I wish I could answer your questions. But how can I? I wasn’t present at the event. I related only what my sister Lorraine (who was present) told me. Unfortunately, I cannot question her further about the matter as she died in 1998.
As long as we don’t:
I think Jesus was often speaking to, and dealing with, multiple aspects of the human condition. Jesus tested the woman at His table, “Should the dogs receive before the children?”, He says.
She responds, “Yet the dogs receive scraps from the children’s table”.
Jesus marvels, “I have not seen so great a faith in all Israel”.
Why?.. I don’t know- but He knows.
With the official in John 4:48, He tested the man, “Unless you people see a sign you will never believe”. The man’s heart came through his eyes and his words and Jesus saw the love the man had for his son in his response. Tests passed so, “Go your way your son is healed”
I don t think Jesus knew all things as He walked as a man on earth. At times He saw right through all the veils in a person, but he did not see all things yet. “Who touched Me? I felt virtue go forth from Me”.
“If you believe you will be healed”. I believe, help thou my unbelief"
What do you see? “I see men as trees walking”.
Many marvels, many signs wrought out of love for the person upon whom they were visited- but not everyone was, or is, so visited.
I think Jesus was often speaking to, and dealing with, multiple aspects of the human condition. Jesus tested the woman at His table, “Should the dogs receive before the children?”, He says.
She responds, “Yet the dogs receive scraps from the children’s table”.
Jesus marvels, “I have not seen so great a faith in all Israel”.
Why?.. I don’t know- but He knows.
With the official in John 4:48, He tested the man, “Unless you people see a sign you will never believe”. The man’s heart came through his eyes and his words and Jesus saw the love the man had for his son in his response. Tests passed so, “Go your way your son is healed”
I don t think Jesus knew all things as He walked as a man on earth. At times He saw right through all the veils in a person, but he did not see all things yet. “Who touched Me? I felt virtue go forth from Me”.
“If you believe you will be healed”. I believe, help thou my unbelief"
What do you see? “I see men as trees walking”.
Many marvels, many signs wrought out of love for the person upon whom they were visited- but not everyone was, or is, so visited.
Gabe, thanks for your comment. 
Randy, who knows the power of the mind? I believe physical stamina, people who can walk on hot coals with bare feet and contortionists would be cases of mind over matter. As for the healing process, since we are both mind/spirit and body/ physical, there would be many factors involved. They say that laughter is the best medicine. I believe there is some truth in this. I watched a show once. I think it was called “Change Your Brain”. The brains scans of those who were happy in life showed warm colors. However, scans of unhappy people showed patches of dark. Over a period of time the unhappy were trained to think happy thoughts and their brain scans changed.
On another note, my daughter, who is somewhat of a perfectionist, fell into the trap that many others fall into. They don’t believe they have a gift because they can’t sit down at a piano and instantly play like Beethoven, or they can’t pick up a brush and instantly produce such works as Michelangelo. So they don’t even want to try. This isn’t how it works. As Eaglesway pointed out, this is what people expect to see as a “sign from God”. But as Jesus said, no sign will be given. I think what He was saying is that the signs are already there. If one can’t see the miracles of God right in front of your face, then you will never see them. People go to church and hear some speak, as qaz puts it, in “non-human language” and say “what a miracle”. I, on the other hand, turn on the faucet and say “what a miracle”. My kids think I’m crazy. But, we all just take such things for granted without really thinking about how it all came to be. It is by the God given gift of the mind; the minds of the many, each with their own talent working together to produce it.
I think there are two different laboratories. And the problem is - nobody wants to go and visit the other laboratory.
There’s the laboratory of the scientist, with their gadgets of chemistry, physics and engineering. And the disciplines of math and statistics.
Then there’s the internal laboratory, of those doing internal disciplines. And they are the monks and nuns of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox monasteries, Sufis, Yogis, Holy and Medicine people of indigenous tribes, etc.
http://www.benitaepstein.com/doctor%20cartoons/files/page3-1028-full.jpg
The problem is that nobody from either laboratory, wants to learn the laboratory procedures, of the other laboratory.
Now the laymen - if they are wise - can benefit from different laboratories.
They can benefit from the conventional tests and procedures, of those who are skilled in medicine, science, etc.
They can benefit from those who are experts in alternative disciplines, like homeopathy, TCM (i.e. traditional Chinese Medicine), Ayurveda, etc.
And if they can find them (like the A-Team), they can benefit from those who explore the internal laboratory.
I think we can all agree, that those who typically advertise or sell tickets - in the internal laboratory - are usually NOT the ones, whose laboratory we should visit.
Starting off with Paul, if we scrolled down to read the 4 verses which come after v. 3 here—I’d never seen it this way before but I suspect that—Paul’s intention is to contrast “the air” of v. 2 with “the heavenlies”, or, as it is more often translated, “the heavenly places” of v. 6.
There’s incidentally a lot of talk about different types of air in Ephesians. This epistle describes the universe, so it seems to me, in relation to how everything in it is contained within Jesus Christ, with His Body, personified by the fellowship of believers, featuring as a prominent organism of inextricably interconnected relationships. The Special Breath within this Body can be grieved by strife and unkindness among its members (Ch. 4 v. 30; Special Breath is usually translated “Holy Spirit”.) This Body is the fullness of the One Who fills everything within everything (1:23) so much so that He has raised us up together and caused us to sit together in the heavenlies inside Christ (2:6).
The word for “blessing” here literally means “good word” or “well-speaking,” while “spiritual” could just as correctly be rendered “pneumatic,” from pneumatikē, “of or relating to air, gases, or wind”, and deriving from a word connected to others meaning breathe and lungs. Could the verse therefore mean that God made us by speaking good things using every breath {pneumatic} of good speech in the sky-areas inside Christ? If it seems implausible that there’s a pun on Christ’s lungs here, see the way the union of the “one Body and one Breath” (4:4) is described in 5:30 and in general in Chs. 4 & 5.
In many ancient cosmologies, including the Hebrew and Greek ones, the sky or “heaven” (ouranos; haš-šāmayîm) was like an upside-down bowl covering the land or earth. Underneath the bowl, the regular fluid substance that we mortals breathed down here close to the ground was called aer in Greek, which is the word that Paul uses and from which we get English air, aerobics and aeronautics. Above this were the clouds, and above those (between the clouds and the sky-bowl) was a pure, clear and bright substance not found below the clouds, called aither. When one ascended this close to ouranos, the sky-bowl, s\he would be in the realm of the divine, having an aethereal experience in an aethereal place. This could be as dangerous as seeing God’s face, however, because only God, or the gods, could breathe aither.
This upper realm of the universe seems to be what Paul is talking about when he uses the word epouraniois, “heavenlies,” or “sky-regions,” to which those in Christ have been raised up, as opposed to the lower realm of heavy, dank and polluted aer, which is dominated by “the wind/breath which is now operating in the sons of stubbornness,” among whom we once were “down there,” as it were.
Curiously, there’re some quite literal expressions that Paul uses, in direct correlation to the ruler of the authority of the air, which I’ve never seen anyone take quite as literally as the ruler/prince description, namely the Apeitheias (Stubbornness or Incorrigibility, often rendered as “disobedience”) who has sons, and the Orgē (Raging Passion, usually rendered as “wrath”) who is also a negative parental figure.
D’you mean Geoff Glenister a.k.a. [tag]fatherlearningtolove[/tag]’s blog series Satan: Lifting the Veil? If so, I also read this a few months ago. It’s the most refreshing thing I’ve ever encountered on the subject of the kinds of entities in view here. It pools together a lot of information on subjects I’d been vaguely familiar with but had never connected quite that way. E.g. I was able to see some startlingly obvious connections between the apocryphon called The Life of Adam and Eve + what an overwhelming number of Christians are convinced is the origin of the malevolent entities in the Aer + the Qur’an’s explanation for the Devil’s first emergence.
In that series there’s actually an entire blog-post dedicated to this passage>> Part 16: The Gerasene Demoniac (some really interesting correlations with the Odyssey here)
… and the one after it deals with this one as well>> Part 17: Further Lessons on Exorcism in the Bible.
By the way, I don’t think his point is that daimones aren’t real but rather that our understanding of them as persons, in the same way we’ve tended to think of human beings as separate individuals, is misdirected. If he is around hopefully he’ll correct me if I’m misinterpreting him. I’m partly combining some thoughts I got from him with ideas from Michael Hardin (whom Geoff quotes in that series) in his discussion with Bradley Jersak about mimesis, communal violence and the satan. In the discussion, Hardin mentions a term apparently coined by René Girard to describe all humanity as part of a personality network he calls the interdividual. Well, they all articulate themselves much better than I so I should let their work speak for itself.
I definitely believe that mankind is an interdividual and love that term.
“A double minded man is unstable in every way…”
The new creation in Christ is the interdividual re-united, “the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience” is a spirit of division… “am I my brother’s keeper?”, separation into ones self interest in the extreme becoming murder, the Cain and Abel divergence, the crucifixion of Christ…
7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
This folds into UR for me in Romans 8, God binding the whole creation in futility- imo, through the argument of the adversary- created for the purpose of testing the metal and as the “father of lies” and “the author of confusion” YHWH is educating the “innocent” Adam. Through the argument of the adversary, Adam and Eve are made subject to chaos and the only way out is through the “hidden wisdom” which is, in a sense, the ****interdividuality ****of mankind.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength… and love your neighbor as yourself, and the second is like unto the first.
Why is the second like unto the first?
In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Neither circumcision or uncircumcision is anything but a new creation.
Behold I am making everything new!
Newness of life is becoming partaker of the divine nature…
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things to whom be the glory throughout the ages…
I am my brother’s keeper, No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friends, If I am lifted up I will draw all men unto me…
That you may be one, even as I and the Father are one, I in the Father and the Father in me and I in you…that your joy may be full.
The whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the children of God… they are set free from futility(division, separation)… they will set the creation free into the glorious liberty of the children of God… preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Closing the door to Satan, and daemons (whether they are seen as entities with egos or not) comes through receiving the wisdom of God, and the mind of Christ, "Have in you the same attitude which was in Christ Jesus…be renewed in the spirit of your mind…
In Hebrews 6 the laying on of hands is one of the foundation doctrines. Why? Because the Body of Christ is an interdividual.
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you. 1 Tim 4:14
While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Acts 13
Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. James 5:14
Do not be too quick in the laying on of hands and thereby share in the sins of others. 1 Tim 5:22
And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? Mk 5:30
All these evidences of how the body of Christ works are also evidences about how the new creation will operate. The Spirit carries the Father and the Son and makes all one in them.
That you may be one even as I and the Father are one, I am in the Father and the Father is in me and I am in you…
These “primitive” men understood spiritual/metaphysical reality in ways we have lost even our sense of. So sure it is all in the mind of man and the hands of man.
Haven’t been around the forum in a while, and noticed I was getting traffic from here:
Thank you, @Alakasandu! I think you did a good job representing my thoughts - yes, I would say that I’m not trying to say “Satan” and/or “Demons” (or even “Angels”) don’t exist. Rather, I am saying that what I think they represent is a sort of “super-personality” - or perhaps one could say they represent the personality a society develops as it becomes what Freud would call the “Super-Ego”. And these “Super-Egos” have a way of possessing us in a way that we often don’t even realize. We are often unconscious of the ways we do things without having any idea why - and if we stop and think (for whatever reason), we often realize that there is no rational reason why we do things that way: we’re just copying someone else whom we saw as an authority of some sort. I recall hearing a story once (can’t remember where - but apparently it’s a common story because snopes knows about it) about a woman who would make a roast and would cut off the ends and throw them away. Her husband asked her why she did this, and she had no idea - it was just that this was what her mother did. So the wife asks her mother why she does this, and her mother did not know either- it was just that this was the way her mother did this. Finally, an opportunity presents itself for the wife to talk to her grandmother about it, and when asking her why she cuts the ends off her roast, the grandmother replies “well, that’s the only way it would fit in my pan!”
This is a humorous story, but it illustrates how often in our cultures, we do things without having any idea why - it’s just tradition. And this is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, but sometimes we make these traditions sacred, and when we do that, we have a tendency to demonize anyone who challenges those sacred traditions. This is when the traditions become harmful.
A study I’ve read about will illustrate what I’m getting at - actually, it turns out that the stories I’ve heard about this study are somewhat inaccurate (see here), but this further illustrates the point in a way. And the stories are not so inaccurate that I feel I have to forego using them, haha! The popular story version of this experiment goes as follows - researchers put 5 monkeys in a room with a ladder. At the top of the ladder is a banana. When a monkey climbs the ladder, the researchers turn on the fire sprinklers, which serves as a sort of punishment for trying to get the banana. Eventually, they train these monkeys to leave the ladder alone and cease to try to reach the banana. Then, they introduce a brand new monkey to the environment. Of course, this monkey instantly goes for the banana - but the rest of the society he is now part of will smack the new monkey, howl at him, and make threatening gestures - punishing the new member of their society for trying to reach the now sacred banana. The researchers will begin removing monkeys that were part of the original society and replacing them with new monkeys, and one by one, this process will repeat itself, until eventually the society is nothing but new monkeys who were never part of the original process of conditioning them to treat the banana as sacred. Yet, these monkeys - while never having been sprayed by the sprinklers - will treat the banana as sacred and avoid eating it, and punish any new members of their society for trying to.
This story - while not quite a perfect representation of what actually happened in the experiment - is a wonderful illustration of how what I would refer to as demonic fears will possess a society and cause the society to irrationally punish their members. Sometimes there was a legitimate reason at one time to be afraid. One example - Christians will often explain away the taboos against pork by telling of how pork is unsafe to eat if you don’t cook it properly, and we’ll teach each other that the reason a law against eating it was ever made was because at the time, it was simply not possible to cook pork safely. Thus, now that we can, the law no longer applies. And this is a sensible way of explaining the rule and why we don’t follow it any more. But we don’t often apply this way of thinking to other rules that we consider sacred, and worse, we often demonize those who question our sacred rules and traditions. But what if some of them came from this same sort of process - we created a sacred tradition for reasons that were legitimate at one point, but now that those reasons are defunct, we still follow the traditions? And what if our sacred rules and traditions are avoiding the real problem? To go back to the monkeys and the ladder - the real problem for the monkeys was not that the banana was sacred, but that they had tyrants (the men turning on the sprinklers) ruling them. If the monkeys could have reasoned this out, perhaps they could have mounted some sort of resistance and overthrown their tyrannical rulers?
I have some questions here:
Isn’t the "super ego’ of Freud a theory? And has their been any experimental evidence - from experimental psychology or other scientific disciplines - to prove Freud’s theory correct? And what about competing theories, from Freud’s inner circle of followers and doctors? Folks like Adler and Jung? In the article Why Freud Still Matters, When He Was Wrong About Almost Everything, it says this:
Now suppose I go to Haiti and witness a Voodoo ceremony. A priestess (or ordinary person) claims to channel a spirit. Is this Freud’s unproven super-ego? Or have they been visiting some alcoholic or hallucinogenic spirits? (I guess the same thing can be asked, of those putting forth “unusual theories”) 
I think you misunderstand what the word “theory” means. Also, there have been plenty of studies that have proven close to beyond a shadow of a doubt (as close as you can get) that human beings can be manipulated into doing things we’d call “evil” by the societies they are within. We don’t need to believe in invisible smoke monsters any more - belief in societal influences will suffice.
Can you please share a definition of theory you agree with, along with the source link?
Can you please site a couple of studies, along with a link to those studies?
Did the article Why Freud Still Matters, When He Was Wrong About Almost Everything I referred to, use the word theory, in describing some of Freud’s ideas?
How do you respond to the tree in the forest riddle? (i.e. If a tree falls in a forest)
You did - and you used the word in much the same way that fundamentalists will use the word to pretend that they can dismiss evolution without the slightest attention given to the mass amounts of evidence that support it. And by the scientific definition of the word “theory”, it must be noted that no matter how certain we can be of any scientific idea, it is still called a “theory”, and there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.
Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo - look them up. We don’t need to believe in invisible smoke monsters. Societal influences create what we call “evil”.
You are probably referring to the Milgram Experiment - for example. Am I right? Now do a search for the keywords “the milgram obedience study has been criticized on the basis of” - in Google or Bing. Then read the articles, that come up on page 1. Or go to the Wiki article I referenced here, and look at the section criticism. and interpretation. Or we might look at Science-Forums and find these elements of criticism:
Suppose someone from the Flat Earth Society joined the forum. And they opened up a thread. And said there are numerous studies, to prove the earth is flat. We would all be interested in this and ask about the studies. But we might conclude this individual is making an unwarranted generalization, from what the original study hypothesis and conclusions said. Or they have not examined attempts to replicate the study or criticism of the study or studies (lack of randomness, is a BIG one. Along with failure to replicate).
Let’s look at randomness, from a pure mathematical standpoint. Most random number generators are based upon pseudo-random number algorithms . They are NOT truly random. The only true random number generator I found is at random.org/. They base the initial seed number generators on atmospheric noise.
Now I might not be able to ask more questions - until tomorrow. Like Socrates, I need to ask the right questions - in order to understand these complex ideas, put forth. But I have priorities, mind you. Decades TV station is running a Night Gallery marathon. And AMC is airing Fear the Walking Dead and Preacher. So if I don’t respond with more questions until tomorrow - you understand why. I guess Zombies, Science Fiction, Fantasy and Comic Book fiction - might take priority 
.
Talk about evolution always gets messy in a Forum situation. Either side can use the term ‘massive’ but the word itself carries no weight; the evidence does seem to point to intra-species adaptability; but as for the descent of Man from, ultimately, single-cell organisms and then ‘up’ to lower primates, even among hard-core scientists who really really WANT that ‘theory’ to be true, there have been a number of significant defections. The evidence for that ‘theory’ is just not there.
Fundies are not wrong about everything!
Uh, everything gets criticized in academic societies. Everything.
Milgram was certainly breaking new ground, and it is quite characteristic for ground-breaking studies to need refinement later. And there have been plenty of studies since Milgram that have made necessary refinements and proven that societal influences are stronger than we like to admit. We like to think that we are autonomous and make rational decisions, but the truth of the matter is that we are far more influenced by the societal milieu which has created unconscious influences than we’d like to admit. The truth is that we are more often than not predictably irrational.
Now if you took a less adversarial tone, I might be more inclined to take the time to discuss this more, but you’re really not making me feel like I want to take the time, nor does it seem as if you were worth the time - I know when I’m up against someone who just wants to “win” and probably will never be convinced of something they weren’t already convinced of.
Science doesn’t mean we 'pick and choose" studies, that match our “preconceived philosophical and theological outlooks”. Especially if that is a more “materialistic” worldview. Science means we are open to looking at the limitations of studies, their scope, and results of studies - presenting a contrary scientific viewpoint.
You tend to jump from particular studies to a “general conclusion” regarding the universe. How is this any different from the Flat Earth Society member? If they conclude the earth is flat, based upon some studies, on how we perceive shapes? Especially when your quoted conclusions (i.e. “The truth is that we are more often than not predictably irrational.”), invokes abstract elements regarding “heredity”, “environment”, “epistemology”, etc.
Or you finally introduce a study. Then expect folks NOT to bring up shortcomings or criticisms, of the original studies. Like lack of randomness or inability of other researchers - to reproduce it. Both of these are big ticket items - mind you. It’s not being adversarial. It’s the nature of scientific criticism. It happens all the time in academic and scientific circles. 
If we try to group a particular number of studies, they could have different hypothesis, conclusions, experimental methodology, etc. And each will need to be examined, for criticism, objections and interpretation. All the soft sciences (i.e. experimental psychology, social psychology, etc.) involve statistical methodology. What is the statistical data** really saying**?
In the Wiki article Criticism of science, it says this:
As someone with:
a masters degree in psychology from Norwich University
a black belt holder in statistical methodology from Motorola
a math major from Aurora University
…gives me the background to comment on these “soft science” studies, and their corresponding statistical results. In Hard and soft science, we find this:
If I look at another thread here introduced by Jeff (i.e. Wow, so what do you really believe? …Statement of Faith), he has some folks taking issue, with his theological presentation. Are they being adversarial? NOT necessary. And if someone introduced a philosophical or scientific topic, then expect the same academic criticism.
Or should the opposition build an escalator for you - to Mount Everest 
P.S. I’m sure Milgram would have a field day, with this test subject and his “fear of imaginary monsters”
If societal influences create what we call evil, then what influences are at the root of that? If society is prone to evil, why? If God is influencing in some measure, and He is a Spirit, on the basis of what evidence can the influence, possibly negative in nature and effect of some other spirit or spirits be eliminated absolutley. If there are negative spirits that are a part of the system/kosmos/age/world, why would they be “smoke monsters” any more or less than some men are “flesh monsters”- and what is more fantastic, that there are no unseen beings in the universe, or that there are, seeing as that man still almost universally acknowledges that there are spirit beings?
Are all these things projections from the primitive superstitious mind, or are they acknowledgments of something- perhaps not clearly defined but definitely existent.
If they exist, is it impossible for spiritual men to identify them? Do some men walk in the spirit world? Did Jesus? Is everything psychological in nature? How can one be sure about such a conclusion? What empirical evidence demands such a conclusion?
If the scriptures are only allegories akin to the cultural allegories of other religions, at what point is YHWH no longer really God and at what point does Jesus become just an allegory? Not Savior, but mere anecdotal identity of “man’s best impulses”.
The scriptures do not teach that Satan and demons are responsible for all evil. They do teach that Satan and demons are responsible in part for evil, while man must bear full responsibility for choosing his allegiances and disposition towards wickedness.