@GratefulDisciple NGL... I'm disappointed by the lack of acuity regarding my question. I had hoped this would be different then the rest of the internet, but sadly anyone who saw it seemed to jump on it instead of answering. I edited it, though I feel like I've now written the question in crayons.

@Wyrsa Yes, it was disappointing to me too. But the community seems to prefer concise question, and going through multiple rounds of edit is common. Another way is to include your original detail in a second section clearly demarcated from your concise one now, so that you don't get answers that are too simplistic either.

But again, many times definition questions are not simple nor can be objectively answered either, so in SE terms needing "scoping" as @PeterTurner suggested, the most notorious being the definition of even essential terms such as "sin", "faith", "grace", "law", etc. that different denominations may answer differently. So I would suggest scoping it to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

But we can wait to see whether additional scoping is needeed.

@Wyrsa it would be good to review this post, especially to see whether you want to make it an Overview question using comparative-christianity tag.

@Wyrsa Please do necropost, especially if you have an answer to a previously unanswered question. I'll be honest I don't even see 2020 as very old. Maybe it's me that's getting old lmao.

What is with the usually 2 or 3 people who constantly popup in the comments and just go "no, that's not a valid question" without really going into detail, or the people who quasi answer without actually answering?

I won't name names, but I'm struggling to remain peaceful towards them. Notably because one of them asked me to define "magic" when my question was "... what is the definition?..."

Anyways, I will gladly edit in more detail to the question if it seems worthwhile. But currently judging by the reaction... I see no reason to even attempt to explain how much I was digging into the matter. Or to even explain why I'm interested. Just like we don't debate the beliefs of the person asking the question even if they ask for something about Calvinism...

xD

@kutschkem Ah... permission received. :)

"The Bible would not do that if magic wasn't real" I don't know, I'm not sold on that conclusion. The Bible also warns about idol worship, which is worshipping something that is not real. It warns against participating in pagan rituals for gods that aren't real. So I don't see why warning against participating in magic necessarily implies magic was real.

Idols are clearly real

See every statue of Baal

or those weird icons of Stalin

I get your reasoning but look...

But... I want more answers for that then just mine

Also, the old posts... A lot of them seem to have an accepted answer in the comments...

@Wyrsa I've been guilty of that, usually when I want to contribute something, but either don't know enough for a proper Answer, or don't have the time to write up a proper Answer. (Or, sometimes, the inclination, especially if there are existing Answers that I wouldn't be adding to that much.)

@GratefulDisciple, heh, you approved of my speculations on the Glorified digestive system? 😉

@kutschkem There are references to "magic" in Scripture that appear real (Pharoah's "magicians", in particular). It's possible they were illusions, but it seems not unreasonable to expect Scripture to say so if they were.

Moreover, there is a good deal of contemporary evidence that the supernatural world exists and has at least some ability to interact with the physical world. (As I understand, such activity tends to be far more prevelant in areas that don't have such a strong materialistic bias. Materialism seems to be Satan's best ploy for fighting Christianity, so where it has lease, you rarely see demonic evidence against it.)

Note that, while not "magic" precisely, there is one clearly recorded incident in the NT of demons causing a herd of pigs to drown themselves. Demons are also recorded as being able to make humans say things.

@Wyrsa It's not just a shortcut, it's reaching for something not permitted.

@Wyrsa About "quasi answer", Yes, I sometimes do that too, for reasons of time or not having enough, just a hint for an answer that I may or may not write later. The reason is to help others who will write an answer.

@Matthew Yes, I like it, but I accept it mostly on account of working out the pre-fall Adamic existence, though another answer would focus more on being able to go through walls like Jesus following Aquinas's treatment in the Summa (see here).

@GratefulDisciple I wouldn't agree with that. I would argue, rather, that the Israelites got a bit of a preview during the Wandering, when "for forty years [...] their feet did not swell" (Nehemiah 9:21). This is, of course, based on my understanding that the New Creation is similar to the pre-Fall Creation.

@Wyrsa If you have read Michael Heiser, he interprets the national gods in the OT as real, so someone supernatural does receive those worship rituals surrounding an inert idols through which worship is directed, thus interpreting the Exodus and Jeroboam's golden calves as the means to worship YHWH, not to worship another god, while of course idol used to worship Baal would be entirely different.

For example, I am suspicious of whether our bodies will actually be immune to injury. I suspect, rather, that God will simply intervene before anything fatal can happen and/or "fix it" afterwards (lots of instances of that during Christ's ministry!).

Of course, the New Creation will also be less dangerous in general, and probably we'll be less inclined to engage in risky behaviors (or, at least, will listen if God says "not this time"). So many injuries just won't happen in the first place. And our bodies will also be less prone to injury to begin with.

@Matthew I'm actually more partial to you than to Aquinas here, although I am willing to entertain a "both-and". And yes, we can be tired (per C.S. Lewis) and I would speculate we can be injured as well, thus doctors are still in business, although no injury will be permanent.

@Matthew I think we are on the same page here.

@GratefulDisciple Yeah, we're getting into interesting territory. I don't want to never sleep. I don't want to not have night, or the moon or stars, or large bodies of water. I don't really even want to not experience sadness, because having that contrast makes joy more potent.

I'm not sure about doctors, though; I suspect either we'll get better without help, or God will step in. 🙂 (But, yes, no permanent injuries. Also, no disease, allergies, cancer...)

(...which belief you'll recognize as a major foundation of that Answer.)

@Wyrsa The problem with defining "magic" is that it's a catch-all word for many unexplainable phenomena and that many suspected witches have suffered when they probably should have received psychiatric help. I would define magic as something preternatural that humans should not tap into, although it's possible especially when the demonic would readily want to assist. So the prohibition is more whether the power behind is for God or against God.

C.S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength pits bad magic with good magic (personified by Merlin). In his Narnia stories, he also calls Aslan's power to heal & to resurrect as "magic" vs. the magic of the White Which and other adversaries.

@GratefulDisciple The Question asks for a Scriptural definition. That seems like it should be attainable. Maybe it would help to include a specific Hebrew word?

@GratefulDisciple That feels to me like a modernized usage. When Jesus turns water into wine, is that "magic"? According to the Narnian usage, the answer must be "yes" (or we're using the term inconsistently). But I think Scripture would instead call it a "miracle". Aslan's actions are miracles.

@Matthew Maybe, but my gut instinct it is probably better to tie to a specific concept with several stories from Noah to St. Paul illustrating various facets of the concept. Of course every nuance in which the word "magic" (like Egyptian's magician), sorcerers, or fortune tellers, etc. appear should be used to define the concept.

@Matthew "modernized usage". Yes, and that's a big part of the problem I mentioned: the meaning evolved. In the middle ages it seems that magic is tightly linked to astrology and alchemy, something foreign to the OT & NT world.

@Matthew Yes, "miracle" would be a positive term; not sure why Lewis chose "magic" instead, he must had his reasons.

@kutschkem Even in 20th century I heard reasonable people giving testimony of shamans possessing real power assisted by the spirits that those shamans openly said to be their guide or their "masters". (Example: Korean mudang whom my Korean friends said was paid a lot of money to help make their client's business prosper).

Gotta go. TTYL

@GratefulDisciple ...and alchemy became chemistry. 🙂 And I'm sure there are many purely technological things I could show to someone 2,000 years ago that would be seen as "demonic". (For that matter, I wonder if anyone Jews, or early Christians, from around that era ever encountered fireworks...)

@Matthew The more I read about NT background, the more I have more trust that they are less naïve than we technologically and medically advanced (and snobbish) moderns suppose. @Wyrsa This 2015 Master's thesis Magic and Christianity in the acts of the apostles: the confrontation. is a potentially good resource to answer your question.

@Wyrsa The conclusion is somewhat similar to your understanding:

> From the grammatical examination and the exegesis, the wickedness of magic is attested in the character, motivation, and goals that the practitioners of magic exhibit. Bottom line, magicians are described as those who attempt to obtain and manipulate God’s power to personal exaltation and pride.

@Wyrsa It's good that you distinguish the various level of "real"-ness which should be clearly separated when giving a definition of magic: 1) Whether the god/demon is real; 2) Whether the practice is real (subjectively), 3) Whether something in the preternatural is available for manipulation by ritual / psychic means by "gifted" medium.

For sure, as Christians, we know that God is the source of all natural powers, preternatural powers, all powers of angels/demons/gods (Michael Heiser interprets the "gods" in Ps 82 Divine Council as real), all human natural powers, and true miraculous powers coming from God alone. It seems OT/NT don't really try to define those powers (hence, definition of magic) rather than teaching how we are supposed to use/request those powers.

@GratefulDisciple True. For that matter, Noah et al were way ahead of where many of those wedded to Common Descent think they were. Still, given how easily some modern people are taken in by fakery, it's hard to imagine someone who has almost no concept of electricity taking a modern smart phone in stride.

That said, as much as I hate to say anything negative about Star Trek (ahem: at least about TNG), I think the assertion in "Who Watches the Watchers" that a "primitive" would find a bow and arrow to be "magic" are unrealistic. In that much, I think we agree.

@GratefulDisciple As I said in my Answer, nothing is available for "manipulation". At best you might get cooperation designed to fool you into believing what you are doing is "manipulation".