# A Nation of Witches and Sorcerers



## Jerusalem Blade

I'm posting the article (attaching it, actually) on this forum as it pertains to a phenomena attending the end of last days of the New Testament era.

This topic is further dealt with in the literary work, _A Great and Terrible Love: A Visionary Journey from Woodstock's Sorceries to God's Paradise _(or here).

It is pertinent as New York's governor Andrew Coumo is preparing to legalize recreational marijuana here in 2019, and the churches are unprepared to deal with it biblically. This is already the case in many of our states.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Cedarbay

Great to see you here, Steve.

I am convinced you are correct in the premise of this article.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## nickipicki123

Something to consider... Now that it's legal in CA, the accents to research its medicinal uses have opened up quite a bit. Now they are breeding strands of MJ that are low in THC (which is what makes you high). Personally i don't see a problem with it if it doesn't make you high.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

nickipicki123 said:


> Now they are breeding strands of MJ that are low in THC (which is what makes you high).



I thought it was the exact opposite. I know they can make it low in THC, but nobody is doing that. The point is to get high. I thought the THC levels were exponentially higher now than during the hippie days.


----------



## nickipicki123

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought it was the exact opposite. I know they can make it low in THC, but nobody is doing that. The point is to get high. I thought the THC levels were exponentially higher now than during the hippie days.


I think there's both going on. Plenty of people want the medicinal uses but don't want to get high.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## nickipicki123

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought it was the exact opposite. I know they can make it low in THC, but nobody is doing that. The point is to get high. I thought the THC levels were exponentially higher now than during the hippie days.


The illegal strands that come from places like Mexico are probably the worst, but i don't really know


----------



## Cedarbay

Medicinal cannabis comes in various strengths and modes of injesting. The lowest ratio of THC is still psychogenic, which is the concern of the OP as it regards the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Why is the rise in marijuana a sign of the last times but not the opiods which have been killing people for decades? 

I am assuming you are not a supporter of the legalization of CBD oil for epilepsy?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perg, I do think the non-psychoactive CBD is fine for various medicinal uses. (*I gather you didn't read the article.*)

A lot of drugs kill people, but rending the veil between dimensions is in a different class. I had to briefly take opioids when I had a surgery recently, and it did me no harm. Even food kills people if overdone.


----------



## Pergamum

I read it. I just don't quite get it. 

You seem to distinguish between drugs which dull the senses and drugs which heighten the senses. I was wondering where you held marijuana, since it makes stoners pretty dull. But you go the opposite way and write:

"Those folks who use the drug marijuana recreationally—to enhance the senses of taste, smell, touch, sight, and hearing—may deny any occult experience, yet they still have been transported into the realm of spiritual power and influence, and the spirits now have access into their minds and spirits (Eph. 6:12, 16)."

You also seem to broadly condemn drugs for pain relief:

"But what of its medicinal use? This is important. For it is very appealing to many folks, of all ages, perhaps especially the more elderly, as we tend to fall apart as we get older! Although younger saints are more active, and may have injuries from sports or other strenuous activity. Plus we all have extended family, where others close to us may be casual users. Medicinal use is a more nuanced topic than the world realizes, not having spiritual discernment. But we who are Christ’s must have it especially given the times we live in. It is the much-praised medicinal use that opened the door of the culture’s reluctance to its recreational use. It is truly a proverbial Trojan Horse, and this one from Hell itself."

A proverbial Trojan Horse from hell itself seems strong for pot. It seems over-stated if one has intractable severe pain and this pain can be lessened by a medicine. Opium and other drugs do wonders for severe pain. 

What is your stance on pain relief? What is permissible?

Of all the drugs, you focus on marijuana the most...which seems a little silly given the effects of pot versus the other drugs out there.

How do you define "high" in the case of patients taking medicinal marijuana for the relief of pain? Many pain relief drugs cloud the thoughts a bit. When is a cancer patient "high" exactly? when the pain goes away? And isn't that the point?

Conclusion: I think you make a leap too far. Many sorcerers and shamans take drugs to put them into spirit-trances, but this does not mean all who take drugs are practicing sorcery. 

The Bible even speaks of giving strong drink to the depressed and dying, with the aim that they will not remember their woes. And wine is to make glad the hearts of men (i.e. mood-altering).

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## A.Joseph

I do think it’s often a vicious cycle in which a ‘necessary’ evil can swiftly become dependency and normalcy.

Relief from pain in any/many forms are an undeserved blessing. However, there is another side to this equation.


“The action of hashish is as varied as life itself and seems to be determined almost entirely by the will or mood of the ‘assassin,’ and that within the hedges of his mental and moral form. I can get fantastic visions, or power of mind ? analysis, or spiritual exaltation, or sexual excitement of various kinds, or ravenous hunger, or vigor of imagination, whichever I please, absolutely at will, on a minute dose of the Parker Davis extract. This is simply because I have discovered the theory and perfected the practice of the instrument.”
– Aleister Crowley 1920

“If hashish-analogy be able to assist us here, it is in that supreme state in which man has built himself up into God” -AC
https://www.pot.tv/video/1999/11/01/80/


----------



## timfost

If herbs are for eating, is topical use forbidden? It would seem that if we reject smoking/inhaling on the grounds that it is not _eating, _we should also forbid topical uses, such as essential oils which are derived from herbs, etc. and applied topically or diffused into the air which we inhale.

When taken in small enough doses, even THC has medicinal uses such as pain relief, which the article rejects outright. To say that this part of marijuana is demonic does not account for the facts. I know someone personally who smoked a little marijuana in a state where it was legalized and the effect was more like a little alcohol in contrast to what the article suggests.

Why blanketly bind Christian consciences with "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle"?

I agree that it is critical that Christians stay away from demonic influence. What the article lacks, in my opinion, is any proof that the use of marijuana necessarily invites demonic influence. Rather, I would treat it like alcohol, where a warning is in order since it can be abused.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought it was the exact opposite. I know they can make it low in THC, but nobody is doing that. The point is to get high. I thought the THC levels were exponentially higher now than during the hippie days.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte's_web_(cannabis)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I focus on marijuana because it’s the one _legal _substance (in many American states) in the psychedelic class, even though the _NY Times_ continually pushes the envelope as regards LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, etc. The _NYT_ has already been a huge advocate for the legalization of pot.

About the state of being “high”: I can remember when I had open heart surgery in ’96 I was given Tylenol #3 (300 mg of acetaminophen and 15 mg of caffeine, in combination with 30 mg of codeine phosphate) to deal with the pain in the weeks following. At a certain point I got high taking the pills, and I stopped. The “high” was a sense of psychic and somatic euphoria, whereas before there was not, only relief of the pain. This “high” from narcotics and opioids is qualitatively different from the “high” of psychedelics. With the former it was “psychic and somatic euphoria” and with the latter it was an expansion of consciousness in another realm or dimension. While the above is merely personal and anecdotal, this “anecdotal” report is common to a great multitude of users. True, not all users experience extra-dimensional awareness, yet it is known that all users have been exposed to the demonic realm, whether aware of it or not.

Here at PB we have had many discussions regarding demonic activity in the NT age, and some here do not believe there *is *demonic activity that can affect the believer—or even the cultures themselves—due to the victory of Jesus Christ over Satan at the cross, His resurrection, and exaltation. Though many missionaries active in primitive cultures would affirm that Satan, although vanquished by the Saviour, is on a long leash, and the unregenerate, and sinful, are vulnerable to his influence and infiltration.

As regards standard pain relief, I believe it is both permissible and highly desirable, even though they can make one a bit groggy—though better groggy than acute pain.

Re Gen 1:29, whatever the mode of intake into the bloodstream is, the issue is the plants were not given “to change their consciousness and enter the spirit world”.



Pergamum said:


> Many sorcerers and shamans take drugs to put them into spirit-trances, but this does not mean all who take drugs are practicing sorcery.



True in a sense of not _deliberately _“practicing”, but all who take such drugs expose themselves to the spirit realm nonetheless. It remains sorcery regardless of the intent or awareness. There are different “levels” of intention in this practicing.

If how I exegete the _pharmakeia _usage in the NT is accurate, then the prohibition of these psychedelic agents is not “bind[ing] Christian consciences with ‘do not touch, do not taste, do not handle’ ” legalism, but rather reflecting or restating the _Lord’s _prohibition in His word.

A question I would ask those who disagree, “What then *is* this _pharmakeia_—and its cognates—forbidden in Galatians 5:20,21 and Revelation 21:8 and 22:15, where practitioners ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God’, but have their part in the lake of fire, barred from entering the gates of the heavenly City?” Surely such a sin would be clearly—*unmistakably!*—identifiable for us even in the 21st century. If you disagree, what then is it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

On a broader scale. I think we are seeing pharmakeia (Greek word for sorcery connected with drugs) at play in our culture. I think it has been going on for quite some time (importing heroin from Afghanistan, cocaine from Central and South America).

Not to mention that drug cartels are praying to Santa Muerta in Mexico.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Jacob,

Heroin would not be classified with sorcerous potions, not being a psychedelic, though it would be a _pharmakon_ (drug) in the broad sense.

The psychedelics give a counterfeit experience of God and His Spirit / presence, if one is seeking that (and even if not, at times). Its use brought into the house of God is an evil thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

I think it’s important to know the classification of marijauna. Here is some information.

"Under the definitions strict of marijuana and psychedelics, they are two different substances not chemically related. Their actions in the body are different as are their effects on the body. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Drug Enforcement Administration, they are two different classes of drug. It is possible to argue that because of this difference in classification it is not a psychedelic. If you take the effects of each into consideration the essential ingredient in cannabis, acts like a psychedelic. Psychedelics cause what is termed expansion of consciousness, heightened cognition or thinking, and hallucinations. Cannabinoids do the same thing in different ways. Cannabinoids are unique to marijuana. Essentially the practical answer to is marijuana a psychedelic is yes, but not in the same way that LSD, MDMA, and others in that class. It contains many of the characteristics, properties, and effects that fall under the definitions of both. This is probably why marijuana is in a class on its own."

Marijuana can depress, excite and impair the central nervous system. This makes it difficult to classify. The effects of marijuana are dependent on the user's age, gender, genetic makeup, amount of the drug, and history of marijuana use. Many legal drugs fall into these categories, however.

DXM is found in cough syrup and is a hallucinogenic drug. Overuse of this med can cause hallucinations. There are other legal drugs that are not classified as being a psychedelic drug (like marijuana) which can cause hallucinations, delusions, and/or confusion.

As a nurse, I give many types of medications that can have these side effects on SOME patients, but again, it is dependent on the user's age, gender, genetic makeup, amount of the drug, and history of the drug's usage. The high you got from narcotics is the "normal" high that most people experience, but not all people. The high that some people experience would be the type of high you would experience if you did take a psychedelic drug.

We can say with assurance that psychedelic drugs will alter perception (awareness of surrounding objects and conditions), thoughts, and feelings causing hallucinations on the user. We must, however, acknowledge that legal drugs which are not classified as psychedelic drugs can have the same psychedelic effect on the user although it certainly is not the common side effect. I wouldn't suggest we rid ourselves of these helpful drugs, however.

You stated, "True, not all users experience extra-dimensional awareness, yet it is known that all users have been exposed to the demonic realm, whether aware of it or not." I find this to be an inaccurate statement based on Biblical logic and scientific logic. Here's why:

First, how do you test for "exposure to the demonic realm" which goes beyond the exposure we all experience (we fight not against flesh and blood but against but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high _places). _Is there evidence based data which shows people have been exposed to the demonic realm either by their statements (they can state their demonic exposure which shows it to be in a greater quantity than normal) or by their actions (other people can identify the drug user's behavior to that of being exposed to the demonic realm)? I believe it can be shown Biblically that once a person has a greater exposure to the demonic realm that we all endure, that person is then indwelt by demons. Obviously, Christians can not be demon possessed and have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. If so, you would have to admonish all Christians to quit drinking alcohol (even a small amount would increase their risk to the demonic realm from what they normally encounter), stop using narcotics (even if it doesn't make you high it does alter your mind which is the reason you are not allowed to use narcotics and drive), stop using some seizure medications, never have general anaesthetic agents (which would be the greatest risk one could take), and the list goes on.

Secondly, it is nearly always untrue to say "all" in any statement of a truth claim (the exception being Biblical truth claims). You first would have to show that drug users (legally or illegally) are indeed exposed to the demonic realm who not involved in the demonic realm on a daily basis outside of drug use. I realize that there are those who worship or have some sort of dealings with the demonic realm as part of their religion or entertainment. Their drug usage would only heighten what they already engage in. However, to state that people outside of this activity who take certain drugs are exposed in a greater amount to the demonic realm all the time or even at times is stating a claim that has not been proven and I doubt could be proven. In fact, just the opposite can be claimed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheOldCourse

I've seen arguments like this before, usually from fundamentalist Baptist circles. If this is to be regarded as exegesis of Scripture which would accordingly have the authority of the Lord behind it, the reasoning needs to be far, far tighter. You sum up your argument like thus:



> 1) The testimony of Scripture: these drugs exist, are used in sorcerous activities, and are condemned by God on pain of spiritual death. 2) The testimony of exegetes, linguists, and commentators: who define what sorcery and witchcraft are by indicating the use of drugs to enter demonic realms, and the practicing of their crafts there by said users. 3) The testimony of those who have experienced these peculiar drugs, and they are of two classes: a) godly men and women who have been delivered from the use and effects of them; and b) ungodly men and women who continue in use of them and clearly tell of their properties, their affect within their beings, and their efficacy in facilitating entrance into the spirit world.



With respect to the first point, only the first two clauses have been demonstrated. While an attempt has been made to couch this conclusion in exegetical language, that drug use _per se _is condemned by God on pain of spiritual death is not warranted by the evidence put forth. Even the definitions of _pharmakeia _that have been marshalled in support as the most friendly to your argument include sorcerous use of drugs as only part of the semantic range of the word. It remains to be demonstrated that _pharmakeia _necessarily includes an element of psychoactive drug use (which not generally supported by the linguists) or, if not, that the context of the passage requires that particular interpretation. Even if either was demonstrated, it would need to be seen that the Scriptures ascribe spiritual characteristics to the substance itself rather than merely condemning the substance insofar as it is associated with sorcery. Indeed, I think that the majority of the paper moves to anecdotal evidence is an implicit acknowledgement that the exegetical evidence is far from conclusive.

The second point is more or less an elaboration of the first and is likewise incomplete.

The third point is fair, but it should be noted that there is a great deal of anecdotal and experiential evidence to the contrary as well. Whose witness are we to believe? I experimented with marijuana when I was a teenager and all it did was make me giggle a lot. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of legalization and recreational use--far from it. I believe that it is a blight on our civilization and both a symptom and a cause of the great narcissism that is characteristic of our age. However, many of the same arguments used can be applied to alcohol which has psychoactive properties and has also been associated with pagan religious rites and sorcery as long as recorded history. Indeed, absinthe in particular has been associated closely with witchcraft and satanism in the modern world and yet modern studies have not found that it possesses significant psychoactive properties in excess of any other strong drink. Pagans and animists have often spiritualized natural phenomena. Why should we take their word for it? While we recognize the reality of the spiritual and it's impact on the natural, we reject an identity between the two.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph

This is a pretty good sermon on this topic....
https://www.trinityopcnovato.org/2018/02/11/permissibility-pot/
“As one further biblical application to speak against marijuana use are the several references to what is translated as sorcery in the New Testament. Galatians 5:20 and three references in Revelation speak against sorcery. But interestingly, the word in the Greek is actually pharmakeia, which could be literally translated as the dealing of drugs. Though that word had some historic usage about medicinal usage of drugs, by the time of the New Testament it seemed that the people who were thought of as the drug dealers at that time where the sorcerers and magicians in their evil craft, so the word pharmakeia became intimately connected with such people. But the emphasis on the word is less on the magic itself but on the dispensing of drugs. Such sorcerers obviously weren’t drug dealers in the sense of medical treatments. Seeing that the Bible forbids that kind of pharmakeia surely speaks against recreational marijuana use at least in some sense as well.”

So where is the line drawn? and who draws it? How do we properly discern?How do we properly summarize what the Bible speaks to and what is specifically condemned and or forbidden.... I don’t see marajuana as a liberty issue... the way alcohol is referenced. So instead of looking for loopholes, let’s see where marajuana is a problem and take if from there....

https://biblehub.com/greek/5331.htm


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I think I'll let it rest at this point. I've made my case as best I can, and you will decide as to its merits or demerits. I won't seek to refute opposing arguments, though I could. And we all—especially myself, as a pastor-teacher—shall answer to the Lord on the day of Judgment. Thank you for considering my view.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think I'll let it rest at this point. I've made my case as best I can, and you will decide as to its merits or demerits. I won't seek to refute opposing arguments, though I could. And we all—especially myself, as a pastor-teacher—shall answer to the Lord on the day of Judgment. Thank you for considering my view.


Thank you. I do always appreciate your thoughts and your thoroughness in explaining your beliefs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40

Also any topical use of meds, including creams with THC, enter the blood steam. In other words, how high is high?

Steve do you think that there is the possibility that getting high from marijuana is the same as getting drunk? I ask because from your article it appears the answer would be no to my question, because you have rule out such based on your use of the word pharmakeia.

PS. I do believe marijuana is a scourge to our society as is drunkenness and the like.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Earl,

From what I understand, there are topical drugs (lotions, creams, ointments) that do not go into the bloodstream, although “topicals” like patches are _meant _to. “How high is high?” That’s like being “a little pregnant”. Even a slight sorcerous affect is dangerous.

Alcohol is distinctly different from grass. They each have different affects in the human system. The term “high” that arose from the sixties counterculture (and perhaps before that among the beats, and other groups that early used pot and other psychedelics) referred to an *elevated *(i.e., “high”) state of awareness not normally attained by men. In the sixties we had no idea the realm we had entered was the demonic—it was all glory and light for most (though not all, to be sure)—and there was the perception that there was a spiritual dimension involved.

When an entire vast subculture experienced this phenomenal awareness—and this included many in academe of those times, politicians, psychotherapists, artists, poets and writers, musicians, intelligence agencies, etc—this was a major, global event.

What this psychic / spiritual event actually accomplished, however, was a new state of mind that went far beyond the beats and hippies. The _ultimate _message of LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, marijuana et al was *truth resides within man and not outside; whatever deity is to be known likewise resides in man and not in some external “God”*. This understanding came into human consciousness *with power*, for it was *experienced *by vast multitudes (for the evangelists of this revelation were many, and spoke, wrote, and sang with power), and it eventually became the reigning paradigm of the world, crowding out the exclusivist religions, especially delegitimizing the Christian faith in the eyes of many; it became the new zeitgeist. “Fundamentalist” Hindu, Islamic, and Buddhist religions filled the vacuum with a vengeance, and violent oppression of Christians.

This renewed “spirit of the age” affected even those who didn’t use the drugs, as the collective human consciousness is as the air we breathe, psychically speaking. And the manifest nature of this spirit? It resembles the days of Noah, filled with both random and mass violence—sexual, verbal, “religious”, ethnic, national, etc—as well as perversion, hatred of authority (much of which is corrupt anyway), with new twists, such as the collapse of human identity, biological identifiers no longer accepted, every person being whatever they want to be, in defiance of the Creator’s assignment of gender. Vulgarity and blatant immorality unashamedly displayed by those on the world stage, including those in the highest echelons of influence—politicians, newsmen and women, actors, etc. It certainly does appear that a dark spirit has entered into our national life and communications. 2 Thess 2:10-12 shows something clearly visible to those with discernment: “...with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause *God shall send them strong delusion*, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” [emphasis added]

This gives poignant slant to the words of judgment on latter-day Babylon, “for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” (Rev 18:23).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

So you would say that the terms "drunk" and "high" differ?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I would say this is widely common knowledge, Perg.


----------



## Pergamum

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would say this is widely common knowledge, Perg.


It is a true question. I don't know if there is a difference or not.


----------



## timfost

Jerusalem Blade said:


> as a pastor-teacher



On a practical note, in this position of authority in your church, would you seek to discipline a member that didn't share your views on this issue if they used marijuana in a way that does not get them high? Would you deal with the issue similarly to one who steals or gets drunk repeatedly without repentance?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Tim,

First, as of Dec 9 of 2018 I retired due to age and health, so although I am afforded sort of an emeritus status, I do not have authority. Second, “if they used marijuana in a way that does not get them high”—such as in CBD, for instance—there would be no discipline involved.

To go beyond your question, if one were getting high on pot, even though about to be legalized here in NY (or other psychedelic drugs), the Scripture clearly forbids such—apart from the changing laws of man—and I would recommend to the pastors to speak to the person preliminary to discipline.

There are many things modern professing Christians think within themselves it is alright to do, despite the authoritative Bible-based teaching of the church, especially in these times where the influences and attitudes of the world are so strong even in the church. It will be the elders / pastor-teachers who will uphold the word of God. Churches may differ on this particular matter, and observers will note the ongoing condition of those flocks who allow either members or pastors to indulge in such drugs, and many will be edified.

It is a sad state of affairs, I know, but there will come a purification process, and the Lord will present to Himself a bride without spot or blemish.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> So you would say that the terms "drunk" and "high" differ?



Let's carry the reasoning further, assuming the two are analogous. It is not a sin to take some wine as long as you don't get drunk. Only fundies disagree with that. Yet, I am not ready to say you can take a few tokes as long as you don't get high.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's carry the reasoning further, assuming the two are analogous. It is not a sin to take some wine as long as you don't get drunk. Only fundies disagree with that. Yet, I am not ready to say you can take a few tokes as long as you don't get high.


Further, many Reformed speak of being allowed a "buzz" - Wine is meant to "make glad the hearts of men", after all. So, is a buzz allowed?

I am ok with medicinal uses of whatever substance. For intractable pain, etc. But I have never thought of the parameters of recreational use. For example, wine is good for the digestion in small quantities (2 glasses), but a whole bottle nullifies those healthy effects. And most of my pot-smoker friends from high school didn't really go far in life. So let's not overplay the positive benefits. 

And does "taking the edge off" or "relaxing" count as a proper "medicinal use"? Will a "few tokes" accomplish this goal?

Many might think these questions are dumb, but the US population often pops a zanax for anxiety, and I am trying to see the difference.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perg, talking about the general “US population” is one thing—those who do whatever their secular, ungodly orientations allow their consciences—and, on the other hand, Christians committed to following Christ according to the Scriptures and the gracious, wise oversight of their pastors / elders.

I understand that you have in your younger days lived according to wisdom in not partaking of recreational drugs of various sorts. That has been a blessing to you, even though you do not realize—from experience—how much of a blessing.

When you question “[how] the terms ‘drunk’ and ‘high’ differ?” it evidences the innocence of a godly soul as regards a demonic activity. Even those who partake of sorcerous agents with no occult or spiritual intent, but only the enhancement of fleshly enjoyments (friendship, sex, food, entertainment, art, nature, etc) through intensification of pleasure and perception, avail themselves of demonic agency to heighten sensation. Sorcery is not only about enhanced psychic / occult activity, it is also about enhancing general fleshly activity.

Alcohol is a CNS (central nervous system) depressant, while the psychedelics—including marijuana—are CNS energizers, even though they may have different affect in people according to their psychological makeups. Yes, alcohol may make one merry or glad, and enhance ones’ state of mind if done in moderation, which the Scripture even approves of; but sorcerous agents are classed by Paul in Gal 5:20, 21 as *against *the Spirit (Gal 5:17), and are indicative of those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

It was a gift of God in your providence that you steered clear of such stuff; others of us did not receive that gift, but rather the saving mercies of Christ while in the “strong delusion” and depths of sin these agents plunged us into, and we testify of His power and love, while testifying of the awful depths and delusions He delivered us out of.

I have already heard from pastors dealing with these things in their churches, who are glad to have the resources to comprehend this stealth assault of Satan upon their flocks.

When it comes to my time to face my Creator and Saviour, I do not want to hear Him say, “Steve, I gave you understanding to testify to the church in this matter, but now on your watch you have fainted in the face of just a little opposition.” May that never be said. Whoever teaches against this witness, based upon Scripture and the responsible and sound exposition of same, will also have to face Him, who is jealous for the purity of His bride—which sin spoken of here, among others, has brought down civilizations (Isa 47:7-15 [especially note vv 9 and 12]; Rev 18:23).


----------



## Pergamum

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perg, talking about the general “US population” is one thing—those who do whatever their secular, ungodly orientations allow their consciences—and, on the other hand, Christians committed to following Christ according to the Scriptures and the gracious, wise oversight of their pastors / elders.
> 
> I understand that you have in your younger days lived according to wisdom in not partaking of recreational drugs of various sorts. That has been a blessing to you, even though you do not realize—from experience—how much of a blessing.
> 
> When you question “[how] the terms ‘drunk’ and ‘high’ differ?” it evidences the innocence of a godly soul as regards a demonic activity. Even those who partake of sorcerous agents with no occult or spiritual intent, but only the enhancement of fleshly enjoyments (friendship, sex, food, entertainment, art, nature, etc) through intensification of pleasure and perception, avail themselves of demonic agency to heighten sensation. Sorcery is not only about enhanced psychic / occult activity, it is also about enhancing general fleshly activity.
> 
> Alcohol is a CNS (central nervous system) depressant, while the psychedelics—including marijuana—are CNS energizers, even though they may have different affect in people according to their psychological makeups. Yes, alcohol may make one merry or glad, and enhance ones’ state of mind if done in moderation, which the Scripture even approves of; but sorcerous agents are classed by Paul in Gal 5:20, 21 as *against *the Spirit (Gal 5:17), and are indicative of those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
> 
> It was a gift of God in your providence that you steered clear of such stuff; others of us did not receive that gift, but rather the saving mercies of Christ while in the “strong delusion” and depths of sin these agents plunged us into, and we testify of His power and love, while testifying of the awful depths and delusions He delivered us out of.
> 
> I have already heard from pastors dealing with these things in their churches, who are glad to have the resources to comprehend this stealth assault of Satan upon their flocks.
> 
> When it comes to my time to face my Creator and Saviour, I do not want to hear Him say, “Steve, I gave you understanding to testify to the church in this matter, but now on your watch you have fainted in the face of just a little opposition.” May that never be said. Whoever teaches against this witness, based upon Scripture and the responsible and sound exposition of same, will also have to face Him, who is jealous for the purity of His bride—which sin spoken of here, among others, has brought down civilizations (Isa 47:7-15 [especially note vv 9 and 12]; Rev 18:23).



Thank you for your response.

I was only ever drunk once in my life at age 16. And at that time, I tried to hit on a slutty girl and then stomped on some guy in the mosh pit while listening to a heavy metal band for bumping into me (stomped on his face several times until I think he passed out), and then wanted to fight another guy for looking at me. Getting drunk awakened something very dark and violent in me. It seemed demonic.

So I spent 20 years as a teetotaller, until I got worms so bad I went on a diet of greek yoghurt and saurkraut and sipping red wine to rebuild my gut bacteria. Some years later, once when out of pain meds, I took a shot or two of whiskey to deaden the severe pain because we ran out of all other meds (like in the Old West).

But my experience when I was 16 seemed pretty demonic, and it was with alcohol only. I have not drank beer since. And I've never tried anything harder than alcohol because of that experience. I still believe red wine has health benefits in moderation, especially for worm-addled intestines.

But I have taken opiods for several weeks due to severe pain. And I went into a depression at the same time and my stomach cramped when I got off of them, so I flushed them all down the toilet. They were a great gift when I first got the opiods because my pain was so severe I could barely walk or even stand... but afer just 10 days I could tell that I was building a tolerance. I had a dream of hanging myself to relieve the pain. Not sure how much of a conscious or unconscious thought this was since I was dreaming. Several times I took a larger dose to put me to sleep when suffering insomnia.

I am having a hard time seeing how one drug is worse than others. A high/drunk seems to be a high/drunk. 

It seems to me that a drug is a drug. Some are harder than others.... (eg. nicotine harder than caffeine). But for some drugs to be more "demonic" than other drugs...well, I am still having trouble believing it.

I know of heavy drinkers that beat their wives (I guess when they are drunk with hard drink like vodka?)....but I have never met a man who beat his family while high on marijuana.

Sorry, I am, indeed, naive, when it come to drugs and drinking. My experience is very shallow (thank God). I believe God allowed me a slip-up at 16 to save me these things...a blessing in disguise.

BUT...I do agree with one of your main premises...that the occult and sorcerers and shamans often sought out intoxicating things. Sorcery is associated with drug-taking. And Satanists today often take drugs. And sorcery and drug-taking IS related in the Biblical vocabulary. So I just don't know what to do with that. 

Since you seem ok with CBD oil for pain relief, than I guess practically we are agreed.

While my high school buddies that smoked dope were nice guys and did not fall into Devil worshipping, they mostly did not succeed in life, either, due to lack of ambition (and probably deadened brain cells since they smoked it at 16 instead of 25 or 20). We all did like to fight, whether drunk or not...but my friends actually got more peaceful when on dope and were more "chill" and pot seemed to be associated with the peace movement of the 60's more than satanism.

For old people, it seems beneficial to have something pleasant to relieve the aches and pains of old age, though, and it would be good to have a form of pain relief that is healthier than an opiod.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perg, and thanks for _your _response! At almost age 77 – and my slowly deteriorating physical condition (difficult for me as I have always been athletic and physically active . . . sports, martial arts, scuba diving, sky diving, wilderness survival, and recently mountain climbing) – a benign form of pain relief would be welcome, though even ibuprofen and Tylenol have their dangers; opioids and narcotics scare me due to addiction I had while young, so I only take those when _really _necessary, and quit quickly when no longer so.

So grass would be welcome were it not *so *deadly. I am not naïve when it comes to sin and its spiritual dangers, often having learned in the school of hard knocks, though kept intact by my great Shepherd.

I don’t think drugs are in themselves “demonic”. This is something I wrote here on the topic around 4 years ago:

“…the _pharmakeia_ drugs do not contain demonic power. This would be the negative mirror-image of Rome’s claiming the wafer actually contains God’s grace, that having been infused in it by Him, and that it confers grace apart from any motion – faith or devotion – on the part of the recipient. Such, along with Francis Turretin, I would deny. Both views err. In Turretin’s words, “nothing corporeal can by its own power effect anything spiritual or act upon the soul” (_Elenctic Theology_, Vol 3, p 365), that is, evil _or_ good do not inhere in physical objects; even alcohol or tobacco are not evil in themselves – it is their misuse that results in damaging effects on the human body and soul. Or Turretin again, “the sacraments do not work grace physically and _ex opere operato_ [produce of themselves] as if they possessed a force implanted and inherent in them of conferring and effecting grace” (_Ibid._, p 363). The same _inability_ to contain and/or confer evil applies to the drugs.

“So on this point please note that I do *not* assert that demonic power is in the substance of marijuana or LSD, etc. It is simply a plant – or, with respect to LSD, a synthetic mix of chemicals – derived from the created order of things. Their effect is upon the physical body, particularly the brain and neurological system.

“Whence then, the sorcerous power of the drugs? Perhaps this may illustrate my view: I was wondering a while ago, reflecting on this topic, what if (indulging briefly in the “if – then fallacy”) there were no demonic realm, no demons, just God and His creation in a holy state; and if someone inhaled the smoke of marijuana, or ate psychedelic mushrooms or peyote buttons, and the affect from ingesting these substances was to make them very aware of their inner being and of the outer physical and spiritual worlds? If there were no demons, this would not – in that context – be sorcery, nor would those substances be categorized and prohibited as _pharmakeia _agents. There would be no demonic influence at all. But this conjecture presupposes a blessed state greater than original innocence (for there was a devil lurking about the garden), rather the pristine holiness of the eternal state. Perhaps it can be seen where I am going with such thoughts.”​
But the psychedelics are extraordinary as regards the properties they have in their effects upon human consciousness. If you had told me about these things near 60 years ago when I was around 20 I’d not have believed you, as my imagination could not have conceived of such things. It was when I used them that I came to believe. Sorcery, demonic realm, God, Satan, spirit world – these were things I came to understand after the Spirit of Christ illumined various realities to me by the Scriptures, after my conversion.

Even though I have stepped down from the formal oversight of the church, I still have the legitimate desire – and one could say commission – to protect the Lord’s house (of living stones), and the name of the Lord, both in the eyes of the lost, and to other assemblies of God’s people.

Re your earlier experience with liquor (or beer), it was not the liquor that was demonic, but your own depravity become uninhibited that was “demonic” or evil.

Thank you for being so transparent concerning your past, and from which our Saviour eventually delivered you, making you a beloved child of His.


----------



## OPC'n

Here's some examples of how great marajuana has helped patients with their chronic diseases. I'm really hoping our state makes is legal soon. This will help so many of our patients. These videos are impressive


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I still have the legitimate desire – and one could say commission – to protect the Lord’s house (of living stones), and the name of the Lord, both in the eyes of the lost, and to other assemblies of God’s people.


Hello Steve,

You might find this book from the truthxchange helpful "On Global Wizardry: Techniques of Pagan Spirituality and a Christian Response". My copy arrived today so have not read it yet, but it seems to address the very issues you want to warn the curch about.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Sarah (OPC’n),

Thanks for the video clips. In the first one with the girl afflicted with chronic seizure activity, although in the beginning it showed what looked like a (liter?) bag of raw, dried marijuana, at around 5:52 I noticed the bottle labeled “CBD” on the table (CBD is the extract from marijuana without any of the THC that gets one high). So I’m not clear on what they settled down with to use on their daughter.

I’ve seen the second clip of the man with Parkinson’s before, and again it is not clear what was given him, CBD oil or cannabis-with-THC oil. They both may be termed “marijuana oil”.

The third clip showed the agitated autistic child treated with vaporized cannabis markedly calmed down after breathing some in (I worked with autistic and other special needs children, and adults, for many years). Again, it is not clear what they used.

In your post #17 you assert that legal drugs may have the same affect in some people as the psychedelics, though that is a vague and unsupported statement, and without any consideration of those peoples drug-use history. You also post a quote (without citing its source) saying that marijuana is not chemically related to other psychedelics, which is true, though that is also the case in the large variety of psychedelics we know of. That quote also says that marijuana _is _a psychedelic, though of a different class than the others, which I would acknowledge.

Re the last paragraph of your post #17 you talk a lot about “exposure to the demonic realm” and what one can and cannot say, as though you have extensive knowledge in this area. I do have great respect for the rigorous training re medicines, their administration, and other medical knowledge you have as a nurse (I gather RN), although that doesn’t qualify you for discernment and understanding in the spiritual realm.

The videos you posted do show the radical health benefits of medical marijuana, though, as I said, it is blatantly clear that it *may *be referring to the non-psychoactive CBD instead of the THC-laden cannabis. And even if it *is *the THC cannabis, we do not see into the ongoing lives of these patients. Say it _was _the THC, which effected great relief in the two children and the adult, what else has it done—or may yet do in months or years to come—in their souls and spirits? We don’t know.

I also said earlier that were I ever in acute pain, or having some ailment involving loss of muscle control, etc., I would not—with the Lord’s grace and help—use a substance that exposed me to the realm of the demonic (which is a given property of psychedelics). Some well-meaning folks tend to blur the line between sorcery and medicine, and I have tried to make clear the distinctions and parameters, as one who has been given spiritual oversight of those elect souls precious to God.

What is known is that pure cannabis, which is some 20 times more potent now than it used to be in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and can be processed into “wax” (aka “honey oil” “glass”, etc) to be vaporized, and is even far more potent than the unprocessed stuff, all of which is unleashing a scourge upon the psyches of collective humankind, “but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads” (Rev 9:4). And I quote that passage as the 5th trumpet of God’s judgment upon the earth bears upon this topic of sorcerous drugs and their horrific dark power against the generations of men, women, and children now living. This is not a topic of discussion to be lightly entered into! It involves the severe judgments of the Almighty upon the idolatrous and those who have set themselves against Him and His Christ in the last days (cf Psalm 2), especially the end thereof.

Stephen, thanks for the heads-up on prof and pastor (PCA) Peter Jones’ new book! He is well-known for his works discerning the spiritual assaults being made upon the world and especially God’s people, such as his earlier _Spirit Wars_, and _The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back_. In this new book of essays which he is editor of and contributor to, I see he has at least one chapter on shamanism. Please let me know what you think about it, though they have one chapter on it in the Kindle preview on Amazon (I’ll PM you my email in case you want to do so privately).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Stephen, I read the first chapter of Dr. Jones' book (on Amazon's "Look Inside") which was, "Modern Shamanism: Spirit Contact & Spiritual Progress". So I found his email and sent him a copy of my article, which he may likely appreciate.


----------



## OPC'n

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Sarah (OPC’n),
> 
> Thanks for the video clips. In the first one with the girl afflicted with chronic seizure activity, although in the beginning it showed what looked like a (liter?) bag of raw, dried marijuana, at around 5:52 I noticed the bottle labeled “CBD” on the table (CBD is the extract from marijuana without any of the THC that gets one high). So I’m not clear on what they settled down with to use on their daughter.
> 
> I’ve seen the second clip of the man with Parkinson’s before, and again it is not clear what was given him, CBD oil or cannabis-with-THC oil. They both may be termed “marijuana oil”.
> 
> The third clip showed the agitated autistic child treated with vaporized cannabis markedly calmed down after breathing some in (I worked with autistic and other special needs children, and adults, for many years). Again, it is not clear what they used.
> 
> In your post #17 you assert that legal drugs may have the same affect in some people as the psychedelics, though that is a vague and unsupported statement, and without any consideration of those peoples drug-use history. You also post a quote (without citing its source) saying that marijuana is not chemically related to other psychedelics, which is true, though that is also the case in the large variety of psychedelics we know of. That quote also says that marijuana _is _a psychedelic, though of a different class than the others, which I would acknowledge.
> 
> Re the last paragraph of your post #17 you talk a lot about “exposure to the demonic realm” and what one can and cannot say, as though you have extensive knowledge in this area. I do have great respect for the rigorous training re medicines, their administration, and other medical knowledge you have as a nurse (I gather RN), although that doesn’t qualify you for discernment and understanding in the spiritual realm.
> 
> The videos you posted do show the radical health benefits of medical marijuana, though, as I said, it is blatantly clear that it *may *be referring to the non-psychoactive CBD instead of the THC-laden cannabis. And even if it *is *the THC cannabis, we do not see into the ongoing lives of these patients. Say it _was _the THC, which effected great relief in the two children and the adult, what else has it done—or may yet do in months or years to come—in their souls and spirits? We don’t know.
> 
> I also said earlier that were I ever in acute pain, or having some ailment involving loss of muscle control, etc., I would not—with the Lord’s grace and help—use a substance that exposed me to the realm of the demonic (which is a given property of psychedelics). Some well-meaning folks tend to blur the line between sorcery and medicine, and I have tried to make clear the distinctions and parameters, as one who has been given spiritual oversight of those elect souls precious to God.
> 
> What is known is that pure cannabis, which is some 20 times more potent now than it used to be in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and can be processed into “wax” (aka “honey oil” “glass”, etc) to be vaporized, and is even far more potent than the unprocessed stuff, all of which is unleashing a scourge upon the psyches of collective humankind, “but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads” (Rev 9:4). And I quote that passage as the 5th trumpet of God’s judgment upon the earth bears upon this topic of sorcerous drugs and their horrific dark power against the generations of men, women, and children now living. This is not a topic of discussion to be lightly entered into! It involves the severe judgments of the Almighty upon the idolatrous and those who have set themselves against Him and His Christ in the last days (cf Psalm 2), especially the end thereof.



I don't believe you actually listened to the entirety of each video.....you would have heard and read that it's not CBD. CBD is legal everywhere and marijuana isn't legal everywhere. These videos are pushing for the legalization of medical marijuana. Also, recreational marijuana has much more THC than medical marijuana, and medical marijuana has more CBD than recreational marijuana.

I'm sorry if you're unwilling to accept my experience as an RN with 18 years of experience in neurology, neurosurg, and trauma level II with patients having hallucinations on legal drugs that we give. That's your privilege, but it doesn't negate the fact that I do have experience with this, and MDs on our unit have identified these patients as having adverse side effects resulting in confusion, hallucinations and/or agitation. Also, here is the link you asked for. The quote that I put up here is at the bottom of the article. http://psychedelics.com/thc/is-marijuana-a-psychedelic/

I ended up reading the article. HUGE gaps in that article. This article is a guide to show what happens when you practice witchcraft/sorcery and use drugs to enhance that practice. This is all the article proves. 

I think we would all agree that witches and sorcerers probably use psychedelic drugs to enhance their sinful practice of magic and sorcery. And that's all this article proves. He gives lots and lots of proof from Biblical scholars and from
pagan spiritualists and shamans what these drugs do for those who practice witchcraft, sorcery, or for those who just want to reach out and touch a demon. But that's my point. It's what these drugs do to these specific people. He then plays leapfrog and carries all that info over to the Christian and in essence claims "Well, if does it for these witches and sorcerers then that's proof that it does it to everyone and puts Christians in contact with the demonic realm whether they realize it or not." forgetting one small point......we don't practice witchcraft or sorcery. That not how you use information. For one, Christians don't get high even if they do use medical marijuana. 

What this article doesn't prove is that marijuana is a psychedelic drug (it has psychedelic properties like hallucinations for some people some of the time) and it certainly doesn't prove that it is marijuana that causes people come in contact with the demonic realm. He is misusing Scripture to support his stance against all usage and types of Marijuana. Scripture is damning witchcraft and sorcery. Scripture damns the use of ANY drug used in witchcraft and sorcery. Alcohol was used in these religious rituals and Scripture condemns the use of alcohol in this manner. It's sinful to get drunk....it's sinful to get high. You lose control of your mind and give way to the sin WITHIN not the demonic realms of witchcraft and sorcery without.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sarah, I did watch every second of all three videos. I've addressed all the points you've made. I'm thankful that you're not qualified to be a pastor overseeing the flock of God.


----------



## OPC'n

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sarah, I did watch every second of all three videos. I've addressed all the points you've made. I'm thankful that you're not qualified to be a pastor overseeing the flock of God.



I'm more thankful for that than you are . I'm also thankful that we have pastors who do their work and we have MDs and RNs who do their work. A pastor trying to add medical opinion to the field of medicine is like an MD/RN trying to preach from the pulpit. Each profession knows enough of the other profession to help contribute to their own welfare, but they are dangerous to the community when they try to take on the role of the other profession. The pastor might know some things about the medical field, but he doesn't have enough knowledge to make intellectual decisions on behalf of the medical community for their congregation. MDs/RNs might know a lot about theology, but they don't have enough knowledge to lead a congregation. There might be a fine line at times (like this example), but each person should remember their qualifications and also rely on substantiated truth. It doesn't do anyone any good to listen to quacks or bad theology.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

OPC'n said:


> I'm more thankful for that than you are . I'm also thankful that we have pastors who do their work and we have MDs and RNs who do their work. A pastor trying to add medical opinion to the field of medicine is like an MD/RN trying to preach from the pulpit. Each profession knows enough of the other profession to help contribute to their own welfare, but they are dangerous to the community when they try to take on the role of the other profession. The pastor might know some things about the medical field, but he doesn't have enough knowledge to make intellectual decisions on behalf of the medical community for their congregation. MDs/RNs might know a lot about theology, but they don't have enough knowledge to lead a congregation. There might be a fine line at times (like this example), but each person should remember their qualifications and also rely on substantiated truth. It doesn't do anyone any good to listen to quacks or bad theology.


That's a good opinion, Sarah. I just hope you're not calling our brother a quack with bad theology, which I really doubt you would.


----------



## OPC'n

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That's a good opinion, Sarah. I just hope you're not calling our brother a quack with bad theology, which I really doubt you would.



A quack is normally someone who is practicing bad medicine. I don't believe he practices any type of medicine. I do believe the article is bad theology. If you really believed that I wouldn't call him a quack with bad theology why state you hoped I wasn't calling him a quack with bad theology? Nothing in my statement led to this conclusion.


----------



## Cedarbay

I wouldn't touch THC with a ten-foot-pole, recreationally or medically.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Sarah,

In speaking of sorcerous drugs there is an unavoidable overlap between the fields of science / medicine / psychopharmacology and the spiritual and theological work of a pastor. A doctor or nurse ought not go beyond the observable, empirical parameters of science and—at least with authority—into that realm of realities which are not measurable or observable. Yes, science may observe the behavioral, but not the spiritual.

Pastors (with the exception of men like Martyn Lloyd-Jones) are limited to what knowledge they have of medical science, and pharmacology—certainly not in the depth medical practitioners may (rather, _must_) have.

What I know of the psychedelics comes from about 50 years of experience, study, and research. And what I know, in the light of God’s revelation via His word, is in the realm not accessible to scientific investigation or discernment, for “the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).

Now I recognize that you, being a Christian, _do _have discernment as God’s word gives it to you, albeit limited to your experience and knowledge.

What I speak of is not medical opinion, but spiritual discernment. A pastor may have some knowledge of psychedelic substances in their physical aspect—I would not term this medical knowledge, though it is scientific—as well as a spiritual discernment that is not available to science.

It is the calling of a pastor to be familiar with the text of the Scripture, and while there are things he may not know experientially—such as various sins—he does know enough by the insight given him from the Holy Spirit and the word of God, as well the testimony and counsel of his peers, both to warn and to aid sinners regarding sins.

The issue of sorcery has become, of necessity, a crucial matter, being a capital sin (that is, requiring church discipline and excommunication if unrepented of, and barring entrance into the kingdom of God; Gal 5:20,21; Rev 21:8; 22:15). It cannot be that the overseers of God’s people be ignorant of such sin. Though I do note that no one here has come up with an explanation of what that sin is apart from sorcery.

I do not transgress ignorantly into the realm of medical practice as regards my exposition of what Biblical sorcery is. Where you might allege I do would be in the realm of the medical administration of THC-laden marijuana for various ailments. My response has been—is, and will continue to be—that whatever use of cannabis results in a person becoming “high”, this is, per se, sorcery, however great the apparent physical benefits. I affirm this on the basis of God’s word and a strictly spiritual discernment which is beyond the proper domain of science, and which the Spirit of God says is “foolishness to him” (1 Cor 2:14), the scientist. Medical knowledge, however true in its sphere, does not trump genuine spiritual knowledge when the two are at odds.

Now it is apparent that even believers, with some measure of spiritual knowledge and discernment, disagree with the Biblical position I hold forth. It is because of this I make it clearly known that the responsibility rests not upon the laity, but on the pastors, elders, leaders of the churches to teach and enforce the word of God in this matter.

When James says in 3:1,

KJV My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

NKJV My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

ESV Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

NIV ’84 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.​
this does not pertain simply to correct doctrines, but to enforcing the removal of ungodliness and evil from the precincts of His house, as well as—positively—to encouraging godliness and interactions in the love of Christ. It also, at a certain point will involve more than, on the judgment, fire trying a man’s work, whether it be gold, silver, gems, or wood, hay, stubble, for if we allow damnable sin entrance into the flock, condoning it, we bring upon us the guilt similar to the OT watchmen who did not warn the flock, so that their blood be upon our heads—_unfaithful _watchmen. “Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12)

For pastors and teachers, we should “tremble at His word” (Isa 66:2), as a time of great sifting will be at hand soon enough. The days to come will try us, even those in our congregations. We should not fear the opposition of men, but God.

I’m taking off from the thread for the Lord’s Day.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## timfost

Steve,

Since you are continuing in this conversation, I'm wondering if you could interact with Chris's post (#18). in my opinion, he got to the heart of the issue and you ignored it...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Sarah,
> 
> In speaking of sorcerous drugs there is an unavoidable overlap between the fields of science / medicine / psychopharmacology and the spiritual and theological work of a pastor. A doctor or nurse ought not go beyond the observable, empirical parameters of science and—at least with authority—into that realm of realities which are not measurable or observable. Yes, science may observe the behavioral, but not the spiritual.
> 
> Pastors (with the exception of men like Martyn Lloyd-Jones) are limited to what knowledge they have of medical science, and pharmacology—certainly not in the depth medical practitioners may (rather, _must_) have.
> 
> What I know of the psychedelics comes from about 50 years of experience, study, and research. And what I know, in the light of God’s revelation via His word, is in the realm not accessible to scientific investigation or discernment, for “the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).
> 
> Now I recognize that you, being a Christian, _do _have discernment as God’s word gives it to you, albeit limited to your experience and knowledge.
> 
> What I speak of is not medical opinion, but spiritual discernment. A pastor may have some knowledge of psychedelic substances in their physical aspect—I would not term this medical knowledge, though it is scientific—as well as a spiritual discernment that is not available to science.
> 
> It is the calling of a pastor to be familiar with the text of the Scripture, and while there are things he may not know experientially—such as various sins—he does know enough by the insight given him from the Holy Spirit and the word of God, as well the testimony and counsel of his peers, both to warn and to aid sinners regarding sins.
> 
> The issue of sorcery has become, of necessity, a crucial matter, being a capital sin (that is, requiring church discipline and excommunication if unrepented of, and barring entrance into the kingdom of God; Gal 5:20,21; Rev 21:8; 22:15). It cannot be that the overseers of God’s people be ignorant of such sin. Though I do note that no one here has come up with an explanation of what that sin is apart from sorcery.
> 
> I do not transgress ignorantly into the realm of medical practice as regards my exposition of what Biblical sorcery is. Where you might allege I do would be in the realm of the medical administration of THC-laden marijuana for various ailments. My response has been—is, and will continue to be—that whatever use of cannabis results in a person becoming “high”, this is, per se, sorcery, however great the apparent physical benefits. I affirm this on the basis of God’s word and a strictly spiritual discernment which is beyond the proper domain of science, and which the Spirit of God says is “foolishness to him” (1 Cor 2:14), the scientist. Medical knowledge, however true in its sphere, does not trump genuine spiritual knowledge when the two are at odds.
> 
> Now it is apparent that even believers, with some measure of spiritual knowledge and discernment, disagree with the Biblical position I hold forth. It is because of this I make it clearly known that the responsibility rests not upon the laity, but on the pastors, elders, leaders of the churches to teach and enforce the word of God in this matter.
> 
> When James says in 3:1,
> 
> KJV My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
> 
> NKJV My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
> 
> ESV Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
> 
> NIV ’84 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.​
> this does not pertain simply to correct doctrines, but to enforcing the removal of ungodliness and evil from the precincts of His house, as well as—positively—to encouraging godliness and interactions in the love of Christ. It also, at a certain point will involve more than, on the judgment, fire trying a man’s work, whether it be gold, silver, gems, or wood, hay, stubble, for if we allow damnable sin entrance into the flock, condoning it, we bring upon us the guilt similar to the OT watchmen who did not warn the flock, so that their blood be upon our heads—_unfaithful _watchmen. “Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12)
> 
> For pastors and teachers, we should “tremble at His word” (Isa 66:2), as a time of great sifting will be at hand soon enough. The days to come will try us, even those in our congregations. We should not fear the opposition of men, but God.
> 
> I’m taking off from the thread for the Lord’s Day.



I completely agree with everything you said about a pastor's responsibilities. The problem begins, however, when a pastor forbids the use of medical marijuana based on faulty truth claims he feels are Biblical. There are denominations whose pastors condemn alcohol and secular music. They truly believe they have Scripture to back up their positions. However, we know they don't. So now they are placing extra-biblical rules on people that God has not placed on his people. In my opinion, that is a sin. I would condemn the actions of a pastor who disallowed members of his congregation to seek appropriate medical help based on faulty information. I'm not a theologian, and even I can find the inaccuracies in the article you linked. In any case, we will just have to agree to disagree. Have a blessed Sabbath.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM

Recently I was reading Psalm 133 where it mentioned, "like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard..." I looked into the recipe.

*Holy Anointing Oil*

*Identification of kaneh bosem*

*Cannabis, and others*
Other possible identifications have also been made. Sula Benet in _Early Diffusion and Folk Uses of Hemp_ (1967), identified it as _cannabis_.[67] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan notes that "On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek _cannabis_, the hemp plant. There are, however, some authorities who identify the 'sweet cane' with cinnamon bark (Radak, Sherashim). Some say that kinman is the wood, and keneh bosem is the bark (Abarbanel)." [68] Benet in contrast argued that equating Keneh Bosem with sweet cane could be traced to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, which mistook Keneh Bosem, later referred to as "cannabos" in the Talmud, as "kalabos", a common Egyptian marsh cane plant.[67] (end quote)

Let's say it is "bark" being used and not cannabis...some types of bark can cause hallucinations and a high.

Psychoactive Plants - http://landau.faculty.unlv.edu//psychoactiveplants.htm

I don't know what all this means. Could just be false information.

Yours in the Lord,

jm


----------



## lynnie

This entire discussion as related to severe pain presupposes that we will all continue to live in modern times with an electric grid running, and doctors and hospitals and pharmacies, to give us oxycodone and vicadin and morphine drips or even just ibuprofen.

The risks to the grid are tremendous and real, and the possibility of various doom scenarios that interrupt "just in time" shipping and credit are equally real. I would go so far as to say it is delusional to think that we could not be plunged into great trials in our lifetimes or even in months or a few years, where such wonderful medical gifts are suspended for a time.

Last year a root on my molar cracked and I got a big messy abcess into the bone, and I had to get the tooth extracted. For a period of about six days it was worse pain than having my four babies all natural. I would gladly have another baby than an abcess and extraction.

I made the mistake of initially taking half a pill, because they only gave me eight pills and I figured I better spread them out. During the few hours while the half a pill didn't work and I took the rest, I wanted to die and was trying to figure out if there was a way to kill myself and not end up dead. Not real rational I know. 

I realized then that if my tooth abcessed during a doom scenario, I would do what they did 200 years ago and take anything I could get, including heroin or pot. When God said he gave the green herbs to men, he gave us opium poppies and pot for a reason, and they are a gift. God gave them to men. If pot relaxes suicidal temptations, then it is an instrument of God to lift temptation from those in agony. 

I am 100% against recreational use, and I don't agree with the casual Reformed attitude towards hard drinks either. Whiskey is for getting teeth pulled, not fellowship in my opinion. But it doesn't matter what I think and I digress.

If you read about what it is like to get a severe burn over a large part of your body ( never happened to me thank God) I don't think that for one second you would hesitate to give pot to a burn victim if nothing else was available. I think it would be literally sociopathic to not do so, and I don't mean to imply that for one second JBlade is anything but a loving, caring, great brother. I know he is a fine and godly man. But I do think he, and indeed the whole thread, assumes that modern medicine will always be there at our fingertips. Well, maybe it will be, and I pray for grace that it will be. But maybe it won't. And if that happens, pot will be a blessing to those who suffer, and maybe the only pain relief available.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

I thought this was very interesting from J.R. Miller:

"There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it." Matthew 27:34

The offer was kindly meant. There was an association of women at Jerusalem, a compassionate sisterhood, whose work was to provide such _stupefying draughts _for those who were crucified. The object was to produce partial unconsciousness, so that the terrible agonies might not be so keenly felt. It is pleasant to find that such an association existed at that early day, and that it was among the Jewish people. True religion always yields such fruits. Christianity has filled the world with just such gentle ministries. Wherever there is suffering — Christian women go to alleviate it.

But it must be noticed that Christ did not accept this potion. He _tasted _it, showing His recognition and appreciation of the kindness that offered it — but he did not _drink _it. One reason probably was, that He would not seek to lessen in any way, the bitterness of the cup which His Father had given Him to drink. He would drink it to its last drop, and not dull the sense of suffering in Himself to make the draught any less bitter.

Another reason doubtless was that He would not _cloud His mind _in the least degree, as He entered the last experiences of life. He would not dim the clearness of His communion with His Father, by any potion that would impair His full consciousness. The example of Christ does not teach that it is wrong in ordinary cases, to use anesthetics to deaden the sense of pain. There were peculiar reasons why our Lord would abate nothing of the bitterness of _His _suffering. Chloroform and ether have been wonderful agents of mercy and blessing in the world. But it does seem proper that a person should not, when dying, be given any potion which would cloud the mind, or send the soul in a state of stupefaction through the experiences of death and into the presence of God.


----------



## lynnie

If the goal is to not numb the mind nor cause stupefaction, and enable someone to focus on let's say imminent death and the Lord, then if there is agonizing pain present wouldn't you want to get rid of the pain? Isn't pain the very thing that numbs our thoughts to practically anything else but the pain? Would not the ability to relax and stop thinking about the pain be a good thing? 

Just experientially and anecdotally, have you ever had excruciating pain and been able to get your mind off it and pray coherently for your normal prayer list the way you would on a normal day? Am I the only wimp among us?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

lynnie said:


> If the goal is to not numb the mind nor cause stupefaction, and enable someone to focus on let's say imminent death and the Lord, then if there is agonizing pain present wouldn't you want to get rid of the pain? Isn't pain the very thing that numbs our thoughts to practically anything else but the pain? Would not the ability to relax and stop thinking about the pain be a good thing?
> 
> Just experientially and anecdotally, have you ever had excruciating pain and been able to get your mind off it and pray coherently for your normal prayer list the way you would on a normal day? Am I the only wimp among us?


That's a good question. I wish there were a black and white easy way to answer it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

lynnie said:


> If the goal is to not numb the mind nor cause stupefaction, and enable someone to focus on let's say imminent death and the Lord, then if there is agonizing pain present wouldn't you want to get rid of the pain? Isn't pain the very thing that numbs our thoughts to practically anything else but the pain? Would not the ability to relax and stop thinking about the pain be a good thing?
> 
> Just experientially and anecdotally, have you ever had excruciating pain and been able to get your mind off it and pray coherently for your normal prayer list the way you would on a normal day? Am I the only wimp among us?



Yes, Lynnie you would want to minimize the pain you're enduring. There is nothing spiritual about writhing in pain. Pain causes great stress to your body. Stress can actually cause decreased healing and increase healing time. Pain, especially severe pain, can keep a patient from improving from their wounds or surgery. For example, broken ribs can keep you from deep breathing and ambulating which can lead to pneumonia if not treated appropriately and in a timely manner with pain meds. Some of our back surgeries would be another example. Untreated pain can lead to further diseases.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

"And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31a)

I haven't been following this discussion very closely, ao I apologize if this comment is at all off topic.

God made everything good. That would appear to include cannabis. Must we necessarily reject all cannabis-based treatments?

I will say that I am not at all a fan of marijuana. I have seen it abused, and I have seen it ruin people's lives. If a doctor recommended to me the use of cannabis for whatever reason, I think I might prefer to try some other treatment first.

But, first, I do not think it has been demonstrated that cannabis is demonic, and second, on the grounds that God created things good, I am hesitant to label a plant "demonic."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31a)
> 
> I haven't been following this discussion very closely, ao I apologize if this comment is at all off topic.
> 
> God made everything good. That would appear to include cannabis. Must we necessarily reject all cannabis-based treatments?
> 
> I will say that I am not at all a fan of marijuana. I have seen it abused, and I have seen it ruin people's lives. If a doctor recommended to me the use of cannabis for whatever reason, I think I might prefer to try some other treatment first.
> 
> But, first, I do not think it has been demonstrated that cannabis is demonic, and second, on the grounds that God created things good, I am hesitant to label a plant "demonic."


That means poison ivy and mosquitos are good, too, as well as parasites. 
The Fall fundamentally changed the nature of everything.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> That means poison ivy and mosquitos are good, too, as well as parasites.
> The Fall fundamentally changed the nature of everything.



I'm quite ready to say that this is something I need to work through. Even so, as incomplete as my thoughts are on this I cannot comprehend the conclusion that a plant is necessarily demonic. Harmful, maybe, but demonic?


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> I'm quite ready to say that this is something I need to work through. Even so, as incomplete as my thoughts are on this I cannot comprehend the conclusion that a plant is necessarily demonic. Harmful, maybe, but demonic?


I also agree with you. Even hard drugs have wonderful medical applications. And demonizing pot seems strange in this day of PCP and other things.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Jason! (JM), a better exposition of Psalm 133:2 (with an eye to holiness, and not sorceries), from Spurgeon: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/treasury-of-david/psalms-133-2.html

Also, on the Exodus 30:22-33 ingredients of the Aaronic oil of anointing:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+30:22-33&version=NIV

One thing about the internet, one can find just about anything to suit one’s tastes! And potheads and acidheads (mushrooms or peyote or mescal buttons etc in earlier days) *love *trying to find warrant for their use in the Bible.

-----

Tom, you said, “I haven't been following this discussion very closely...” I hope by now you have (as earlier you admit you spoke without knowledge), lest you run afoul Proverbs 18:13, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it…”.

-----

Hello again, Lynnie! Good to “see” you!

Your scenario brings the discussion into an aspect that was sort of hidden apart from the presence of extreme pain. I did touch upon it in the attached article in the OP. First, a prepper such as yourself I would think would, as much as possible, try to stockpile as many analgesics as possible, including narcotics and opioids, for just such times of emergency when the grid is down and medicines unavailable. And I do think you are sound in anticipating such an event here in America—but that’s another discussion!

Second, and back to pain: I tread carefully here, as I also know acute pain untreated for a brief while. I usually think of such pain in terms of torture, as in, enemies of the Gospel, and of Christ and His people, thinking little of inflicting what extreme pain they can in order to get believers to renounce their God, or just to torment them! This happens even today in other lands, regularly. Our forefathers in the Faith were burned at the stake, sawn in two (Heb 11:37), hacked to pieces, and other diabolic treatments. This may come upon us in the days to come, the “white, wealthy, and wise West” will have the opportunity to show its depravity is even greater than ISIS or other primitive barbarians. No oxycodone from such kinds of people!

I have sincerely asked the Lord not to put me into a situation where I would take a man’s life, though I am capable of doing so if they attacked my family or my brethren in a situation apart from Gospel witness, that is, more “randomly” as in a home invasion or church shooting, or an insane person on the street. I likewise ask the Lord not to put me into a situation of such extreme pain where I would be tempted to break His law, but would give me a way of escape from it (1 Cor 10:13).

As I noted in the OP article, why would I partake of sorcery, exposing my heart and mind to demons, just to be able to eat and breathe, or detach my senses from the feeling of pain, which pot can afford me, if I would likewise resist yielding to renouncing God while under other pains in torture?

We Christians must come to terms with the prospect of holding up or not under torture. It may come to that for some of us. And me, who preach and teach as I do, all the more reason I should ask the Lord for grace in such moments! Sociopathy has nothing to do with how we ourselves will deal with our own pain.

I will talk more about the realities of sorcery shortly, when I resume the discussion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sarah, the issue between us is, as regards “faulty truth claims” (your post #46), if it is “bad theology”, or theology wrongly encroaching upon legitimate medical treatment to give THC-laden marijuana (in whatever form) to a suffering *Christian* (a worldly person is another matter, as I noted in the OP), that is one thing—and has not in any wise been proven or demonstrated, only claimed; and those who are familiar with court proceedings know that mere claims are a dime a dozen. However, if you deny it _per se_ opens a person’s soul to demonic influence, then it is *you*—a medical practitioner—who are encroaching upon a spiritual matter, illicitly. And that will be demonstrated below.

If you were to try any of this supposed “medicine” *yourself*, that you claim is so beneficial and benign, and think to foist upon others, particularly suffering Christians, you may have a change of heart were you to find yourself in a dimension you are not supposed to be in, and whose influence you may not be able to escape from, even when the effects are worn off.

You have been warned abundantly that this is evil.

-----

TimFost, you said in post #45, “Since you are continuing in this conversation, I'm wondering if you could interact with Chris's post (#18). in my opinion, he got to the heart of the issue and you ignored it...”

Okay.

It is easy to make unsubstantiated claims, as you have, Chris (TheOldCourse), where I must then answer in detail what is essentially a cavil arising from uninformed opinions, but for the sake of making this matter even clearer to those looking on I will interact with your objections.

Because you said for my “exegesis of Scripture [to] accordingly have the authority of the Lord behind it, the reasoning needs to be far, far tighter”; I shall proceed to respond to your sayings:

First, you state my contention “that drug use _per se_ is condemned by God on pain of spiritual death is not warranted by the evidence put forth. Even the definitions of pharmakeia that have been marshaled in support as the most friendly to your argument include sorcerous use of drugs as only part of the semantic range of the word.” Let’s look at your unsupported claim, which is what really “needs to be far, tighter” to validly object to what I’ve said, and will further say.

In the article attached in the OP, “A Nation of Witches and Sorcerers” (ANWS), I gave the full semantic range of the words _pharmakeia_ (sorcery) and_ pharmakon_ (drug); it has three meanings in both Koine and modern Greek: medicine, poison, and magic potion. The consensus of lexicons and commentators agree that in the New Testament usage the semantic range of the word is narrowed to magic potion. Joseph Thayer in his _Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament_, 4th Edition, p 649 does include a metaphorical use as part of its meaning:

_φαρμακεία_ – _the use or administering of drugs_…sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it…trop. of the deceptions and seductions of idolatry, Rev. xviii. 23​
To show why the use of “sorceries” in the Rev 18:23 passage refers to activities involving certain drugs for sorcerous use rather than *only* figuratively for mere deceptive practices, consider the classes of transgressors in Rev 21:8 who are consigned to the lake of fire: “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars”. Sorcerers (from _pharmakeus_) here specifically means one who administers or uses a certain class of drugs to “enchant”, to cast a psychic spell upon by use of these drugs and accompanying demonic power. It doesn’t mean a deceiver – a liar – generally or even figuratively, but specifically one who uses sorcerous potions. Liars / deceivers are _already_ classed separately in this listing. Likewise in Rev 22:15 where a similar Greek word, _pharmakos_, is used for sorcerer, with the same meaning as _pharmakeus_ in 21:8, again with liars / deceivers listed separately. In these verses the usage clearly refers to drug-using-and-promoting people, so it is clear pharmakeia / sorceries in Revelation 18:23 – “by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” – refers to drug-related activity and not deceptive practices. On the other hand there is no doubt at all that Thayer’s, “the deceptions and seductions of idolatry” *are a result of and part of* Babylon’s sorceries, but the sorceries themselves are distinctly _pharmakeia_ / *sorcery* (i.e. drug) activity. _Pharmakeia_ is about drugs—the question has been what kind of drugs; this is what “semantic range” concerns, and what I have specifically addressed.

Also, in both the Revelation passages just examined, poisonous use is eliminated as murderers are also listed; included are abortifacients, which kill babies in the womb.

Your objection, Chris, concerning semantic range, is without merit.

You then opine, “It remains to be demonstrated that pharmakeia necessarily includes an element of psychoactive drug use (which not generally supported by the linguists)”. I have shown, both in ANWS and here, that this assertion of yours is likewise false.

You remark, “that drug use _per se_ is condemned by God on pain of spiritual death is not warranted by the evidence put forth”, and say that I “couch this conclusion in exegetical language”. How cynical of you, as though these unsupported doubts were equal to substantial objections to what I have said!

The final disposition of this matter really depends on whether sorcery / _pharmakeia_ is narrowed in the semantic range to the use of “_drugs that induce magic spells_” (Kistemaker in his Revelation commentary, as noted in ANWS); “a magical tradition of herbs gathered and prepared for spells, and also for *encouraging the presence of spirits* at magical ceremonies” [emphasis added] (_The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology_ – again, noted in ANWS); and yet once more, “_*Pharmakeia*_ means the occult, sorcery, witchcraft, illicit pharmaceuticals, trance, magical incantation with drugs” (_The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament_, by Spiros Zodhiates, and again in ANWS). I could furnish many more lexical examples to prove my point, but for reason of space I have held off. What can you show, Chris, to back up your opinion disputing what I have written, besides unwarranted opinions and doubtings? I’m sorry to be so tough on you, but before God and men this is life and death stuff!

Thanks for your anecdote about your “giggling”. I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. What you say about alcohol having “psychoactive properties” is inconsequential, for so do tobacco and caffeine, but not at all after the manner of the psychedelics. Sure, alcohol may be used along with sorcerous agents (witches get thirsty, and some like alcohol), but again, that proves nothing. Please don’t bring in superstitions and occult lore re alcoholic drinks and sorcery. Your objections, upon examination, do not pass muster.

-----

TimFost, now that I have addressed what you have called “the heart of the issue”, are you satisfied? Possibly not, but what more can legitimately be said, apart from redundant attempts to gainsay?


----------



## OPC'n

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sarah, the issue between us is, as regards “faulty truth claims” (your post #46), if it is “bad theology”, or theology wrongly encroaching upon legitimate medical treatment to give THC-laden marijuana (in whatever form) to a suffering *Christian* (a worldly person is another matter, as I noted in the OP), that is one thing. However, if you deny it _per se_ opens a person’s soul to demonic influence, then it is *you*—a medical practitioner—who are encroaching upon a spiritual matter, illicitly.
> 
> If you were to try any of this supposed “medicine” *yourself*, that you claim is so beneficial and benign, and think to foist upon others, particularly suffering Christians, you may have a change of heart were you to find yourself in a dimension you are not supposed to be in, and whose influence you may not be able to escape from, even when the effects are worn off.
> 
> You have been warned abundantly that this is evil.



You're right. If I were trying to push marijuana onto patients for one reason or another and also claiming that I know all the spiritual ramifications of using marijuana, then I would be placing myself in the position of both pastor and MD. Neither of which I'm allowed to do. 

Here are my claims: 1: I have seen scientific evidence that medical marijuana has significant medical uses. As an RN, I would only encourage someone to use it under the guidance of their MD IF it were legal. 2: You have not proven that marijuana leads normal people (I'm leaving out witches and sorcerers) into the demonic realm. To be frank, I've never heard any reformed pastors state this to be the reason people should stay away from marijuana. Even the article states that the reformed pastors has other reasons people shouldn't use it recreationally. I'm sorry, but you cannot place rules on God's people because of your life experiences, and now you have found some info that supports anti-marijuana use. I'm very happy that God healed you. It's a blessing beyond measure, and I would never encourage you to use marijuana. 3. I was at one time in my life a heathen. I did smoke marijuana off and on for a short period. I had three different experiences (most likely because of what was or was not added to the marijuana). One experience (I kept getting the pot from the same person) was like being drunk and I thought it was pretty cool I could be drunk without being nauseated. The second experience a few years later (a one time deal) it knocked me out cold (I'm assuming there was more in the weed than just weed). The third experience (again a one time deal) I only took a few puffs off of it and had a very slight buzz. There was none of the hallucinations etc you speak of. If given the choice, I would rather see people abuse marijuana than alcohol. The violence would decrease, there would be less disease association, and I wouldn't have to treat alcoholics on my unit. It isn't fun.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

We differ, Sarah, and will both answer to the Lord when we see Him. Onlookers to this conversation will decide for themselves. Thanks for the vigorous but amicable discussion.


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, you said, “I haven't been following this discussion very closely...” I hope by now you have (as earlier you admit you spoke without knowledge), lest you run afoul Proverbs 18:13, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it…”.



It seems to me that you have misunderstood me. I meant that I have not read every reply from every participant, so I do not know all the directions the discussion has gone.

I also said that my thoughts are incomplete on the matter regarding the effect of the Fall on God's good creation. (You said I spoke without knowledge, which, as I see it, is not really the same thing.) If you can make a case against the point I raised, I'm quite ready to hear it.

It might serve your cause better if, instead of dismissing me as speaking without knowledge, you actually engaged with my thoughts. Have I misunderstood you? Have I made some exegetical error?

From your replies, it has seemed to me that you are against any use of cannabis or related substances for any purpose, recreational or medical, because you believe them to be an avenue to demonic activity. Is my understanding incorrect?


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> [Y]ou may have a change of heart were you to find yourself in a dimension you are not supposed to be in, and whose influence you may not be able to escape from, even when the effects are worn off.



From what I have read in your paper, and in all your lengthy replies, this is precisely what remains unproven.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tom, about your saying I am “against any use of cannabis”, have you seen my acceptance of the CBD extract from cannabis being of great medical use? (see post #9 or the attached article) Or my post #33 when I clearly state, “please note that I do *not* assert that demonic power is in the substance of marijuana or LSD, etc.” and give my reasons why such is not the case?

Did you read the attached article in the OP, “A Nation of Witches and Sorcerers”, where on page 2 I talk about Genesis 1:29 and people thinking that because God made all the plants that is warrant to smoke the cannabis plant, and consider it “good” for us?

Tom, there is amply enough testimony to prove the assertion that we enter into a dimension we are forbidden by God to enter into, as per the shamans and Hindu users of cannabis to enter the realm of spirits in order to make contact with them—which I speak of in the attached article, on page 3. Are you missing a lot of material, or just not reading carefully?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, about your saying I am “against any use of cannabis”, have you seen my acceptance of the CBD extract from cannabis being of great medical use? (see post #9 or the attached article) Or my post #33 when I clearly state, “please note that I do *not* assert that demonic power is in the substance of marijuana or LSD, etc.” and give my reasons why such is not the case?



Thank you. I missed those replies.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Did you read the attached article in the OP, “A Nation of Witches and Sorcerers”, where on page 2 I talk about Genesis 1:29 and people thinking that because God made all the plants that is warrant to smoke the cannabis plant, and consider it “good” for us?



You have to understsnd that I am not in favour of smoking marijuana. But nowhere do we read that any plant (whether ingested or smoked or whatever) is a passage to another dimension.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, there is amply enough testimony to prove the assertion that we enter into a dimension we are forbidden by God to enter into, as per the shamans and Hindu users of cannabis to enter the realm of spirits in order to make contact with them—which I speak of in the attached article, on page 3. Are you missing a lot of material, or just not reading carefully?



This is the problem. You trust the testimony of shamans. They may say whatever they like, that they are entering a spiritual world. Why should we believe them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tom, did you read the article, or not? When the government of a major city in India, Benares, runs the cannabis shops so the Shiva worshippers can make contact with the demon they cleave to—and this is common knowledge—what's amiss with acknowledging this?

There are many occultists and gurus who seek to bring others into such spiritual bondage, and they are not bereft of dark power. It is good to ponder their realm, so as to win the captives to Christ. They come to our shores to find gullible "devotees" for their gods.

Proverb 21:12. The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked: but God overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness.

Prov 21:22. A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof.

Good night—time for me to retire.


----------



## lynnie

Hey JBlade, good to see you too. Thanks for the reply. I can appreciate the integrity of your convictions, that you would not want to sin under the pain of torture or any other pain. And yeah, we may be headed that direction, although a giant civil war with millions of guns comes first I think. 

I did some reading online to try and figure out what exactly is the difference between opioids and pot, and frankly, I can't find anything that even hints to the conclusion that the latter leads to demonic sorcery and the former does not. I read some of your stuff a couple years ago and was left with the same puzzlement. They are different plants, as is coca and cocaine, as is kratom, as is wild lettuce.....but lots of plants have these effects and I don't know why you single out pot. I'm not going to read your very long work on it, but if you can tell us the dummies version in brief form it would be helpful I think. What separates opium poppies from marijuana? 

If anything, more recent studies with thousands of patients in chronic pain show that pot (with THC) is generally as effective in pain relief as opioids, without the addiction of the opioids. Why on earth would I want to risk addiction from an opium product when I could get the same relief from eating pot cookies (if legalized)? I've read about narcotic addition and it is so horrible...how is that is preferable to non addictive pot? 

I also pulled up some stuff about xanax and those substances- another subject, but whew, possibly as bad as anything. World Net Daily did some articles years ago on SSRIs making people crazy and violent and shootings linked to it. Not saying it is demons, may just be the brain, but the results are awful either way. 

The thing is, I've known two people clearly demonized. They fit all the descriptions. One is dead now. Neither of them ever went near pot, and rarely alcohol either or any shrink drugs, but they were probably the two most arrogant people I have ever known. And pride is what brought down the king of Tyre. So when we talk about opening doors for Satan, you seem so focused on pot, but I wonder how much of what is happening today (I think trannys cutting off their body parts are probably tormented by unclean spirits) including outright Satan worship is rooted in so many other sins and selfishness. I don't really know, and of course we don't want to open any door at all to demons, but I question if pot is so major compared to the arrogance of the culture today. Just speculating.

Well, I'm was getting ads for drug rehab places on my tablet before I quit. Maybe I better erase my history and hope the cookies don't follow me. Lol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, did you read the article, or not? When the government of a major city in India, Benares, runs the cannabis shops so the Shiva worshippers can make contact with the demon they cleave to—and this is common knowledge—what's amiss with acknowledging this?



I don't believe in Shiva, you see. Just like Elijah didn't believe in Baal.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Tagging @TheOldCourse and @timfost in case you don't see the reply in Post #58.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sarah, the issue between us is, as regards “faulty truth claims” (your post #46), if it is “bad theology”, or theology wrongly encroaching upon legitimate medical treatment to give THC-laden marijuana (in whatever form) to a suffering *Christian* (a worldly person is another matter, as I noted in the OP), that is one thing—and has not in any wise been proven or demonstrated, only claimed; and those who are familiar with court proceedings know that mere claims are a dime a dozen. However, if you deny it _per se_ opens a person’s soul to demonic influence, then it is *you*—a medical practitioner—who are encroaching upon a spiritual matter, illicitly. And that will be demonstrated below.
> 
> If you were to try any of this supposed “medicine” *yourself*, that you claim is so beneficial and benign, and think to foist upon others, particularly suffering Christians, you may have a change of heart were you to find yourself in a dimension you are not supposed to be in, and whose influence you may not be able to escape from, even when the effects are worn off.
> 
> You have been warned abundantly that this is evil.
> 
> -----
> 
> TimFost, you said in post #45, “Since you are continuing in this conversation, I'm wondering if you could interact with Chris's post (#18). in my opinion, he got to the heart of the issue and you ignored it...”
> 
> Okay.
> 
> It is easy to make unsubstantiated claims, as you have, Chris (TheOldCourse), where I must then answer in detail what is essentially a cavil arising from uninformed opinions, but for the sake of making this matter even clearer to those looking on I will interact with your objections.
> 
> Because you said for my “exegesis of Scripture [to] accordingly have the authority of the Lord behind it, the reasoning needs to be far, far tighter”; I shall proceed to respond to your sayings:
> 
> First, you state my contention “that drug use _per se_ is condemned by God on pain of spiritual death is not warranted by the evidence put forth. Even the definitions of pharmakeia that have been marshaled in support as the most friendly to your argument include sorcerous use of drugs as only part of the semantic range of the word.” Let’s look at your unsupported claim, which is what really “needs to be far, tighter” to validly object to what I’ve said, and will further say.
> 
> In the article attached in the OP, “A Nation of Witches and Sorcerers” (ANWS), I gave the full semantic range of the words _pharmakeia_ (sorcery) and_ pharmakon_ (drug); it has three meanings in both Koine and modern Greek: medicine, poison, and magic potion. The consensus of lexicons and commentators agree that in the New Testament usage the semantic range of the word is narrowed to magic potion. Joseph Thayer in his _Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament_, 4th Edition, p 649 does include a metaphorical use as part of its meaning:
> 
> _φαρμακεία_ – _the use or administering of drugs_…sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it…trop. of the deceptions and seductions of idolatry, Rev. xviii. 23​
> To show why the use of “sorceries” in the Rev 18:23 passage refers to activities involving certain drugs for sorcerous use rather than *only* figuratively for mere deceptive practices, consider the classes of transgressors in Rev 21:8 who are consigned to the lake of fire: “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars”. Sorcerers (from _pharmakeus_) here specifically means one who administers or uses a certain class of drugs to “enchant”, to cast a psychic spell upon by use of these drugs and accompanying demonic power. It doesn’t mean a deceiver – a liar – generally or even figuratively, but specifically one who uses sorcerous potions. Liars / deceivers are _already_ classed separately in this listing. Likewise in Rev 22:15 where a similar Greek word, _pharmakos_, is used for sorcerer, with the same meaning as _pharmakeus_ in 21:8, again with liars / deceivers listed separately. In these verses the usage clearly refers to drug-using-and-promoting people, so it is clear pharmakeia / sorceries in Revelation 18:23 – “by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” – refers to drug-related activity and not deceptive practices. On the other hand there is no doubt at all that Thayer’s, “the deceptions and seductions of idolatry” *are a result of and part of* Babylon’s sorceries, but the sorceries themselves are distinctly _pharmakeia_ / *sorcery* (i.e. drug) activity. _Pharmakeia_ is about drugs—the question has been what kind of drugs; this is what “semantic range” concerns, and what I have specifically addressed.
> 
> Also, in both the Revelation passages just examined, poisonous use is eliminated as murderers are also listed; included are abortifacients, which kill babies in the womb.
> 
> Your objection, Chris, concerning semantic range, is without merit.
> 
> You then opine, “It remains to be demonstrated that pharmakeia necessarily includes an element of psychoactive drug use (which not generally supported by the linguists)”. I have shown, both in ANWS and here, that this assertion of yours is likewise false.
> 
> You remark, “that drug use _per se_ is condemned by God on pain of spiritual death is not warranted by the evidence put forth”, and say that I “couch this conclusion in exegetical language”. How cynical of you, as though these unsupported doubts were equal to substantial objections to what I have said!
> 
> The final disposition of this matter really depends on whether sorcery / _pharmakeia_ is narrowed in the semantic range to the use of “_drugs that induce magic spells_” (Kistemaker in his Revelation commentary, as noted in ANWS); “a magical tradition of herbs gathered and prepared for spells, and also for *encouraging the presence of spirits* at magical ceremonies” [emphasis added] (_The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology_ – again, noted in ANWS); and yet once more, “_*Pharmakeia*_ means the occult, sorcery, witchcraft, illicit pharmaceuticals, trance, magical incantation with drugs” (_The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament_, by Spiros Zodhiates, and again in ANWS). I could furnish many more lexical examples to prove my point, but for reason of space I have held off. What can you show, Chris, to back up your opinion disputing what I have written, besides unwarranted opinions and doubtings? I’m sorry to be so tough on you, but before God and men this is life and death stuff!
> 
> Thanks for your anecdote about your “giggling”. I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. What you say about alcohol having “psychoactive properties” is inconsequential, for so do tobacco and caffeine, but not at all after the manner of the psychedelics. Sure, alcohol may be used along with sorcerous agents (witches get thirsty, and some like alcohol), but again, that proves nothing. Please don’t bring in superstitions and occult lore re alcoholic drinks and sorcery. Your objections, upon examination, do not pass muster.
> 
> -----
> 
> TimFost, now that I have addressed what you have called “the heart of the issue”, are you satisfied? Possibly not, but what more can legitimately be said, apart from redundant attempts to gainsay?



Steve, with respect, I have made few claims to even require substantiation. I haven't even ventured to disagree with your conclusions in and of themselves--though as the discussion has continued I've become more doubtful of them. I have, rather, pointed out what I perceive to be holes in your arguments that leave you with a vast chasm between your premises and conclusions. In a rather cavalier manner you imply that only opinions that concur with your own may be informed, otherwise they are empty cavils. I would hope for a bit more charity in such a forum on a non-confessional issue.

With respect to the semantic range, you seem to be begging a question to such a degree that you cannot see that your own sources contradict your claims. Thayer and Zodhiates are _not_ assuming that sorcery is synonymical to drug use, but rather that each is a permissible meaning for _pharmakeia _and part of its semantic range. To assume an equivalence is to make the classic etymological fallacy. There is no question that there are sorcerous activities that do not involve drug use. Indeed, none of the instances of sorcery recorded in the Bible appear to involve drug use. Even if we were to grant that the primary meaning of _pharmakeia_ refers to sorcerous use of substances, we would have to grapple with the possibility (indeed, probability) that its use in these passage is a synecdoche for sorcery in general. It seems highly unlikely to me that these passages are specifically condemning substance abuse given the generality of the other terms included. Even if we grant everything you argue for semantically, you are assuming a commutativity that needs to be proved (that sorcery implies drug use means that drug use implies sorcery). This appears to me to be a critical weakness to your argument and you do not address it. Perhaps the anecdotal and existential evidences are sufficient in your mind to render it irrelevant?

As for uninformed opinions, Steve, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of commentators (and our English translations), who are better Greek scholars than you or I and are surely familiar with the standard lexicons, do not take your interpretation and yet it is impossible that they are merely unaware of it when the argument is based on the _prima facie_ etymology of the term. That doesn't mean that you are wrong, but it surely means that the burden of proof ought to be rather high.

It's also not clear that you are particularly familiar with the pharmaceutical or biochemical background to the question. That would be fine, as I would not expect many exegetes to be experts in biochemistry, however you attempt to draw arguments from physiological principles which are, at best, incomplete and arbitrary. You continue to focus on the psychedelic nature of marijuana and yet it's debated within the medical and scientific community whether marijuana even has psychedelic effects. Admittedly some of the controversy arises over how to precisely define "psychedelic" since it's become more clear to medicine how many substances and natural phenomena can alter perception (can we consider exercise "psychedelic"?) but that source of controversy is, itself, fatal to your attempts to draw neat lines between marijuana and other substances and experiences.

You also make mention of the dissociative effects. Psychedelic effects with dissociative drugs are dose-dependent, such that milder dissociatives are not usually considered psychedelic (like nitrous oxide) and stronger ones may not be psychedelic at medically useful doses (like dextromethorphan cough syrup, or ketamine in IV anaesthetics). Again, if potentially having psychedelic, dissociative, or sensory-altering properties irretrievably links a substance with sorcery, we need to consider a number of natural constituents of our own biochemistry as sorcerous as well. The reason illicit drugs have any effect at all is that they are closely related to and activate the same pathways (though perhaps to a different degree) as our own naturally produced biochemicals. If we didn't have receptors for them that are already in use, they wouldn't work! Thus the endocannabinoid system.

You seem rather satisfied that you have met the burden and seem to be unwilling to muster further evidence in support. That is your right, but the evidence seems somewhat paltry from the outside.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheOldCourse

Tom Hart said:


> Tagging @TheOldCourse and @timfost in case you don't see the reply in Post #58.



Thanks for the head's up Tom, I had been busy and, given his earlier post, did not expect Steve to engage with my own.


----------



## timfost

Steve,

I know that THC can be taken in low quantities without a high just as small amounts of alcohol can be consumed without getting drunk. We know that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10). Do we then condemn alcohol outright? THC can also be used in small doses for good, such as pain relief, etc. We know that abuse of any good thing is sin. We also know that nothing in itself is unclean. Correct?

I say the following respectully. Your correlation between any amount of THC and the demonic realm is probably what makes your whole argument seem so extraordinarily weak and, frankly, a little bizarre. Rather, wouldn't it be better to warn others about the effects of _abusing_ this substance? _Abuse_ gets at the heart, not the thing itself. Since THC is of itself not unclean, why not talk about man who _abuses_ the substance?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

**Moderation**

This thread is being assigned an expiration date. It will close circa 5:00 p.m. (EST) Tuesday, 1/8/19 (or there about). All parties have until then to post their final remarks. Positions are not changed, nothing is new, and all the info for the disputed view is on the thread. 

**End Moderation**

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I think the moderator notice that this thread will end at 5 PM today (Tues 1.8.19) is good.

Lynnie, you said in your post #66,

“I did some reading online to try and figure out what exactly is the difference between opioids and pot, and frankly, I can't find anything that even hints to the conclusion that the latter leads to demonic sorcery and the former does not.”​
“Reading online” is not where you learn of this stuff, Lynnie. You then said,

“If anything, more recent studies with thousands of patients in chronic pain show that pot (with THC) is generally as effective in pain relief as opioids…”.​
I don’t believe that getting high would be as effective as oxycodone—or Tylenol 3—in pain relief, though the detachment of a high could surely reduce the sensation.

My “very long work” is only 3,000 words—6 pages.

I have not tried pure opium, but have had experience with both heroin, and in a hospital, morphine, both opium derivatives. The difference between them and potent marijuana is one of what the respective drugs do to our nervous systems, and the mysterious connection of our souls / spirits with our nervous systems. Apart from other affects, pot affects our brains and nervous system to allow our spirits awareness in a dimension that heroin and morphine do not. Shamans and occultists do not use morphine or heroin to enter the spirit realm!

-----

Tom, just like Elijah I don’t believe in Baal or Shiva, though I do believe that demonic spirits can seduce men, just as “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness...” (2 Cor 11:14,15). Behind the Shivas, Baals, _Islamic _“Allah” (as “Allah” is a generic word for God in Arabic, and Christian Bibles in Arabic use Allah when referring to God—as in the Smith-Van Dyke translation) . . . behind these fake deities are demonic powers, for the gurus who proclaim them are not without spiritual power and counterfeits of glorious light, but it is the true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, “Who hath delivered us from the *power *of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13), delivering us from “spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph 6:12).

Behind the idols of pagan worship are demons; these I believe are real, and these we war against in the name and power of Jesus of Nazareth, by His indwelling Spirit and infallible word, through the preaching of the Gospel, “for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes” (Rom 1:16).

-----

Chris (TheOldCourse), how can I show charity to a view that facilitates such error as endangers men’s souls, although to you personally I do acknowledge you are a respectable and godly man. It is your opinions and claims I am uncharitable toward, not you. I have also, in the past, held to false views, but have been shown light that led me to change them. As I have said, this issue of marijuana for *Christians *is a life and death matter. I do not believe a born-again believer can lose their salvation for using the drug (or I’d be damned and in Hell now) but the Lord will bring such to repentance, whatever it takes, as He did me.

When you say that “Thayer and Zodhiates are _not_ assuming that sorcery is synonymical to drug use, but rather that each is a permissible meaning for _pharmakeia _and part of its semantic range”, seeing that there are no other viable alternatives (no, not even medicine or poison)—which they themselves do _not _choose, and which you cannot supply—I therefore see this and your further objections as sophistry, for there are no other “permissible meanings”. Medicine and poison they, and I, have already ruled out. There is no more in the semantic range.

For instance, when you say, “To assume an equivalence [that _pharmakeia _necessarily refers to drug use] is to make the classic etymological fallacy”, but you yourself put this assertion, a sentence or two later, in the realm of “possibility or probability” (that is, not certain!), when you qualify your statement with,

“Even if we were to grant that the primary meaning of _pharmakeia_ refers to sorcerous use of substances, we would have to grapple with the possibility (indeed, probability) that its use in these passage is a synecdoche for sorcery in general.”​Are you going to try to add synecdochical to the semantic range? But I’m glad you brought up the matter of synecdoche, for it is a linguistic device used in the Scripture and understood by commentators. However, it does nothing to substantiate your claim alleging I indulge in the “etymological fallacy”.

Calvin says, commenting on Malachi 3:5,

“And I will come near to you to judgment; *and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers *[_pharmakos _in LXX], and against the adulterers, and against false swearers”, [emphasis added –SMR]

“as the word is found here all by itself, the Prophet no doubt meant to include all kinds of diviners, soothsayers, false prophets, and all such deceivers: and so there is here again another instance of stating a part for the whole”, [saying of the Jews of that time,] “they were then so given up to gross abominations, that they abandoned themselves to magic arts, and to incantations . . . of the devil.” (_Calvin’s Commentaries_; Vol 15, p. 577). [See, for instance, king Manasseh in 2 Chronicles 33:6.]​
Very often we find, in both the OT and the New, this use of synecdoche (stating a part for the whole) when the word _pharmakeia _and its cognates are used, the use of drugs are the essential and common component in almost all of the “magic arts”. *Consider, the Jews who translated the Hebrew OT into the LXX Greek invariably used a word signifying “drugs used as magic potions” whenever referring to the magic arts and its practitioners.Why would they do that – use that particular word – were it not actually so?*

The prohibition against _pharmakeia _forbids the magic arts absolutely, both as regards the generally essential component of drug use, as well as by synecdoche the entire enterprise. This is especially clear in the OT use of _pharmakeia_.

Likewise with the apostles – Paul and John – we see them using the words _pharmakeia _and its cognates as such drugs are always connected by them with the magic arts, and in fact stand for them, even as Washington stands for the United States. Drugs stand for the magic arts – by synecdoche – being an essential ingredient in most of their activities.

As an example, I quote from the old ISBE,

“The word translated in the AV ‘witchcraft’ in Gal 5:20 (_pharmakeia_) is the ordinary Greek one for ‘sorcery,’ and is so rendered in the RV, though it means literally the act of administering drugs and then of magical potions. It naturally comes then to stand for the magician’s art, as in the present passage and also in . . . the LXX of Isa 47:9 . . . translated ‘sorceries’.” (_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_, James Orr, Ed., Vol. 5, p. 3097.)​
In Acts 8 and 13 Simon and Elymus are respectively called “sorcerers”, and the underlying Greek there is _mágos_, a magician or sorcerer, a practitioner of the magic arts. It is the admittedly strange phenomenon of a drug facilitating entrance into the spirit world and allowing men and women to avail themselves of demonic power, such as Simon the sorcerer exhibited, so that it is written he bewitched the people, and they referred to him saying, “This man is the great power of God”, as “of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.” (Acts 8:9-11). Except for yogis and the like who subject themselves to remarkable austerities and disciplines to enter the demonic plane, sorcerers generally use drugs to get there. This appears to be the case with Simon. But when Philip preached there in Samaria, and later Peter and John arrived, he was exposed and rebuked, for the Spirit of God dispels such satanic power like a torch among cobwebs. In our times, Charles Manson was such a one, though clearly demonic.

In the LXX usage mentioned just above, when _pharmakeia_– sorcerous drug use – is made to refer not just to the drugs but to those activities related to and involved with it, this linguistic device is called synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa. To show how common this use of synecdoche is in the Bible – and it bears in our discussion – the following are a few examples of it:

(Romans 1:16) “Greek” means Greeks *and *Gentiles – simultaneously

(Matthew 6:11) “Give us our daily bread” means the necessities of life *and *(in that culture) the food staple bread – simultaneously

(Romans 13:4) “the sword” (in Paul’s day) means the actual sword *and *the punitive authority and power of the state – simultaneously

(Jeremiah 29:17, 18) “I will send upon them the sword” means actual swords *and *all the weapons and killing methods of warfare – simultaneously

(Malachi 3:5) “sorcerer” [_pharmakos_LXX] means sorcerers *and *soothsayers, false prophets, diviners – simultaneously, Calvin concurring in his commentary.

(E.W. Bullinger in his, _Figures of Speech Used in the Bible_, has a large section on Synecdoche starting on page 613, for those wishing to study more on this.)

The linguistic device of synecdoche does not at all invalidate what Scripture teaches (and thus what I teach) on this topic of sorcery, rather it shows that drug use is but one—albeit the essential and primary—aspect of sorcery, including all the wicked things that accompany and derive from it, such as manipulating people, psychically intruding into others minds and hearts by “stealth”, i.e., unnoticed (just as demons try to do), seeking demonic agency so as to harm people, contaminating the psychic / spiritual environment of a family or close community with unclean influence, powerful verbal and psychological aggression, etc. Terrible things and influences are done by sorcerous men and women, even though they may think they are “angels of light” doing good with their heightened consciousness. All those who use these drugs—including grass—fall into the category of “sorcerous people”. Hence the title of the article in the OP, “A Nation of Witches and Sorcerers”. It is everywhere now. Only those men and women who have the seal of God in their “foreheads” (minds, hearts) are protected (Rev 9:4; see also Eph 1:13,14). Full protection is given those who fully walk in the refuge given us, the word of God.

If one has been disobedient, wittingly or unwittingly, and you find your mind / heart filled with unwanted thoughts, images, feelings, do not assume these are but your own fleshly depravity, for they well may not be. Renounce any disobedience, then as James says in 4:7 (see also Paul in Eph 6:10ff), “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” We are in a warfare, and our minds are the primary target of the adversary. It is a spiritual warfare. Pot makes this warfare so much more difficult, and it need not be. We should not be ignorant of the devil’s various wiles (2 Cor 2:11; Eph 4:27).

Chris, all this to show that your bringing up synecdoche doesn’t weaken but rather supports my Biblical view. I think I have shown ample proofs of commutativity between _pharmakeia _and drug use, despite your attempt to discredit them. As I demonstrate below (yet again), the commentators do support what I am saying.

You then say,

As for uninformed opinions, Steve, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of commentators (and our English translations), who are better Greek scholars than you or I and are surely familiar with the standard lexicons, do not take your interpretation and yet it is impossible that they are merely unaware of it when the argument is based on the _prima facie_ etymology of the term.​
I think this is odd, in the face of commentators and lexicons I have already referenced! Now when you say “interpretations”, is not Simon Kistemaker’s statement, “In Revelation it [_pharmakeia_] means “_drugs that induce magic spells_”,an interpretation in accord with my own? And _The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology_’s entry on _pharmakeia_, “a magical tradition of herbs gathered and prepared for spells, and also for *encouraging the presence of spirits *at magical ceremonies” [emphasis added], is this interpretation not also the same as my view? You make statements that directly contradict what is *shown *to be true, according to the commentators!

When you talk of “psychedelic effects” and then refer to nitrous oxide (which you may use in your dental practice) they are not the same, even though the “laughing gas” may give a brief high of sorts.

“Dissociative effects” are not a _primary _property of psychedelics, nor is their presence necessarily indicative of a psychedelic. I remember when having a severe toothache, it was some NSAID with caffeine in it that afforded me a dissociative effect so that I was significantly detached from the sensation of the pain. Please don’t confuse the distinct class of sorcerous psychedelics with other drugs that may have non-sorcerous yet similar affects in the patient.

As the mod has wisely decided to terminate this discussion at 5PM today, I have no time to muster yet further proofs beyond what I already have—and I think what I have shown is sufficient evidence in support of the Biblical view of sorcery.

It is most remarkable to witness the opposition to this exposition of Biblical sorcery and its prohibition, with all sorts of arguments, none of which really understand the reality and the attendant danger of psychedelics—definitely including marijuana and its derivatives such as hashish and “wax” (highly distilled and concentrated pot). What is so strange and alarming is that the opposition comes from within the church, and from otherwise godly and intelligent people. This sort of opposition was not present when the warnings were sounding back in the 60s through the 80s, when strong Christian men like Os Guiness (in _The Dust of Death_), and McCandlish Phillips (_The Bible, The Supernatural, and the Jews_), among others wrote and spoke of these things. Even secular people like Aldous Huxley (_The Doors of Perception_, and _Heaven and Hell_) comprehended the immense power of the classic psychedelics, and spread this knowledge throughout the culture. Then when Tim Leary and Richard Alpert, both Harvard Ph.D. psychologists, began experimenting with mushrooms, peyote, and LSD, and began preaching about the uncanny mystical power of these drugs, including grass, this turned an entire generation upside down as regards its values and vision of spiritual life.

It also opened the doors to the dark powers coming into the collective consciousness of the world’s cultures starting back in the sixties, and continuing—actually accelerating—in the present. Pastors and church leaders, it shall be upon you to determine whether to let this worldly pagan influence and power into the churches of the Lord you are given to feed, teach, and protect.

It is a sad (to put it most mildly) to see the inroads the cultural wisdom has made into the precincts of God’s house. It has been through the Trojan Horse from Hell—medicinal marijuana—that this has been accomplished, both in the culture and in the church*. Please note, this is not to deny the healing and analgesic powers of the marijuana extract, CBD, which has no THC to get one high, and this drug is not connected to sorcery.*

As it is written, those who minister before the LORD “shall teach My people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean” (Ezek 44:23). Pastors, the differences spoken of here are highly nuanced (thinking of the CBD just mentioned), and to convincingly and intelligently communicate these things to your flocks is important. The spiritual purity of our Lord’s Bride is what is at stake. These are strange and evil times, and the serpent—who is also lurking as a roaring lion—is after the sheep. The Lord’s word to you is,

*Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong (1 Cor 16:13).*

-----

Hello TimFost,

You said, “THC can also be used in small doses for good, such as pain relief, etc.”

And, “I know that THC can be taken in low quantities without a high”.

Regarding both of these sentences, first of all, it is touted by those who love the new potency of the contemporary marijuana, and its derivatives, such as “wax”, “One toke will keep you high for three days.” Even regular unprocessed grass is far more potent than it ever was in prior years, due to genetic engineering. So small doses would only be reliable in measured medical amounts. And even then, each person’s response to the drug can be different, and one person could be very slightly high, i.e., very slightly exposed—made vulnerable—to demonic influence. It’s still playing with fire. There are many chemicals that act upon us below the threshold of awareness, and their cumulative effects are disastrous; I think of carbon monoxide; it can, over years at very low ppms (parts per meter), still poison us. Some medicines do that also, such as statins, even low dosages of which over time can lead to fatigue and muscle damage. So many unnoticeable carcinogens over time give us cancers. Sorcerous agents, used at below the threshold of awareness levels for months or years, do we know what the effects can be? Whose health, and spiritual life, are you willing to experiment on?

Abuse in not the main problem—though I realize it _can_be a problem—it’s just ordinary *use *that is the real problem. You find it “bizarre” that I oppose even small amounts of THC? And opine it “makes” [my] whole argument seem so extraordinarily weak”? Apart from what I said above, consider, if a person smoke or ingests a small amount for pain relief, it seems normal, if the pain increases, to simply use more. That’s the Pandora’s Box that has been opened with so-called “medicinal” THC-laden marijuana. And the door *has *been opened, and it won’t *ever *be shut until the Lord ends this age with fiery judgment, and inaugurates the new creation of the heavens and earth. And this already wide-open door will allow even more demonic content into the human realm as usage of various sorcerous drugs increases.

After the spiritual darkness of the fifth trumpet of Revelation 9, comes the sixth trumpet and the resulting killing of one third of humankind. The fifth trumpet has already sounded, it appears, and we’re on the cusp of the sixth. These are apocalyptic judgments we are facing. In Revelation the seals, trumpets, and vials (or bowls) are all judgments, some evidently appearing as the end of the age draws nearer, as the trumpets and vials, seeing as the amounts of humans killed in each increase from 1/4 to 1/3 to all humans. Clearly the appearance of global use of psychedelics and their effects is a judgment, and a cause of the mounting chaos we observe in our society and our government. I’ll attach another chapter from the book I wrote on this topic, “New Insights in Amillennial Eschatology”. Some may find it of interest.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse

I won't have time to read and respond to your post before the thread closes, which is fine. I will read it for my own benefit later! Hopefully enough has been said on both sides for readers to make their own conclusions. I appreciate your passion for godliness, Steve, and your interactions on the matter!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lynnie

Hi- I thought it was hundreds of pages, I don't know what I looked at. Six is more like it 

This isn't the main point but you mentioned to me stocking up on narcotics for a massive grid down situation or other emergency. It isn't possible, I tried. The doctors wont write the scrips and will barely give you enough for post surgery. And any foreign supplier wont do it either. I suppose there are illegal or black market sources but I never looked into that route.

May God have mercy on us and spare us all excruciating pain. That would be a great blessing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

