1Co 12:2-3 Were the Corinthians cursing Jesus?

[Biblicist]

For those of us who have been believers for any length of time, we probably have all heard various stories with how the Corinthians, be it with some visiting unbelievers or even that some odd believers were in some way cursing the name of Jesus in their meetings.

First, some introduction into the history of the subject:

In 2000 Anthony Thiselton released his comprehensive 1446 page work titled;
- The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text

On pages 911 to 927 (17 pages) he discusses these two verses in obviously some detail where he discusses the twelve recognized interpretations for verse 3 alone – with no real conclusion on his part.

In 2006 he released a revised much shorter and less complicated 325 page commentary for pastors titled;
- 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary

On pages 193 to 196 he spent some time discussing the work of Bruce Winter which came out only a few months after his first book on 1st Corinthians whereby Thiselton accepted that Winters’ new solution for these two verses seemed to be the best option, even though he granted that Winters’ view could not be categorically proven, but at least it provided the most sound and plausible reason for Pauls wording.

Bruce W. Winter;
- After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change

The solution that Winter provided can be summed as:
- "Jesus curse (this person)" instead of "Jesus be cursed".

Thiselton summarised Winters’ work, at least in part and I have included the main portion of his comments regarding Winters’ work. Pages 193-194

"This prepares the way for Bruce Winter's exploration of the otherwise
extremely difficult v. 3: No one who speaking through the
agency of the Spirit of God says, "Jesus [is] cursed," or (more probably)
"Jesus grants a curse." This verse has attracted many attempts at
an explanation. In my larger commentary I discussed twelve possibilities
(First Epistle, pp. 917-27). The key to Winter's new interpretation is
twofold. First, because the Greek contains no verb but simply has
"Jesus-anathema" (Anathema Iesous), the translation need not be (as in
the twelve suggestions) "Jesus is a curse," or "is accursed"; it may be
"Jesus grants a curse." Second, in recent years some twenty-seven ancient
curse tablets made of lead have been unearthed in or around
Corinth (fourteen on the slopes of Acrocorinth in the precincts of pagan
temples), and these witness to the practice of appealing to pagan
deities to "curse" rivals or competitors in business, love, litigation, or
sport (Winter, "Religious Curses and Christian Vindictiveness, I Cor.
12-14").
Winter argues that the allusion to when you were pagans, you
used to be carried away to idols (v. 2) refers not to some bogus "spirituality"
of pagan religious frenzy or ecstasy, but to the religious world
in which pagan worshipers sought the aid of their deities to gain advantage
over rivals and competitors in various areas of life. This would
offer a parallel to manipulative advantages in 6:1-8. Many years ago
A D. Nock drew attention to this practice in the so-called "Magical"
Papyri.
Winter argues that within the setting of Corinth attitudes of jealousy
and strife (cf. p-3) might manifest themselves in explicit requests
for the deity to set in motion a curse imposed upon those over whom
the pagan worshiper sought to gain advantage. In the light of p-3, 6:1-
8, and other passages, it is plausible that some Christians claimed to be
"spiritual people" at the same time as asking Jesus to impose some
"curse" of this order against those who had earned their disfavor. Paul
declares that this contradicts any claim that the Holy Spirit is manifest
in their life. This cannot build or manifest Christ's Lordship.
This may well be the best explanation of 12:2-3, but it remains a
strong hypothesis rather than an established fact. Hence we cannot
simply write off more traditional approaches."


Undoubtedly this interpretation will disturb many cessationists who seem to relish the notion that there were some characters (even maybe “congregational members”) who were apparently blaspheming the name of Jesus.
If nothing else I’m simply happy that someone has finally provided what may be the definitive answer to this age old problematic text.

 

[JEBrady]

Is there any English translation that supports this?

I think it's beside the point to the passage at hand, which is really trying to teach the Corinthians to pay attention spiritually. The "no one speaking by the Spirit of God says Jesus is accursed" is contrasted by "no one says Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit of God". This is followed by a description of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit with repeated emphasis over and over that each is "by the same Spirit".

I think the point is that there were individuals who were speaking by demonic spirits in the Corinthian church, and that the Corinthians weren't correcting it. Considering the background in Corinth, I don't know why it would be so hard to believe someone was actually saying, "Jesus is accursed" in the meetings.

 

[Biblicist]

Is there any English translation that supports this?

I tend to think that there is a difference with what the various translations often have to say with that of solid and well reasoned Theology – the two often don’t seem to be one and the same thing. About the only value we have at times with knowing what a given translation or translations have to say, is that it lets us understand what the general reader is seeing. If we want to know what the Bible has to say then we often need to dig a bit deeper in some passages as our translations too often seem to miss the point or underplay what a particular author is trying to present.

Youngs Literal Translation:
3 wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus [is] anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus [is] Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.

Young has recognised that the Greek does not include a verb which he has inserted. If you remove his [is] we intriguingly have "Jesus curse".

Wycliffe Bible:
3 Therefore I make known to you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God, saith parting from Jesus; and no man may say the Lord Jesus [is], but in the Holy Ghost.

New Life Version: They have used a different approach –
3 So I tell you that no one speaking by the help of the Holy Spirit can say that he hates Jesus.

Will future translations include Winters' solution or at least include it as a footnote, who knows; most translations have a tendency to follow tradition so if any change does occur only time will tell.

I think the point is that there were individuals who were speaking by demonic spirits in the Corinthian church, and that the Corinthians weren't correcting it. Considering the background in Corinth, I don't know why it would be so hard to believe someone was actually saying, "Jesus is accursed" in the meetings.

The main problem with this view is that Paul has never made any mention of any supposed demonic activity within the Corinthian congregations; in fact he even goes to say that the processions and feasts that were set around the various idols that the Corinthians gentiles were once involved with were in fact dumb and lifeless – this hardly provides any reason for presuming that any demonic activity was involved.

The question we need to ask the various translators, is why they felt justified in translating Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς in the manner that they have, was it due to any linguistic concerns or due to poor exegesis or even that we have simply inherited a tradition were some were able to gain some satisfaction in believing that the people of God who were born of the Spirit were in some way capable of falsely translating a tongue as saying “Jesus be cursed”.

This leads to a second point, if any believers (or outsiders) were supposedly speaking in demonic tongues they would have to do so while they were under a very strong ecstatic state which would have to border on delirium which the congregation would easily recognise and swiftly deal with. This would not concern Paul as he would know the source and he certainly would not be expecting any believers to be involved in such practices. If anyone were to pretend to give a translation to an utterance that was given under the influence of the Holy Spirit while claiming that the Spirit is saying “Jesus be cursed” that the congregation would also quickly deal with the individual involved; if they were outsiders then I would expect them to grab the individual and show him the door.

Where’s the evidence for any demonic religious activity in the secular Corinthian community, well there is none according to those who are the experts in the field and as Paul does not address this matter we need to look elsewhere for an answer – which is why Thiselton initially provided 12 possible solutions to the question before he encountered Bruce Winters’ solution.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

WOW!!! Creative, but kind of silly, and not really a "DIFFICULT TEXT" at all - it echoes Isaiah 53, of course:

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Ignoring all the "Scholarship", the meaning of the text is obvious:

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Isaiah warns that SOME (Probably Judaizers) will consider that Jesus was "Punshed by God" for HIS OWN SIN - since it seemed to the "orthodox religious establishment" of the day that He was a HORRENDOUS blasphemer - making Himself equal to God. Paul warns that NOBODY that accuses Jesus of that was is "Speaking through the unction of the Holy Spirit". This is an EXTERNAL Evaluation statement whereby Ministries can be judged.

And on the OTHER HAND, it's obviously untrue that you can't say "Jesus is the Lord" EXCEPT through the unction of the Holy Spirit. You CAN say "Jesus is the LORD" all day long easily without the Holy Spirit. It's just "Words".

BUT:

ONLY through the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of SAVING FAITH that comes only from the Holy Spirit can you proclaim IN FAITH that "Jesus is the LORD"!!! and know what you're really saying. This is an INTERNAL Evaluation Statement whereby you can judge the validity of your OWN profession.

 

[Biblicist]

WOW!!! Creative, but kind of silly, and not really a "DIFFICULT TEXT" at all - it echoes Isaiah 53, of course:

Interesting, I guess one needs to know when to make a call and when almost every recognised scholar, commentator and Sunday speaker says that this text his hard to figure then it can be a good thing to know when to let the occasional hard ball pass by.

As for Isaiah 53, for the life of me I cannot see even the briefest connection with 1Co 12:2-3 and to my recollection nobody else has ever made such a connection, which in my view is not surprising.

Ignoring all the "Scholarship", the meaning of the text is obvious:

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

You may be better off addressing the material that I posted regarding this passage as the notion that some Christians or unbelieving visitors were cursing the name of Jesus in tongues makes absolutely no sense, either linguistically, theologically or culturally.

It’s probably not a great idea to say that everyone else is wrong and I’m right and then to ignore the critical material in the opening post.

 

[JEBrady]

The main problem with this view is that Paul has never made any mention of any supposed demonic activity within the Corinthian congregations; in fact he even goes to say that the processions and feasts that were set around the various idols that the Corinthians gentiles were once involved with were in fact dumb and lifeless – this hardly provides any reason for presuming that any demonic activity was involved.

The question we need to ask the various translators, is why they felt justified in translating Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς in the manner that they have, was it due to any linguistic concerns or due to poor exegesis or even that we have simply inherited a tradition were some were able to gain some satisfaction in believing that the people of God who were born of the Spirit were in some way capable of falsely translating a tongue as saying “Jesus be cursed”.

This leads to a second point, if any believers (or outsiders) were supposedly speaking in demonic tongues they would have to do so while they were under a very strong ecstatic state which would have to border on delirium which the congregation would easily recognise and swiftly deal with. This would not concern Paul as he would know the source and he certainly would not be expecting any believers to be involved in such practices. If anyone were to pretend to give a translation to an utterance that was given under the influence of the Holy Spirit while claiming that the Spirit is saying “Jesus be cursed” that the congregation would also quickly deal with the individual involved; if they were outsiders then I would expect them to grab the individual and show him the door.

Where’s the evidence for any demonic religious activity in the secular Corinthian community, well there is none according to those who are the experts in the field and as Paul does not address this matter we need to look elsewhere for an answer – which is why Thiselton initially provided 12 possible solutions to the question before he encountered Bruce Winters’ solution.

Not sure where tongues snuck in here from. We're not talking about unknown tongues in v3, but speaking in a known tongue by a spirit. I can tell you by experience that you don’t have to be in any kind of “ecstatic” state to speak something inspired by a demon. They are more subtle than you’d think.

Also, as to the idols not being demonic because Paul said they were dumb...he said all idols were nothing (1 Co 8:4). That doesn't mean there wasn't demonic activity behind them. The slave girl in Ac 16 had a spirit of Python, which was very much active, demonic and Python (or Pythian Apollos) was worshiped at temples built for him pretty much universally then.

Corinth was a port that catered to sailors in all manner of debauchery, fornication with temple prostitutes, drunkenness and the like. Probably had a temple or shrine or statue to every flavor of pagan god or worship there was at the time. The city was so full of immorality and had catered to it for so long that Corinth was a byword for immorality. Not sure how you define demonic religious activity, but in my book this certainly qualifies.

As to demonic activity in the church, well, the Corinth church bears the distinction of being about the most out of order church of any we have as an example in the entire canon of scripture. I’m convinced the devil had a hand in all the strife, division, and disorder that was going on there. He’s always willing to help anyone sin, I find.

The rationalization for turning “Jesus is accursed” to “Jesus grants a curse” or “Jesus curse so-and-so” is so thin that the whole thing smacks of someone who simply isn’t willing to accept what’s written. Even Thiselton admits it can’t be proven, but is merely plausible. And still I maintain that it's missing the point of the passage anyway, since it's just as much not from the Holy Spirit to say one as the other. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, as Jesus said to Peter when he proclaimed that Jesus is the messiah. He didn’t come up with that through some mental exercise or theological argument, but had it personally revealed to him by Father through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has a dozen different interpretations of a passage and still has no wisdom on it is probably spending too much time intellectualizing and not enough time hearing from the Lord.

It’s kind of ironic that in the discussion of this particular passage on spiritual discernment that there appears to be more intellectualization on the part of theologians than actual spiritual wisdom from God. When you look at the subject of the passage, Paul is talking about speaking by inspiration of a spirit. As Bob stated, anyone can mentally follow and repeat the words “Jesus is Lord”, but when they’re speaking by a spirit, they can’t say it unless the spirit they’re speaking by is the Holy Spirit.

When it comes to biblical teaching and instruction, I find there are many plausible explanations and interpretations that can be applied to scripture, but they’re only plausible when one doesn’t have God’s revelation on things. I hold very lightly the things I believe that God hasn’t confirmed by personal revelation, although for conscience’ sake I’m bound to keep them. But the things the Lord has revealed, I will hold tightly ‘til my last breath. Paul didn’t pray for the Ephesian believers to have more intelligence. He prayed that they might have the spirit of wisdom and revelation.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"As for Isaiah 53, for the life of me I cannot see even the briefest connection with 1Co 12:2-3"

Odd. Isaiah 53 has folks saying "Jesus is accursed", and so does 1 Cor 12. seems like a rather direct connection to me, y'all.

I wouldn't know if anybody else made that connection or not.

"You may be better off addressing the material that I posted regarding this passage"

The "Material" you posted is "Just another commentary opinion, and apprears to offer nothing beyond the simple fact that one won't be speaking by the Spirit if he claims that Jesus is "Accursed".

And since the Jews STILL tell that story, it's not hard to figure out who paul was talking about. Where you think "Tongues" comes into the picture is a bit beyond me since it's not even being addressed.

Of course we've ALL heard the story about the man/woman/child/parrot in Bankock/Upper Volta/Poughkeepsie, who "Spoke in tongues" and blasphemed God/lost his mind/ate his cat.

"It’s probably not a great idea to say that everyone else is wrong and I’m right and then to ignore the critical material in the opening post.

You're apparently a lot more "Impressed" with the "Critical material" than I was, y'all. And I don't have any objection at ALL if you think I'm wrong. Others will judge anyway.

 

[Biblicist]

Sorry that I haven't been able to reply to some posts as I have been pulling 12 hour shifts with student examinations at uni. I will be able to get back to posting in a few days.

 

[Biblicist]

The "Material" you posted is "Just another commentary opinion,...

I suppose that I take the position that if I were to travel across the oceans while being required to maintain a piece of complicated and intricate equipment that I would sooner do so while standing on a vessel that was built in accordance with the research by the best marine engineers, other than say by a bunch of blokes down at the local watering hole where I am forced to hang on to a masthead while bouncing from wave to wave.

There have been times where I have been standing with a gas soldering iron in my mouth while I’ve had a knee jammed against an enclosure while my other hand has been contorted so that I can hold a discrete device in place while trying not to destroy a motherboard – thankfully on most occasions this was done while I was standing on a strong well designed platform. Of course I have also done much the same thing high up a pole with only a bemused pigeon looking over my shoulder, I much prefer true and solid ground to work on and I'm not afraid to believe that one can be a Christian and be intelligent.

and apprears to offer nothing beyond the simple fact that one won't be speaking by the Spirit if he claims that Jesus is "Accursed"... Where you think "Tongues" comes into the picture is a bit beyond me since it's not even being addressed.

It seems that maybe you are not aware of the hundreds of books that have made mention as to how some were supposedly cursing Jesus in tongues; we can add to this the many journal articles and even the material that has been frequently posted onto websites that say much the same thing; this has been one of the more favourite things that our cessationist friends have tried to play on for decades.

As 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 are the key chapters which describe the operation and function of a Full Gospel congregation it is vital that we have a good understanding of them and 1Co 12:2-3 is certainly no exception to this rule.

 

[Yahu]

For those of us who have been believers for any length of time, we probably have all heard various stories with how the Corinthians, be it with some visiting unbelievers or even that some odd believers were in some way cursing the name of Jesus in their meetings.

First, some introduction into the history of the subject:

In 2000 Anthony Thiselton released his comprehensive 1446 page work titled;
- The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text

On pages 911 to 927 (17 pages) he discusses these two verses in obviously some detail where he discusses the twelve recognized interpretations for verse 3 alone – with no real conclusion on his part.

In 2006 he released a revised much shorter and less complicated 325 page commentary for pastors titled;
- 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary

On pages 193 to 196 he spent some time discussing the work of Bruce Winter which came out only a few months after his first book on 1st Corinthians whereby Thiselton accepted that Winters’ new solution for these two verses seemed to be the best option, even though he granted that Winters’ view could not be categorically proven, but at least it provided the most sound and plausible reason for Pauls wording.

Bruce W. Winter;
- After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change

The solution that Winter provided can be summed as:
- "Jesus curse (this person)" instead of "Jesus be cursed".

Cursing others in the names of the pagan gods was a common practice in the ancient paganism. Converted pagans would probably continue to do so even after converting to Christianity. It would probably be common place for them to continue to curse in the name of their new God.

Actually in Job, Job curses in the name of Leviathan.

Job 3:8 Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning <03882 - Leviathan>.

This is the ONLY place that Leviathan is translated 'mourning'. He is saying let those that curse in the name of the pagan god of the sea to curse the day of his birth. Those that 'raise up' Leviathan are those that worship him.

Eliphaz said:
Job 5:3 I have seen the foolish taking root: but suddenly I cursed his habitation.
4 His children are far from safety, and they are crushed in the gate, neither is there any to deliver them

Job is littered with pagan references. The three friends of Job's were all pagans. Don't be fooled by the mistranslated 'God' references. Most when spoken by Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar should be translated 'god/gods/goddess', ie 'false god'. They even use different Hebrew words translated as 'God'. Job uses Elohyim when he refers to YHVH. The others use 'El' (Mighty One), Eloah, and Shadday (root Shaddad - destroyer). Eliphaz even states he is a sun god worshiper.

 

[Yahu]

The main problem with this view is that Paul has never made any mention of any supposed demonic activity within the Corinthian congregations; in fact he even goes to say that the processions and feasts that were set around the various idols that the Corinthians gentiles were once involved with were in fact dumb and lifeless – this hardly provides any reason for presuming that any demonic activity was involved.

Obviously you don't know squat about the ancient paganism and idolatry. It is riddled with witchcraft and many forms of demonic activities. Being involved with idolatry is by definition dealing in demonic forces of the enemy.

Of course demons are lifeless! They are 'evil spirits'! They are already dead! They don't have a physical mouth, thus 'dumb'. They can speak through others that are influenced by those demons, ie oracle. The idols themselves are dead and dumb as well.

As a Christian I have been in direct conflict against witchcraft conducted via the ancient paganism. I KNOW the demonic power available via that ancient paganism. I did battle against a high priestess of Ashtoreth (ie Diana of Ephesus) over 20 years ago. That high priestess knew exactly who and what her goddess was. She was the spirit of a dead Nephilim that was born after the flood, the daughter of one of the four angels bound at Euphrates. They were bound at the Tower of Babel for the sin of having children and bring back the Nephilim corruption that was wiped out with the flood.

The ancient paganism is demon worship.

To state that there is no demonic activity associated with the ancient pagan idolatry is just plain ridiculous!

 

[Biblicist]

1. Cursing others in the names of the pagan gods was a common practice in the ancient paganism.
2. Converted pagans would probably continue to do so even after converting to Christianity.
3. It would probably be common place for them to continue to curse in the name of their new God.

With the first sentence you would be right which is the point that Winter was making but with your second sentence this is where most have recognised that this would not happen and why virtually every academic has been waiting for a solution to this once puzzling text. With verse three this obviously would also not occur which again is why the text has puzzled many including myself.

 

[Biblicist]

To state that there is no demonic activity associated with the ancient pagan idolatry is just plain ridiculous!

Two things need to be pointed out, first it seems that you might not quite understand the question being discussed which relates to 1Co 12:2,3 and not to the history of demonic activity across the ancient world; second there is little value in transferring every aspect of demonic activity back into the life of Corinth especially when the text does not allow this.

I should also point out that where I have stated that “there was no demonic activity with the Corinthian congregation”; what I pointed out was that Paul did not make any mention of demonic activity within Corinth – the two are not one and the same.

Even though I acknowledge that demonic activity is rife within the world we need to keep this in balance which means that we need to avoid trying to find demons under every rock. If you can point to any ancient document that describes where there has been any demonic activity emanating from the statues that represented the various Greek gods then please let me know and so far, having looked at the material by the best researchers within the field of Greco-Roman religions no one has been able to locate any such references so far.

They can speak through others that are influenced by those demons, ie oracle. The idols themselves are dead and dumb as well.

Even here there is no evidence of this type of behaviour, though I agree that it is possible for demons to influence people in this way at least under extreme circumstances but there is simply no evidence of this in the writings of either the Greeks or Romans – at least up until now that is.

Obviously you don't know squat about the ancient paganism and idolatry.

Ahhh...the joys of a public forum.

As I have at my hands probably the sum of the best research in this field then maybe your statement does seem to be a bit pedestrian. If you wish to gain a better understanding of the topic being discussed, you might want to consider reading material from the more renowned sources on Greco-Roman religions and particularly with the first seven; you seem to be misunderstanding the nature or religion in the Greco-Roman world which is why you should read some of the following books:

• After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
• Philo and Paul Among the Sophists
• Seek the welfare of the city:
• Christians as benefactors and citizens
• Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth:
• A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1
• The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context
• Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World
• Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity
• Gods, Heroes and Tyrants: Greek Chronology in Chaos
• Classical Mythology: A very Short Introduction
• Ancient Religions: Beliefs and Rituals across the Mediterranean World
• Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity
• Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times
• Studies in Comparative Literature, Volume 53 : Lost Girls : Demeter-Persephone and the Literary Imagination, 1850-1930
• Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture
• Was Greek Thought Religious?:On the Use and Abuse of Hellenism, from Rome to Romanticism

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"1Co 12:2-3 is certainly no exception to this rule."

Never said it was, but why "Everybody" supposedly finds it a "Difficult verse" (or supposedly tries to mix "tongues" into it when "Speaking by the Spirit" suggests Prophesy) when it's meaning is clear as glass is rather beyond me.

Whether "Hundreds of Books" have claimed that They were "Cursing Jesus in tongues" or not is insignificant to me. "Hundreds of Books have probably been written "Proving" that Jesus isn't the Messiah at all. SO much for "Religious Scholarship".

But the fact remains: the verse is not problematic, as I explained above.

 

[Biblicist]

But the fact remains: the verse is not problematic, as I explained above.

That fair enough...that's your opinion which I can accept that you believe.

Unfortunately for virtually every member of the Christian academic community for many centuries (and probably for most of us non-academics as well) we have certainly been confused by this passage, up until at least Winter released his research.

 

[Yahu]

With the first sentence you would be right which is the point that Winter was making but with your second sentence this is where most have recognised that this would not happen and why virtually every academic has been waiting for a solution to this once puzzling text. With verse three this obviously would also not occur which again is why the text has puzzled many including myself.

I have actually sent curses in the name of Yeshua. It was not intentional. I broke curses and spells sent via witchcraft. By doing so they rebound against the senders. Before the night was over, 8 of them were in prison and the entire coven was under police investigation for their criminal activities.

After speaking to the coven, one of the priestesses spoke a blessing over me in the name of her goddess. I rebuked her and broke off any spirits sent via witchcraft after me and my wife and sent them back 7x in the name of Yeshua. She thanked me. I didn't know some of them had also been secretly sending curses against us. I later found out they had also sent a financial curse against me as well. Due to our confrontation, they directly lost over $50k assets in a matter of days. Most of which was from their drug stash being flushed but they also lost a 2nd revenue stream.

The coven and all their followers ended up being prosecuted. Many repented but those that didn't died in prison.

IMO my actions were guided by the Holy Spirit to prove the power in the name of Yeshua to the coven which led to many getting salvation. They had their own curses rebound upon themselves far stronger then they expected a broken curse to rebound.

 

[Biblicist]

Being a product of the Charismatic Renewal of the 70&#8217;s, there seemed to be a common convention where we would simply say to Christians who would declare silly things against us &#8220;I trust that the Lord returns the same to you...&#8221; or things along this line.

Now I don&#8217;t think that we were doing this with any malice but about a year ago when I was becoming rather annoyed with some ongoing silly comments by a fellow church-member that I decided that the next time that he does this that I would simply say &#8220;I trust that the Lord returns that statement back to you&#8221;. About this time I came across the work of Winter where he discussed the incredible amount of archaeological evidence for the lead cursing tablets that were common within both the Greek and Roman cultures. When he linked this to 1Co 12:2,3 and with Rom 12 I suddenly realised that what I was doing was to in effect to curse my brother which absolutely horrified me as this was not my intention &#8211; even though it should have been plain enough that I was in fact doing this.

It seems that Paul was concerned with how some Corinthians and Romans (Rom 12:14) were placing curses on their opponents, be they non Christian or fellow believers. He even provided details regarding a lead cursing tablet that called upon the Trinity to curse someones &#8216;enemy&#8217;. I was not aware until recently about the number of these lead tablets which have been recovered around the Mediterranean and particularly with the amount that were found in Corinth, and this is the Latin Corinth that was rebuilt after the original city was destroyed by the Romans in 144BC.

So here I am, quite content to add my voice of criticism with how the Romans and Corinthians (and probably many other regional congregations) were cursing their neighbours and their brothers &#8211; and here I was, doing much the same thing.

So Winters&#8217; work has moved beyond merely the academic realm to where it has raised what seems to be problem that existed from the earliest times and that we also need to be aware of how easy it can be to do.
When it comes to the Christians doing such things within the congregational meeting by declaring that the Spirit has told them that &#8216;Jesus in cursed&#8217;, then such notions can now easily be discarded and of course this has been one of the favourite digs by cessationists towards continuists for years.
...

When it comes to the specialised area of praying against demonic spirits, I am certainly aware that this is both a complicated and even a controversial area but I still realise that it is an important part of defeating the enemy, but I simply don't see that it has any connection to 1Co 12:2&3.

One of the more surprising outcomes of the ongoing scholarly work regarding Greco-Roman religions is that there appears to be a lack of documented evidence regarding ecstatic demonic activity within them. When it comes to the Roman sphere their various gods seem to be more figureheads than anything else and of course the Roman Imperial Religion of Emperor worship was simply a practical (though an evil) way of uniting the empire.

I'm certainly a long way from being a competent student in this particular field but I was certainly surprised by the complete lack of documented evidence regarding the supposed ecstatic utterances by both the statues and even by the various religious oracles of the period.

 

[Yahu]

Ahhh...the joys of a public forum.

As I have at my hands probably the sum of the best research in this field then maybe your statement does seem to be a bit pedestrian. If you wish to gain a better understanding of the topic being discussed, you might want to consider reading material from the more renowned sources on Greco-Roman religions and particularly with the first seven; you seem to be misunderstanding the nature or religion in the Greco-Roman world which is why you should read some of the following books:

Sorry but I weigh personal experience as far superior to secular publications. How much of the ancient paganism have you seen 1st hand? I have seen it and battled against it. People died in that conflict.

 

[Biblicist]

Sorry but I weigh personal experience as far superior to secular publications. How much of the ancient paganism have you seen 1st hand? I have seen it and battled against it. People died in that conflict.

I guess that you are not conversant with the major Christian thinkers of our day, if your were you would be less inclined to refer to some of these academics as being secular sources, particularly with that of Winter, Thiselton, Fee, Witherington, Dutch and Aune as they are each believers and highly regarded by the Christian academic community within their respective fields.

Even with the secular sources that I have referred to, even an unsaved person is well able to read the available data and to make logical deductions.

The advantage that I have is that I am able to obtain information from the best sources which means that I do not have to rely on hearsay and articles that are produced by pamphleteers, which is sadly how many gain their 'information'.

I'm not sure how you are gathering your information as neither you or I lived during the Greco-Roman period so we are both compelled to take notice of the concrete information that has been both handed down to us and with what the archaeologists have uncovered. As to the amount of paganism (which is not a Biblical word) that you have seen, I am absolutely at a loss to know how you can use this 'information' to rewrite the known historical records.

I hope that you are not relying on deceptive spirits to obtain information regarding the Greco-Roman period.

 

[Yahu]

I guess that you are not conversant with the major Christian thinkers of our day, if your were you would be less inclined to refer to some of these academics as being secular sources, particularly with that of Winter, Thiselton, Fee, Witherington, Dutch and Aune as they are each believers and highly regarded by the Christian academic community within their respective fields.

Even with the secular sources that I have referred to, even an unsaved person is well able to read the available data and to make logical deductions.

The advantage that I have is that I am able to obtain information from the best sources which means that I do not have to rely on hearsay and articles that are produced by pamphleteers, which is sadly how many gain their 'information'.

I'm not sure how you are gathering your information as neither you or I lived during the Greco-Roman period so we are both compelled to take notice of the concrete information that has been both handed down to us and with what the archaeologists have uncovered. As to the amount of paganism (which is not a Biblical word) that you have seen, I am absolutely at a loss to know how you can use this 'information' to rewrite the known historical records.

I hope that you are not relying on deceptive spirits to obtain information regarding the Greco-Roman period.

I knew a high priestess of Ashtoreth that was the prime candidate to be the next world wide high priestess. It wasn't greco-roman period but the original Canaanite/Babel form. That conflict over 20 years ago triggered many years of research.

For example, do you know what gods/goddesses the three friends of Job followed? They were pagans. The book of Job is littered with pagan religious references. I have yet to come across a single commentary that realizes that.