criticism of the work in itself.

Is it correct to say, "an historical record".

or should it be "a historical record"?

I've seen it both ways and I'm confused over which is correct, or are they both acceptable?

Both are acceptable. The difference is dependent on the phonological properties of the particular variety of English one is speaking. In many varieties of British English, and initial "h" sound is not pronounced, so the word "historical" is pronounced "istorical". Therefore they use "an" because that's the version of the indefinite article that is used when a word begins with a vowel sound, (the actual spelling of the word is irrelevant, it's only the sound that matters.)

Basically, the rule is: use "a" if you pronounce the h, or use "an" if you drop the h.

So, 'ave an 'appy new yeah, guv.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 53 by Goat]

Since Josephus had stated at the time of the writing of Antiquities that Vespasian was the 'promised' king of the Jews, I rather suspect that any reference he made to 'The Christ' would be added on. He was very specific about attacking , in no uncertain terms, anybody who made the claim for the Jewish Crown, because he was flattering his patron, the Roman Emperor.

Yes, this is quite correct. That's why the scholarly consensus on that particular passage from The Antiquities is that the pro-messiah phrases were added by later transcribers. That's also why he was so hostile toward the "false prophets" and "religious frauds" that he describes in The Jewish War.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

What the Bible says is "witchcraft" and what we say is "witchcraft" are two totally different things.

When the Law says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", they're talking about people who practiced human sacrifice, blood letting, various fethishes, and other nastiness that no one thinks is bright and shiny in a culture.

Modern witches (I'm assuming you all know what a Wiccan is) practice things like candeling, invoking the four watch towers, outdoor meetings, they study spells and try to make them work, etc.

Sorry, but they're not even close. Most of the time the spells don't even work, and if they were ever arrested for anything, it would be for holding a circle skyclad and the guy across the street with binoculars called the cops.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]
When the Law says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", they're talking about people who practiced human sacrifice, blood letting, various fethishes, and other nastiness that no one thinks is bright and shiny in a culture.

Could you provide a source for the nastiness of biblical witches?

[Overcomer]

Divine Insight wrote:

Since Wiccans can only do good words (because of their foundational Rede) then their power cannot come from Satan for the very same reason that Jesus proclaimed that his powers cannot come from Satan. They can only come from God.

This was Jesus' own excuse. If it holds true for him, then it must hold true for everyone.

So Jesus has vindicated the Wiccans as obviously being empowered by God. That is the only source from which their good works can emanate according to Jesus.

I was just saying that Jesus performed witchcraft according to the Bible and people are still debating that one today.

Here's the passage in question from the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew:

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, Could this be the Son of David?

24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Jesus drives a demon out of a man. The Pharisees say his source of power is the devil. Jesus says that, because demons are of the devil, the devil would NEVER drive the demon out of a man since he sent the demon there in the first place and the demon was doing what the devil wanted him to do. Therefore, he definitely was not in league with the devil.

It is a total leap to say that, if a Wiccan does something that ostensibly looks good, then he MUST be acting in the power of God just as Jesus was doing, and that Jesus condones Wiccans and witchcraft. There is no logical way to get from that passage in the Bible to those beliefs.

There are two ways of approaching the Bible -- exegesis and eisegesis. The first means going to the Bible and seeing what it says. The second means going to the Bible and making it say what you want it to say. That's what you are doing when you suggest that Jesus was practising witchcraft and condones Wiccans. You're engaged in eisegesis, not exegesis, and it's a totally bogus approach to Scripture, one that no textual critic worth his salt would condone.

The Bible condemns witchcraft. That means Jesus, as the Living Word of God, condemns witchcraft:

1.Divination and magic
A.Lev. 19:26, You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.
B.Isaiah 44:25, "Causing the omens of boasters to fail, making fools out of diviners, causing wise men to draw back, and turning their knowledge into foolishness."
C.Acts 8:9,18-22, "Now there was a certain man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city, and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great . . . 18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles hands, he offered them money, 19saying, Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit. 20But Peter said to him, May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you."
D.Acts 13:6, "And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus."

2.Mediums
A.Lev. 19:31, "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."
B.Lev. 20:6, As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."
C.Lev. 20:27, Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
D.Isaiah 8:19-20, "And when they say to you, Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter, should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

3.Necromancy - contacting the dead
A.1 Sam. 28 where Saul uses a medium to contact the dead.

4.Sorcery - attempting to influence people through occult means
A.Exodus 22:18, You shall not allow a sorceress to live."
B.Isaiah 47:12-14, Stand fast now in your spells and in your many sorceries with which you have labored from your youth; Perhaps you will be able to profit, perhaps you may cause trembling. 13You are wearied with your many counsels;
Let now the astrologers, those who prophesy by the stars, those who predict by the new moons, stand up and save you from what will come upon you. 14Behold, they have become like stubble, fire burns them; they cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame; there will be no coal to warm by, nor a fire to sit before!"
C.Rev. 9:21, "and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts."
D.Rev. 21:8, "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
E.Rev. 22:15, "Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying."

5.Witchcraft
A.Deut. 18:10-14, There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you. 13You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. 14For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so.
B.2 Kings 21:6, "And he made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord provoking Him to anger." (see also 2 Chron. 33:6)

Divine Insight wrote:

However, Jesus preached that anything we ask in his name he shall do. John.14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

But what did he mean by "His Name"? The name Jesus? No of course not. Jesus was just the name of the physical body that Jesus was currently occupying in his temporary incarnation on Earth. If Jesus was claiming to be God, then when he said anything we ask in his name, means "In the name of God".

Now it is true that all witches do not believe in God. Neither are all witches Wiccans. But all Wiccans are witches. And Wiccans believe in God. They also believe that the powers they direct come from God.

So Wiccans are in total harmony with everything that Jesus taught.

If Wiccans were in harmony with everything that Jesus taught, they would believe he was God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Triune God, that he was crucified, died and rose from the dead, atoning for the sins of humankind and that, by accepting his gift of salvation, will spend eternity with him. Most importantly, if Wiccans were in harmony with everything that Jesus taught, they wouldn't be Wiccans!

And what "God" do Wiccans believe in? You yourself condemn YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, the Creator, and say he doesn't exist. Yet THAT is the God to whom Jesus refers whenever he talks about God the Father, the God you hate and the God you insist couldn't possibly exist. However, here you are claiming that Wiccans call on the same God that Jesus called on. How can they if you don't believe he exists?

And how do you know that the "God" from which Wiccans get their "power" isn't the devil? He was, upon creation, a beautiful angel of light according to the Bible. He is also known as the deceiver and the father of lies (John 8:44). How do you know that the "God" Wiccans follow isn't the devil disguised? You can't say it's because Wiccans only do good because Satan has his minions do things that look good on the outside including heal -- but it's only to suck people into his trap. Ask any ex-Satanist about that.

And as for asking things in the name of Jesus, here's what the Bible says:

Jesus says, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).

Jesus is the sole mediator between God and humanity as we read in 1 Tim 2:5: For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

There is no other name than that of Jesus by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12).

That's why one has to ask in the name of Jesus -- the Jesus of the Holy Bible, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead who came to earth as God Incarnate and rose from the dead. If you ask in the name of anybody else, God won't listen. If you ask in the name of Jesus and apply that name to anybody other than the Jesus I just described, that he won't hear you either. Only the Jesus of the Bible has his ear.

Divine Insight wrote:

John14:12: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

You see, Jesus was clearly stating here that belief in God is from whence these powers come, because even he goes unto the Father. That was his source of power as he had previously claimed. His powers come from God not from Beezelbub, remember?

Jesus had no powers of his own. He was just a mortal man born of a mortal woman. All of Jesus powers came from God, and God is simply the creator of all that exists. The same creator that the Wiccans obtain their powers from.

Read that verse in context. Jesus is telling his disciples that, when he goes, he will leave the Comforter with them in his place. He is saying that the Holy Spirit will be with all who accept him as Lord and Saviour. He is NOT saying that everybody in the world can have God's power if we ask for it. Again, this is an example of eisegesis, not proper exegesis of a Biblical text.

I also doubt that Wiccans only do good because the Rede tells them to. The Bible says we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Do you think everybody does that just because they're told to? We all have laws to live by. Do you think everybody does just because the laws are there?

The thing about rules is this: They tell us how we should live. They don't give us the ability to live by them.

I find it fascinating that somebody who hates God and the Bible is trying to use the Bible and Jesus to justify Wiccans and witchcraft. Unfortunately, you are twisting every verse to make it mean something that it really doesn't mean at all.

Here's one verse that describes anybody, Wiccan or otherwise, who denies Christ:

1 John 2:22: Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist"denying the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Pray all you want to get power as a Wiccan, but know that it will never come from the one true God and that Jesus will have none of it -- or you.

Lastly, in answer to the question of whether witchcraft is bad or good, I say bad because it keeps people from a saving knowledge and the resurrection power of Jesus Christ and anything that keeps people from those blessings couldn't possibly be good.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]
When the Law says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", they're talking about people who practiced human sacrifice, blood letting, various fethishes, and other nastiness that no one thinks is bright and shiny in a culture.

Could you provide a source for the nastiness of biblical witches?

Hows about the passage I just gave you? That same verse says you shall not "make your son or daughter pass through the fire."

(Would you consider burning your children alive to be "nastiness" ?)

My answer is nothing more than common sense. It's ludicrous to try to compare 16th century BC cultures with Medieval cultures, especially when one is oriental, the other is European. There's no basis for believing the two would have anything in common.

[Divine Insight]

It is a total leap to say that, if a Wiccan does something that ostensibly looks good, then he MUST be acting in the power of God just as Jesus was doing, and that Jesus condones Wiccans and witchcraft. There is no logical way to get from that passage in the Bible to those beliefs.

Sure there is. In fact, there is no way NOT to get there.

If, as a Wiccan, I sweep away negative energies (i.e. evil energies), then I am sweeping away the supposed power of any satanic or evil beings. And therefore, according to Jesus I would be acting in a way to defeat the very power of any evil beings.

So Jesus has totally exonerated any and all witchcraft that serves any good purpose. Such powers can only come from God.

So all Wiccans who uphold the Wiccan Rede of harming none are clearly just as divinely ordained as Jesus was.

There is no getting around it.

Only Christian hatred could renounce such an obvious truth.

Any Christian who is attempting to renounce this is doing the very same thing that the Pharisees were trying to pull on Jesus.

If Jesus' excuse works for Jesus, then it necessarily must also work for me as well.

So there is no getting around it. I necessarily have the very same divine powers as Jesus. Just because I call it "witchcraft" doesn't mean diddly squat.

Jesus himself was practicing witchcraft as well. Jesus was casting magical spells on people to drive out unwanted negative energies.

So there is no way to get around this.

Jesus supports my position on this and not yours!

See Ooberman's thread here: Individual motivations with regard to the God Belief

Jesus and I are of one mind. Jesus and I see eye to eye on every issue.

If you are in disagreement with me, then you are in disagreement with Jesus.

This is just the way things are. And if you disagree with me, then I renounce your denomination.

It's that simple.

This is how Christian religious bigotry works. Welcome to the Christian cult.