I think the reason for the depiction is that angels have always been depicted as beautiful human type beings with feathery wings, so the “lizard-like” representation with the bat -type wings is simply a corruption of their once beautiful nature. You are right, angels and demons are purely spiritual beings, but we as humans relate to things as we can sense them. Additionally, Satan and his demons are not condemned to the firey pit until the final judgement. Read the story of Job, when Satan is “patrolling the earth”. Satan is still the “god of this earth”, and while Jesushas broekn his stranglehold on it, allowing anyone and everyone to be open to the gift of grace, we are still bound by the temporal restraints of this world (i.e. disease, death, suffering).
Additional to what has been said already, demons are more zealous than angels in the interests of man. Angels do not work on initiative, whereas demons do. Angels have more of a stand offish approach to assistance to humans. This is because God loves us less than demons hate us.
Luke 11,24's intent is a warning to always remember to stay the course and not be distracted from good, but it also unintentionally reveals an aspect of human relations with the spiritual world in general, apologies to St. Thomas. The cleaned house is not seen as an open invitation to clean spirits as one would expect. One would assume the opportunity to respond to the situation would be proportional with the greater love for man, therefore the angels always ending up at the door step ahead of the demons, but this does not bear out. Man after doing the cleaning, is still left with a guardian angel waiting for his seven angels. One would assume a cleaned house already justifiably filled with clean spirits would leave demons with no other option but to look elsewhere. The message from this hypothetical result being the person would find reinforcement as a base for the next round of testing.
We must remember all the context to make the point in this parable is present. Nothing here can be read as ambiguous. An act of evil causes X reaction, all things remaining equal. The reciprocal should also be true given the same context.
There is one possible reason for this. The comforts of heaven could cause this reluctance justifable and in keeping with the free will of angels. An angel could leap to the opportunity, but that would appear to be an option. Jesus surprisingly does not call this into question, therefore giving this attitude and behaviour a norm and sanctioned by God.
Our conclusion therefore is that it would appear heaven has another advantage, and that would be the option of leaving man to his own fate due to a measure of worth of an individual being somewhat less than we are led to believe.
Andythis is what mephistophilis says in christopher marlowe’s play dr. faustus :
Satan may be consumed by irrational hatred of God, and hence His creatures, but: John 3:16
There is no limit to God’s love. God’s love ALWAYS overcomes Satan.
“Our conclusion…”??
… you have not convincingly proved Luke 11,24 reinforces your argument. The ball is in your court.
And a story from an ancient Patericon:
It appears that you interpret Luke 11:24 in a sense that we are vessels to be filled with “clean” spirits (angels), or “unclean” spirits (demons).
Both work on our sentient appetites and can exercise a direct influence on us. The mechanism isn’t has important. What Christ is refering to is in the natural course of temptation and influence, the choice made creates an “abode”, or metaphorical “dwelling”, or “state” we choose to be in. The state is one of cleanliness and receptive.
Irrelevant for this case. Jesus says the house is clean and receptive. The subject as succeeded in attaining a state worthy enough to make it unpleasant for the demon to stay (absence of evil). So much so the demon is now wandering and getting homesick.
There is nothing in scripture that would indicate that an angel takes “possession” of a human in the way that demons are shown to do so.
Tobit 3:17
All angelic/demonic actions are in approval of God. I’ll repeat. I stated in effect angels and demons possess the same nature, that demons did not lose this nature on damnation, and where they lack is in graces they will never possess, eternal loss of beatification, and loss of eternal life. Allowance for demonic influence is allowed by God for the further sanctification of the individual.
I already answered this question. I still await the answer of my first question. You don’t need (name removed by moderator)ut from me to do that even though I expanded my point and offered more. You have what you wanted. Feel free to use your own data to answer the question, rather than having me justify my own point. When I get an answer I will continue our conversation.
I tried to give you a heads-up:
AndyF replied:
The Douay-Rheims (Haydock) disagrees with you.
AndyF replied:
From: A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Nelson, 1957:
.
That’s untrue, my baggage is pre-selected and approved. I am open to convincing arguments. Personal jabs and indicators of frustration, I am not. I have found that in debates where people can not explain what they feel they should know, frustration results with the inevitable personal attacks ensuing. My conclusions are based on the data presented to me and ever ready to change.
Other than the use of the word spirit, I Can’t see how this fits in with 11,23.
This either, but it fits in nicely with 11,24.