Cohoon/Gary Debate on Satan

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that God created a ...being that fell...and 
now is the epitome of evil known as "Satan."

AFFIRM: Bobby Cohoon
DENY: James Gary

Rather than addressing the problems I showed with Ezk 28 
referring to a fallen spiritual being, e.g., it's addressed to a 
physical king and he's referred to as a man that will be reduced 
to ashes, Mr. Cohoon has implied that the king of Babylon 
addressed in Ezek 28 is a type of a fallen spiritual being named 
"Satan."

Please note that this is done without the word "satan", 
spiritual, or "devil" being mentioned anywhere in the chapter.  
The question is why can't the chapter be addressed to the person 
it says it is?  Mr. Cohoon implies the king of Tyre is a type of 
"Satan" because Ezek 28:13 speaks of the king as being in Eden, 
the Garden of God.

But does this prove that the king of Tyre is a type of a fallen 
spiritual being?  In Gen 2-3, where Eden is first mentioned in 
the Bible there is no mention of a fallen spiritual being 
either.  Yes, Mr. Cohoon did imply the "serpent" in Gen 3 was a 
fallen spiritual being, but he has yet to prove that.  Therefore 
it seems Mr. Cohoon is using supposition for "evidence" that this 
king was a type of a fallen spiritual being.  But lets not forget 
it's still supposition.

Mr. Cohoon is obviously thinking the Eden mentioned in Ezek 28 is 
the same physical geographical location as the Eden in Gen 2.  
But he has not proven that.  The Bible shows us that the "Garden" 
of Eden is the Kingdom of God.  When the thief on the cross asked 
Christ to remember him when He came into His Kingdom, Christ 
responded by saying "...you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 
23:43)."  The Greek word "Paradise" in this verse is translated 
from the Greek word "paradeisos."

This is the very same Greek word translated "garden" in Gen 2:9, 
15, 16; 3:1, 8 & 10 when speaking of the Garden of Eden in the 
Greek Old Testatment (LXX, Septuagint).  Was Christ speaking to 
the thief on the cross about the "Garden of Eden" in the sense 
that it was the same place where Adam and Eve lived?  I don't 
think so.  He was speaking of God's Kingdom.  That's what the 
Garden of Eden was.  God's Commandments were the way to the Tree 
of Life (Rev 22:14).  The Tree of Life is always in the "midst" 
of the "Paradise" (garden) of God (Gen 2:9; Rev 2:7).

What got Adam removed from the Kingdom/Paradise of God?  It was 
due to his not obeying God's commandments (Gen 3:17). As long as 
Adam obeyed God, he could rule in God's Kingdom or Paradise.  
When he sinned he was removed from his lofty position (Gen 
2:23).  The same thing happened to the king of Tyre (Eze 28:15, 
18).  He was obeying God and upholding God's Law.  Where God's 
Law reigns God's Kingdom is (Ex 19:5-8).  The undefiled walk in 
God's Law (Psa 119:1).  The king of Tyre defiled himself (Ezek 
28:28).

So the Garden of God is simply where God's Law is supreme.  It 
can be anywhere.

Mr. Cohoon implies there is a fallen spiritual being by saying 
"Our Savior was tempted by him after His baptism (Matthew 4)." 
While I agree that Christ was tempted I don't agree it was by a 
fallen spiritual being.  The context of Mat 4 never speaks of any 
such being.  We see words such as "devil" or "tempter."  But we 
never see these words defined as describing a fallen spiritual 
being.  We obviously are expected to just accept this as fact 
when it has never been established.

The English word "devil", in Mat 4 is translated from the Greek 
word "diabolos."  It is defined by Strong as "a traducer" which 
is a "false accuser" or slanderer."  It has been translated 
"false accuser" twice (2 Tim 3:3; Tit 2:3) and slanderers (1 Tim 
3:11).  In each of those incidences, it is clear that flesh and 
blood people are the "diabolos."

In the case of Jesus in His temptation in the wilderness, I agree 
He was tempted by a "satan" and a "devil."  I have been told 
these two titles belong to a fallen spiritual being formerly 
named "Lucifer" that was cast from heaven and now rules the 
earth.  However, upon analyzing the two accounts of Jesus' 
temptation, if this is the true identity of "satan"/"the devil" 
several questions come to mind.

Concerning the events as told by Matthew:

In the first "temptation", after having fasted for 40 days and 
nights (Mat 4:2), would it not be a normal fleshly desire to 
eat?  Wouldn't the flesh be the tempter in this case? Are 
Christians not commanded to overcome the flesh (Rom 8:1-9)?

What would have been the purpose of something or someone other 
than Christ's flesh saying, "If thou be the Son of God, command 
that these stones be made bread?"  Have not we all been tempted 
by our flesh in such manner?  Even to the point of arguing with 
ourselves to do something we think we shouldn't? Even if Jesus 
had made bread of stone, what did He have to lose, if it simply 
was a dare from something other than His flesh?   After all would 
it be wrong to eat when one is hungry?

Would not the flesh be desiring to live and be crying out for 
physical food?  But Christ, speaking of Spiritual life says, true 
life comes from the Word of God (Mat 4:4).  Would it not be the 
flesh and not some outside entity that Christ was overcoming 
here?

In the second "temptation" more questions arise.  The "devil" 
takes Christ up to the "Holy City (Mat 4:5)."   The Bible says 
this "devil" set Christ on the top (top corner stone) of the 
temple.  Why would a fallen spiritual being do that?  Would this 
not be a very viewable scene in that anyone near the temple would 
have seen Christ on top of it?  And what kind of "temptation" 
would it be for Christ to jump from the top of the temple?   What 
did He have to gain from taking such a dare?

In the third "temptation" the "devil" takes Christ into an 
"exceeding high mountain" (Mat 4:8) and showed Christ all the 
kingdoms of the world.  The "devil" told Christ that he would 
give all the kingdoms of the world to him if He would fall down 
and worship him.

What mountain is so high that all the kingdoms of men can be seen 
from it even on the other side of the earth?  Since God is the 
one that gives the kingdoms of men to whomever He will (Dan 
4:17), how can this "devil" make this offer if He is not God?  
Why wouldn't Christ know only God has that power?  How could 
Christ be tempted by a lie?

No, a fallen spiritual being did not tempt Christ.  It was 
Christ's own flesh that did.  That's why it could say the things 
it did to Christ because it was the flesh of God.  That's why 
Christ said false accusations, which a diabolos makes comes from 
within a person (Mat 15:19).  After all why, if the "tempter" 
here was a fallen spiritual being, would Christ fast forty days 
in order to weaken Himself for the greatest fight of His life?  
The truth is He was weakening Himself so that He could be tempted 
by the flesh and it took this extreme fast to get Him in this 
position.  The Bible says He was tempted in all points the flesh 
is tempted (Heb 4:15).  He overcame His fleshly nature which His 
followers are to do (Rom 12:21).

Mr. Cohoon says 
"Jesus believed in a "real" Satan: out of 29 passages in the 
Bible that refer to Satan, 22 are from Jesus. Throughout the New 
Testament Satan, "satanas," is used as a proper noun."

The word "satan" is not in the literal translation of Young's.  
The word is properly translated "adversary."  Again I wish to 
clarify my position. I am not saying there is no adversary 
mentioned in the Bible.  There is.  I am just saying there is no 
adversary that is a fallen spiritual being mentioned in the 
Bible.  The only reason there is a proper noun "Satan" in the 
Bible is because that is how the translators chose to translate 
it thereby writing into the Bible their own belief.  But lets 
take a couple of examples where Christ spoke about "Satan" and 
see if the word translated "Satan" is properly translated as a 
proper noun.

(Mat 4:10 KJV)  "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, 
Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
and him only shalt thou serve."

(Mat 12:26 KJV)  "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided 
against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"

Now, here are those same verses from a version that actually 
translated the Hebrew word "satan" from which the Greek word 
"satanas" was transliterated and not translated:

YLT Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus to him, 'Go -- Adversary, for 
it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him 
only thou shalt serve.'

YLT Matthew 12:26 and if the Adversary doth cast out the 
Adversary, against himself he was divided, how then doth his 
kingdom stand?

As you can see, the proper translation shows the Greek word 
"satanas" to not be a proper noun.  This fact alone depicts the 
bias of the translators.  Had the Hebrew word "satan" been 
translated in lieu of being transliterated the Greek word 
"satanas" would most likely have been translated rather than 
transliterated into the English since it is nothing more than a 
transliteration of the Hebrew word "satan."

Yes Christ did speak of an adversary, but not of a fallen 
spiritual being.  Each use of the Greek word "satanas" in 
Christ's words must be taken within its context to determine what 
that adversary is.

Mr. Cohoon implies that the power that brought down Job was not 
from God, but rather from a fallen spiritual being named 
"Satan."  I can't understand why he thinks this way in light of 
all the Scriptures I gave him from Job that clearly shows God 
doing it.  Mr. Cohoon says of God's hedge about Job (Job 1:10), 
"That hedge protected Job from Satan's power. God tells Satan 
"And the Lord said vnto Satan, Behold, all that hee hath is in 
thy power" (Job 1:12). God never says, "Here Satan let me give 
you this power.""

While this particular verse may not say it, the Bible, elsewhere 
does tell us from where all power comes (1 Chron 29:12; Psalms 
68:35; Mat 28:18; John 19:11).  So even if there were a fallen 
spiritual being spoken of here, which there is not, any power he 
may have had would have had to have come from God.  Let's look at 
Job 1:12 where God tells this adversary that Job is in his 
"power" from a literal translation:

YLT Job 1:12 And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, 'Lo, all that 
he hath is in thy hand, only unto him put not forth thy hand.' 
And the Adversary goeth out from the presence of Jehovah.

As you can see, the word "power" is not in this translation.  
However the word "hand" is.  As you can see, the word "hand" is 
in the verse twice.  Both times the word is translated from the 
Hebrew word "yad."  Yet in the KJV, the translators choice to 
translate that word as "power" giving it a totally different 
thought.

Also do notice that even though God was giving the fate of Job's 
possessions over to an adversary's hand, that adversary was not 
to put forth his hand against Job.  In other words, he could not 
have anything done to Job's person or touch him in any way.  So 
instead of giving Job over to the power of a fallen spiritual 
being God would allow this adversary to dictate what God was to 
do to Job within limits.

Since Mr. Cohoon insists, in spite of the Scriptures I gave 
showing it was God that caused Job's misery that it was done via 
the power of a fallen spiritual being, I wish to examine those 
Scriptures now:

(Job 1:11 KJV)  "But PUT FORTH THINE HAND now, and touch all that 
he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

In the above verse does the adversary not dictate to God for Him 
to put forth His hand and touch all of Job's possessions?

(Job 1:16 KJV)  "While he was yet speaking, there came also 
another, and said, THE FIRE OF GOD IS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, AND 
HATH BURNED UP THE SHEEP, AND THE SERVANTS, AND CONSUMED THEM; 
and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Does the above verse not say that it was the fire of God that 
took away Job's possessions?

(Job 1:21 KJV)  "And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, 
and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and THE LORD 
HATH TAKEN AWAY; blessed be the name of the LORD."

Does the above verse not say it was God that took his possessions 
from him?

(Job 2:3 KJV)  "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou 
considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the 
earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and 
escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although 
THOU MOVEDST ME AGAINST HIM, TO DESTROY HIM WITHOUT CAUSE."

Does the above verse say that God was moved to destroy Job?

(Job 2:10 KJV)  "But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of 
the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the 
hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not 
Job sin with his lips."

Does the above verse not have Job saying evil was received at the 
hand of God?

(Job 19:6-13 KJV)  "Know now that GOD HATH overthrown me, and 
hath compassed me with his net. {7} Behold, I cry out of wrong, 
but I am not heard: I cry aloud, but there is no judgment. {8} HE 
HATH fenced up my way that I cannot pass, and HE HATH set 
darkness in my paths. {9} HE HATH stripped me of my glory, and 
taken the crown from my head. {10} HE HATH destroyed me on every 
side, and I am gone: and mine hope hath he removed like a tree. 
{11} He hath also kindled his wrath against me, and he counteth 
me unto him as one of his enemies. {12} His troops come together, 
and raise up their way against me, and encamp round about my 
tabernacle. {13} HE HATH put my brethren far from me, and mine 
acquaintance are verily estranged from me."

Does the above passage not say that it was God that had brought 
all of Job's trouble upon him?

(Job 19:21 KJV)  "Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my 
friends; for the hand of God hath touched me."

Does the above verse not have Job accrediting his destruction to 
the hand of God?

No, my friend this wasn't the work of a fallen spiritual being, 
but of a righteous all-powerful, eternal Spiritual God.

God's hedge was around Job to keep any calamity from happening to 
him.  Not to keep him from the power of a fallen spiritual being.

Mr. Cohoon says God does not create evil.  However, the Bible 
does say He creates evil:

(Isa 45:7 KJV)  "I form the light, and create darkness: I make 
peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."

Mr. Cohoon, before you tell me that this "evil" is simply 
calamities and such do know that the Hebrew word translated 
"evil" here is the word translated "evil" in the phrase "The Tree 
of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Mr. Cohoon seems to think that my saying it was God that caused 
Job's ills is the same thing as God being divided against 
himself.  I don't understand how that is possible as it was God's 
intent that Job become closer to Him through these trials (Job 
42:5).

Mr. Cohoon seems to think God cannot tempt anyone because he 
quotes James 1:13 which says God tempts no man.  But the context 
of that verse is not in the offering of temptation, but the 
desire for the temptation as James 1:14 shows the context to be 
one of being drawn away of his own lust. In other words, the 
desire to do evil is not God doing it, but man's own fleshly 
desires.  Besides we know that God tempted Abraham (Gen 22:1).

Mr. Cohoon refers us to Luke 7:21 & 8:2 which speak of "devils" 
being removed from people implying this is evidence of a fallen 
spiritual being.  Both of those verses clearly show that removing 
"devils" or "daimonions" from people is associated with curing 
diseases:

(Luke 8:2 KJV)  "And certain women, which had been HEALED of evil 
spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went 
seven devils,"

The Greek word translated "healed" in the above is "iaomai." It 
is defined as "to heal."

(Luke 7:21 KJV)  "And in that same hour he CURED many of their 
infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that 
were blind he gave sight."

The Greek word translated "cured" in the above is "therapeuo" 
which is defined as "to wait upon menially, i.e. (fig.) to adore 
(God), or (spec.) to relieve (of disease):--cure, heal, 
worship."  It is synonymous with the healing of diseases.

Notice that Mr. Cohoon is now equating "evil" or "unclean" 
spirits with a fallen spiritual being without showing how they 
are.  Evil or unclean spirits are not spiritual beings but 
conditions of the heart or mind.

Are unclean spirits of God?  I don't think so.  So any spirit 
that is of God is a clean spirit and one that is not is an 
unclean spirit.  How do we know which spirit is which?  John 
tells us how:

(1 John 4:1-5 NASB)  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but 
test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many 
false prophets have gone out into the world. {2} By this you know 
the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ 
has come in the flesh is from God; {3} and every spirit that does 
not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the 
antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it 
is already in the world. {4} You are from God, little children, 
and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than 
he who is in the world. {5} They are from the world; therefore 
they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them."

So we see here that the word "spirit" can apply to persons who 
have unclean spirits as well as persons who have "clean" 
spirits.  We can see that "unclean spirits" are called "false 
prophets."  An unclean spirit is simply a spirit or 
rebelliousness to God.  Anyone with a "spirit" of rebellion is 
unclean.  Notice the following verses that show that 
"lawlessness" is in the same category as uncleanness and are 
works of the flesh.

(Gal 5:19-26 KJV)  "NOW THE WORKS OF THE FLESH ARE MANIFEST, 
WHICH ARE THESE; Adultery, fornication, UNCLEANESS, 
lasciviousness, {20} Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, 
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, {21} Envyings, 
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I 
tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they 
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. {22} 
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, 
gentleness, goodness, faith, {23} Meekness, temperance: against 
such there is no law. {24} And they that are Christ's have 
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. {25} If we 
live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. {26} Let us 
not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one 
another."

Now notice what we are commanded to do for these that are 
overtaken in uncleanness:

(Gal 6:1 KJV)  "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye 
which are spiritual, RESTORE SUCH A ONE INTO THE SPIRIT OF 
MEEKNESS; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

You see that we are to "cast" out that "spirit" of uncleanness 
and restore a "spirit" of "cleanness" or one of harmony with God 
and His Law. Here's another example of this:

(Eph 4:19-23 KJV)  "WHO BEING PAST FEELING HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES 
OVER TO LASCIVIOUSNESS, TO WORK ALL UNCLEANESS with greediness. 
{20} But ye have not so learned Christ; {21} If so be that ye 
have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in 
Jesus: {22} That ye put off concerning the former conversation 
the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 
{23} And BE RENEWED IN THE SPIRIT OF YOUR MIND;"

The Bible is full of examples of the spirit of "devils" or 
"uncleanness" and the Spirit of Cleanness or God.

The next verse shows that there was a woman who had a "spirit" of 
infirmity. In other words an unclean spirit possessed her.  
Notice that this spirit was the spirit of "infirmity".

(Luke 13:11 KJV)  "And, behold, there was a woman which had a 
spirit of Infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and 
could in no wise lift up herself."

Here is the Greek word translated "infirmity":

769. astheneia, as-then'-i-ah; from G772; FEEBLENESS (OF BODY OR 
MIND); by impl. malady; mor. frailty:--DISEASE, infirmity, 
SICKNESS, weakness.

By this definition she could have had a mental illness.  The 
point is, she was SICK.  Christ HEALED her or cast out this 
unclean "spirit".  Here are some more examples of this word being 
in association with "sickness" and "devil possession":

(Luke 5:15 KJV)  "But so much the more went there a fame abroad 
of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be 
healed by him of their INFIRMITIES."

(Luke 8:2 KJV)  "And certain women, which had been healed of evil 
spirits and INFIRMITIES, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went 
seven devils,"

(Acts 28:9 KJV)  "So when this was done, others also, which had 
DISEASES in the island, came, and were healed:"

(Rom 6:19 KJV)  "I speak after the manner of men because of the 
INFIRMITY OF YOUR FLESH: for as YE HAVE YIELDED  your members 
servants TO UNCLEANESS and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now 
yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness."

Notice in the above verse we see we become sick or unclean and 
have a spirit of uncleaness or an unclean spirit.

Here are examples of clean "spirits".

(Rom 1:4 KJV)  "And declared to be the Son of God with power, 
according to the SPIRIT OF HOLINESS, by the resurrection from the 
dead:"

(Rom 8:2 KJV)  "For the law of the SPIRIT OF LIFE in Christ Jesus 
hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

(Rom 8:9 KJV)  "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, 
if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have 
not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his."

(Rom 8:14-15 KJV)  "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God. {15} For ye have not received the 
spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the SPIRIT 
OF ADOPTION, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

(1 Cor 2:11-12 KJV)  "For what man knoweth the things of a man, 
save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God 
knoweth no man, but the SPIRIT OF GOD. {12} Now we have received, 
not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that 
we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

(1 Cor 4:21 KJV)  "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a 
rod, or in love, and in the SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS?"

(2 Cor 4:13 KJV)  "We having the same SPIRIT OF FAITH, according 
as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we 
also believe, and therefore speak;"

(Eph 1:17 KJV)  "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Father of glory, may give unto you the SPIRIT OF WISDOM and 
revelation in the knowledge of him:"

(2 Tim 1:7 KJV)  "For God hath not given us the SPIRIT OF fear; 
but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND."

(Heb 10:29 KJV)  "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall 
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, 
and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was 
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the 
SPIRIT OF GRACE?"

(1 Pet 4:14 KJV)  "If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, 
happy are ye; for the SPIRIT OF GLORY and of God resteth upon 
you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is 
glorified."

(1 John 4:6 KJV)  "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; 
he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the SPIRIT 
OF TRUTH, and the spirit of error."

(Rev 19:10 KJV)  "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he 
said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of 
thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for 
the testimony of Jesus is the SPIRIT OF PROPHECY."

Here are some "spirits" of uncleaness:

Acts 16:16 KJV)  "And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a 
certain damsel possessed with a SPIRIT OF DIVINATION met us, 
which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:"

(Rom 8:14-15 KJV)  "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God. {15} For ye have not received the 
SPIRIT OF BONDAGE again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit 
of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

(Rom 11:8 KJV)  "(According as it is written, God hath given them 
the SPIRIT OF SLUMBER, eyes that they should not see, and ears 
that they should not hear;) unto this day."

(1 Cor 2:11-12 KJV)  "For what man knoweth the things of a man, 
save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God 
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. {12} Now we have received, 
not the SPIRIT OF THE WORLD, but the spirit which is of God; that 
we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

(2 Tim 1:7 KJV)  "For God hath not given us the SPIRIT OF FEAR; 
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

(1 John 4:2-3 KJV)  "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every 
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is 
of God: {3} And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that 
SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST, whereof ye have heard that it should come; 
and even now already is it in the world."

(1 John 4:6 KJV)  "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; 
he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit 
of truth, and the SPIRIT OF ERROR."

Notice that these clean and unclean "spirits" are in diametrical 
opposition to one another.  If you don't have the spirit of 
cleanness, you will have the spirit of uncleanness.  There's no 
neutral ground.  When Christ cast out these "spirits" of 
uncleanness he was HEALING these people from diseases that are 
the result of rebelliousness to God or sin.  Notice that the 
Bible equates sickness with sin:

(James 5:15 TLB)  "And their prayer, if offered in faith, will 
heal him, for the Lord will make him well; and IF HIS SICKNESS 
WAS CAUSED BY SOME SIN, the Lord will forgive him."

(Mat 9:2 KJV)  "And, behold, they brought to him a man SICK OF 
THE PALSY, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto 
the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; THEY SINS BE 
FORGIVEN thee."

Once again notice that "casting our devils or unclean spirits" is 
equated with healing the sick:

(Mat 10:1 KJV)  "And when he had called unto him his twelve 
disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast 
them out, and to HEAL ALL MANNER OF SICKNESS and all manner of 
disease."

(Acts 5:16 KJV)  "There came also a multitude out of the cities 
round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which 
were vexed with unclean spirits: and THEY WERE HEALED, EVERYONE 
OF THEM."

Again, here's the Greek word for "heal":

2323. therapeuo, ther-ap-yoo'-o; from the same as G2324; to wait 
upon menially, i.e. (fig.) to adore (God), or (spec.) to relieve 
(of disease):--cure, heal, worship.

It means to cure or relieve of disease.  This means physical and 
mental.  Here is another verse that associates "demon possession" 
with mental illness:

(John 10:19-20 KJV)  "There was a division therefore again among 
the Jews for these sayings. {20} And many of them said, HE HATH A 
DEVIL AND IS MAD; why hear ye him?"

The Greek word for "mad" is:

3105. mainomai, mah'ee-nom-ahee; mid. from a prim.  mao (to long 
for; through the idea of insensate craving); to rave as a 
"maniac":--be beside self (mad).

So being mad is a mental disease.

Mr. Cohoon uses the event of the "Legion" in Luke 8 to say that 
devils or daimonions talk and implies this has to be evidence of 
a fallen spiritual being.  But is it?

There are three versions of the "Legion" story in the Bible (Mat 
8:28-34; Mark 5:1-17; Luke 8:26-37).  Unless one compares all 
three of the stories with each other, it's highly unlikely one 
can get a true picture of what is really happening in this 
event.   Lets do that now and see if this is a fail-safe method 
of proving fallen spiritual beings who possess people really do 
exist.   Remember these are three stories of the same event.  If 
the Word of God is to be trusted then the stories must not 
contradict each other.

(Mat 8:28 KJV) "And when he was come to the other side into the 
country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with 
devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man 
might pass by that way."

(Mark 5:1-2 KJV)  "And they came over unto the other side of the 
sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. {2} And when he was come 
out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man 
with an unclean spirit,"

(Luke 8:26-27 KJV)  "And they arrived at the country of the 
Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. {27} And when he went 
forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which 
had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any 
house, but in the tombs."

We can see, according to Matthew there were at least two men here 
"possessed with devils." This does not mean that his report 
conflicts with Mark's or Luke's report. It simply means two 
reporters did not find it necessary to mention but one man at 
this point.  If you will study the Gospel accounts of the 
resurrection when the women came to Christ's tomb,  you will see 
that the same thing happened

(Mat 28:1 KJV)  "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn 
toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the 
other Mary to see the sepulchre."

(Mark 16:1-2 KJV)  "And when the sabbath was past, Mary 
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought 
sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. {2} And very 
early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto 
the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

(Luke 23:55-56 KJV)  "And the women also, which came with him 
from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how 
his body was laid. {56} And they returned, and prepared spices 
and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the 
commandment."

(John 20:1 KJV)  "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene 
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the 
stone taken away from the sepulchre."

Concerning who went to Christ's tomb, Matthew tells of Mary M. &  
Mary.  Mark mentions those two, but adds Salome. Luke simply says 
"the women."  John mentions Mary M. only.

Now, I ask you, do the Gospel writers contradict each other?  Of 
course not!  Not mentioning someone does not mean that someone 
was not there.  It's just that each Gospel writer chose to 
mention some of the women and not others.  But that does not mean 
they weren't there.  If a father and a son go fishing and I 
relate the fishing trip to someone by saying the boy went 
fishing, but failed to mention the father, have I lied?  No!  
Neither are any of these events contradictory.

In the story of the "demon-possessed" man, only Matthew chose to 
mention the other "demon-possessed" man.  Just because Mark and 
Luke did not mention him does not mean he wasn't there.  The NAB, 
Peshitta, New Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard Version, New 
Revised Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation calls 
these men "demoniacs" in lieu of saying they were "possessed with 
demons" or "devils."  Lamsa calls them "lunatics."

Notice that Matthew says the men had "devils."  Mark says the man 
had, simply a single unclean spirit.  Luke says the man had 
devils over a long time indicating they came and went, but not 
necessarily did the man have more than one "devil" at a time as 
Luke says in v. 29, the unclean spirit (singular) had caught 
(seized) him many times.

Considering all the statements together we can ascertain the men 
each had one unclean spirit as the word "spirit" is singular and 
not plural as it would need to be if there were many "demons" in 
one person. Else we have a contradiction!

(Mark 5:3-5 KJV)  "Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no 
man could bind him, no, not with chains {4} Because that he had 
been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been 
plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces neither 
could any man tame him. {5} And always, night and day, he was in 
the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with 
stones."

Mark says one of the men couldn't be bound.  He would break the 
fetters and "chains" (bonds) used to bind him.  He would hurt 
himself and cry.  The man appeared mentally unstable and to be a 
lunatic.  One man, who took his son to Christ to be healed said 
his son was a lunatic because he kept doing harmful things to 
himself (Mat 17:15).  Jesus healed that boy by "rebuking" the 
"lunacy" or "demon" or "devil (Mat 17:18)."  Do notice that the 
boy was CURED of his "devil" (Mat 1718).   The word translated 
"cured" in that verse is defined by Strong as "to heal, cure, 
restore to health." It's the same word that is translated 
"healing" in Mat 4:23 and "healed" in Mat 4:24.  Therefore the 
casting out of demons is equated with healing a sickness or 
disease.

(Mat 8:29 KJV) "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we 
to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to 
torment us before the time?"

(Mark 5:6-7 KJV)  "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and 
worshipped him, {7} And cried with a loud voice, and said, What 
have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I 
adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not."

(Luke 8:28 KJV)  "When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down 
before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with 
thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment 
me not."

As you can see the men were speaking to Christ as the word "they" 
in Mat 8:29 is speaking of the demoniacs in the previous verse. 
The lunatics or demoniacs, not fallen spiritual beings 
"worshipped" Christ.  Now why would "fallen spiritual beings" 
worship Christ?  Can they repent?  Do they, according to those 
who believe in fallen spiritual beings not hate God?  Could not a 
legion of fallen spiritual beings, that caused a man to hurt 
himself and live naked in a graveyard not stop a man, they 
supposedly possessed from bowing down before Christ?  Of course 
the Gospel writers make it clear that it is the man or men 
talking and not fallen spiritual beings.

Why were these men asking Christ if He came to torment them and 
then asked Him not to torment them? Considering Christ healed or 
made these men well, right after they said this, would it not 
seem that these men were asking Christ to heal them and for Him 
not to heal them would be torment to them?  As you can see it is 
the men who were talking and not fallen spiritual beings.  Would 
it not seem that if a man was possessed with a legion of fallen 
spiritual beings in him he would be tortured already?  So far we 
have only two men speaking to Christ asking Him to heal them and 
not fallen spiritual beings.

(Luke 8:29 KJV)  "(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to 
come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him and he was 
kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, 
and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)"

(Mark 5:8 KJV)  "For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou 
unclean spirit."

Christ heals them!  Here we see Christ addressing the problem 
with the men as an unclean spirit (singular) and not as many 
fallen spiritual beings.  Also we see that Christ is speaking to 
the men and not demons.  Luke says this unclean spirit (singular) 
many times caught the man and he would be put in bonds, but he, 
not demons would break those bonds and the unclean spirit 
(singular) would drive him into the wilderness.

Still we do not see but one unclean spirit in each of the two 
men.

(Mark 5:9 KJV)  "And he asked him, What is thy name? And he 
answered, saying, My name is Legion for we are many."

(Luke 8:30 KJV)  "And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? 
And he said, Legion because many devils were entered into him."

Jesus is still speaking to the man here and asked, "what are you 
called."  The man answers saying "I am called legion for we are 
many." The  Greek word translated "name" here is defined as 
"called" or "name" and is translated "called" in Luke 24:13; Acts 
8:9; 9:11; 10:1.  This is not a fallen spiritual being speaking.  
Since we know two men approached Jesus and He healed many 
demoniacs, could these men not have been referring to how many 
other demoniacs or lunatics were with them in the tombs and there 
about?  After all does not the Bible show Christ healing many 
people from "unclean spirits?"

We know that these men had only a single unclean spirit or 
"devil" just as Luke 8:29 and Mark 5:2, 8, 15, 16 & 18 show. 
However, I believe there is another explanation for one of the 
men saying he had "many" in him.  I think that the "legion" was 
not a pile of "fallen spiritual beings" in one man, but that one 
of the men thought he was of "possessed" of "many" one at a 
time.  Notice what Luke said in Luke 8:29

(Luke 8:29 KJV) "(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come 
out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him and he was kept 
bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was 
driven of the devil into the wilderness.)"

That verse says a single unclean spirit, not a legion of demons 
had "caught" the man MANY times and drove him into the desert.   
Notice that Luke says the same unclean spirit "caught" or 
"seized" the man "oftentimes."  Now if this "unclean spirit" is a 
fallen spiritual being and he "seized" the man once, why would he 
have to keep seizing him? Would that "demon" just possess the man 
and then leave and come back and do it all over again?

The NASB says it like this

(Luke 8:29 NASB) "For He had been commanding the unclean spirit 
to come out of the man. For it had seized him many times; and he 
was bound with chains and shackles and kept under guard; and yet 
he would burst his fetters and be driven by the demon into the 
desert."

This man obviously was having seizures in the same way an 
epileptic has seizures.  When he had them, people would try to 
tie him down, but he would break the ties and go into the 
wilderness.  Does that sound like what a legion of fallen 
spiritual beings would do?  Would they cause the body they 
possessed to go away from other people or would they attack other 
people?

So when this man answered that he was called "legion" because "we 
are many", he was obviously referring to the many seizures he was 
having thinking each time it happened another "demon" had entered 
his body.  When Luke says he said he is, not we are, called 
legion because many "devils" had entered into him, it was 
concerning the many seizures the man was having.  It doesn't mean 
he had a pile of fallen spiritual beings in him at once.  After 
all does not Luke and Mark say that Christ commanded an unclean 
spirit (singular) to come out of the man (Luke 829; Mark 58)?  To 
say this man had many fallen spiritual beings in him and Christ 
only commanded a single unclean spirit to come out is to say 
Christ didn't know how many fallen spiritual beings were in the 
man or could "cast out" only one fallen spiritual being.  Such a 
thought is preposterous!

When taking this story in the context of all three stories in the 
Gospels it is quite simple to see that there were no more than 
two men and each was ill with an unclean spirit.  The "legion" 
was not a legion of demons living in one man at one time.  It was 
what the man was called because he had been "caught" or seized by 
the same unclean spirit many times.

(Mark 5:10 KJV)  "And he besought him much that he would not send 
them away out of the country."

(Luke 8:31 KJV)  "And they besought him that he would not command 
them to go out into the deep.

The man beseeched Christ not to send them out of the country or 
into the "deep."  The "deep" is obviously the water or some deep 
place nearby.  But notice that Mark says "he" and Luke says 
"they."  This is because there were more than one man as 
Matthew's version clearly shows.   Mark obviously "chose" not to 
mention both at this time while Luke did.  Why would fallen 
spiritual beings care if they were sent out of the country or 
into the sea or a deep place?  Could they not just come back?

(Mat 8:30-31 KJV)  "And there was a good way off from them an 
herd of many swine feeding. {31} So the devils besought him, 
saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd 
of swine."

(Mark 5:11-12 KJV)  "Now there was there nigh unto the mountains 
a great herd of swine feeding. {12} And all the devils besought 
him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into 
them."

(Luke 8:32 KJV)  "And there was there an herd of many swine 
feeding on the mountain and they besought him that he would 
suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them."

Here we see the men asking Christ to allow them to go into the 
herd of pigs after they are healed. While Matthew and Mark use 
the words "devils" to define the men, Luke does not, but shows 
the conversation is a continuation of the same one speaking in 
the previous verse.  It was the men or man.  Luke however, just 
says "they" besought Christ to let them enter into the swine.  
And considering there were two of them, then the pronoun "they" 
would suffice just fine.

Lamsa renders those verses as

(Mat 8:30-31 Lamsa)  "Now there was nearby them a large herd of 
swine feeding. [31] And the lunatics kept asking him, saying, If 
you are going to heal us, permit us to attack the herd of swine."

(Mark 5:11-12 Lamsa)  "Now there was near the mountain a large 
herd of swine feeding. [12]And the lunatics begged him saying, 
Send us to the swine, that we may attack them."

(Luke 8:32 Lamsa)  "Now there was there a herd of many swine 
feeding on the mountain; and they besought him to permit them to 
attack the swine.  And he permitted them."

So you can see that the demoniacs or lunatics were asking Christ 
for permission to attack a herd of pigs.  Why?  As it was an 
unclean spirit that was in the men and pigs are unclean, perhaps 
the now cleansed men wanted to make a statement against all 
uncleanliness and the pigs just happen to be the first unclean 
thing in their way.  Maybe Christ had told them they had eaten 
pigs and gotten some kind of disease from them that made them 
crazy.  Whatever the case, the fact is these men were entering 
into a herd of swine in order to attack them.  Not to possess 
them!

(Mat 8:32 KJV)  "And he said unto them, Go. And when they were 
come out, they went into the herd of swine and, behold, the whole 
herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and 
perished in the waters."

(Mark 5:13 KJV)  "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the 
unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine and the herd 
ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about 
two thousand;) and were choked in the sea."

(Luke 8:33 KJV)  "Then went the devils out of the man, and 
entered into the swine and the herd ran violently down a steep 
place into the lake, and were choked."

While it may appear, because of the way these verses are 
translated that "demons" came out of the man and possessed a herd 
of pigs,  that is not what is actually said.  Remember, it has 
been established that there is only a single "unclean spirit" in 
each of the two men.  It has been established that Christ is 
speaking to the men as the previous verse shows.  To say these 
verses mean that a legion of demons was being addressed and went 
and possessed the pigs is to say the Gospel writers contradicted 
themselves.

Lets look at Lamsa's version of this same event and see how it is 
translated

(Mat 8:30-32 Lamsa) "Now there was nearby them a large herd of 
swine feeding. [31] And the lunatics kept asking him, saying, If 
you are going to heal us, permit us to attack the herd of swine. 
[32] Jesus said to them, Go.  And immediately they left and 
attacked the swine, and the whole herd went straight over the 
cliff and fell into the sea and were drowned in the water."

(Mark 5:11-13 Lamsa)  "Now there was near the mountain a large 
herd of swine feeding. [12]And the lunatics begged him saying, 
Send us to the swine, that we may attack them. [13] And He 
permitted them.  And the lunatics went out and attacked the 
swine; and the herd ran to the steep rocks, and fell into the 
sea; they were about two thousand, and they were drowned in the 
water."

(Luke 8:29-33 Lamsa)  "For Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to 
go out of the man. For it was a long time since he was possessed 
and bound with chains and kept in fetter; but he would often 
break off his bonds and was driven into the desert by the demon. 
[30]  Jesus asked him, What is your name?  He said, Legion, 
because many demons had entered into him. [31]  And they besought 
him not to command them to go down into the abyss. [32] Now there 
was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain; and they 
besought him to permit them to attack the swine.  And he 
permitted them. [33]  Then the demons went out of the man, and 
they attacked the swine; and that whole herd went straight to the 
cliff, and fell down into the lake and were drowned."

As you can see Matthew and Mark show, very clearly that it was 
the lunatics and not fallen spiritual beings that requested they 
be allowed to go into the herd to attack them.  Understanding 
this, Luke's version must complement Mark and Luke or else we 
have a contradiction in the Bible.  As you can see in v.v. 29 & 
30 Jesus is speaking to a man.  So it would be the two men 
Matthew spoke of in Mat 8:28 who are being referred to in the 
next three verses. Verse 33 is saying, "when the demons went out 
of the man, the two lunatics or men attacked the pigs.  And so it 
is with the KJV version of these verses.

These verses are saying after the unclean spirit went out of each 
man, the men went into the herd of swine and ran them into the 
water.  Not possessed them!  And none of the accounts say the 
pigs were possessed with anything much less fallen spiritual 
beings.

What would fallen spiritual beings have accomplished by 
possessing pigs?  Especially pigs they could not control?  After 
all didn't the demoniacs or lunatics cut themselves and 
jeopardize their lives?  If fallen spiritual beings can do that 
to a flesh and blood man, why couldn't they control pigs?

And what would the end result be?  Would not Christ have been an 
accomplice in turning a "legion" of fallen spiritual beings loose 
on the public to possess them?  Who thinks fallen spiritual 
beings could be affected by pigs drowning?

(Mat 8:33 KJV)  "And they that kept them fled, and went their 
ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen 
to the possessed of the devils."

(Mark 5:14 KJV)  "And they that fed the swine fled, and told it 
in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it 
was that was done."

(Luke 8:34 KJV)  "When they that fed them saw what was done, they 
fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country."

The pig herders went and told the people what happened.

(Mark 5:15 KJV)  "And they come to Jesus, and see him that was 
possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and 
clothed, and in his right mind and they were afraid."

(Luke 8:35 KJV)  "Then they went out to see what was done; and 
came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were 
departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right 
mind and they were afraid."

As you can see from the above, the man whom Christ healed from 
the unclean spirit (singular) was now in his right mind.  That 
means he was not in his right mind before he was healed as a 
lunatic would not be.  Notice the healed man was identified as 
the man whom had many "devils." That's because he was seized by 
this unclean spirit  many times.  Not possessed by a pile of 
fallen spiritual beings at one time.  Again remember that when 
Christ commanded the illness to leave the man, He addressed it as 
one unclean spirit, not a pile of fallen spiritual beings.  No 
there were no talking diseases in this story nor were there any 
talking fallen spiritual beings.  It's simply not there!

This concludes my second denial of Mr. Cohoon's affirmative.

Thanks,
James Gary