SPLIT: Are there really fallen angels?

[pacloc]

Thank you brother Eric for your very thought out and meaningful responses. You touched on an aspect that I had struggled for quite some time on in trying to fit into this Idea of no fallen angels. Hopefully I can explain my current understanding on these scriptures. I thank you for understanding what I’m trying to say in my not so good explanations. I can really tell that you are really thinking about what I’m saying rather than immediately looking how to tear it apart, which is very kind of you. So to continue:

Furthermore, the only way this kind of metaphor works is if Lucifer is considered to be an actual fallen angel. If, say, “Lucifer” is simply a personification of sin, then the metaphor falls apart. Sin does not exist in heaven in a lofty state and then falls from grace. This image requires a person who is initially good (and possesses a moral capacity) who chooses to sin, becomes evil, and then falls from grace.

This is exactly what I believe as well, that what is being talked about in Ezekiel and Isaiah is someone that was perfect and good that fell from grace. The difference is that I believe this is in reference to our father Adam. Adam was placed into the garden that is what we hope to live in one day, so he was in heaven. This makes more sense of all the scriptures referring to human faults that came upon “the King.” As you quoted in verse 16 “is this the man who made the earth tremble.” In verse 20 and 21 it is showing that who is being spoken of has literal offspring that will be slaughtered so as not to conquer the earth entirely. 13:11 says: “I will punish the world for its evil-doing, and the wicked for their crimes, to put an end to the pride of arrogant men and humble the pride of despots.” This book says so much, and as you know Jesus quoted frequently from it, so you know how important He thought it was. Look to 44:24, 25:“Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, he who formed you in the womb: I, myself, Yahweh, made all things, I alone spread out the heavens. When I gave the earth shape, did anyone help me? I am he who foils the omens of wizards and makes fools of diviners, who makes sages recant and shows the nonsense of their knowledge, who confirms the word of my servant and makes the plans of my envoys succeed.” And 45:6, 7: “I arm you that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that, apart from me, all is nothing. I am Yahweh, unrivaled, I form the light and create the dark. * make good fortune and create calamity,* it is I, Yahweh, who do all this.” 48:8-11: “You had never heard, you did not know, I had not opened your ear beforehand; for I knew how treacherous you were, and that you have deserved the name of rebel from your birth. For the sake of my name I deferred my anger, for the sake of my honor I curbed it; I did not destroy you. And now I have put you in the fire like silver, I have tested you in the furnace of distress. For my sake and my sake only have I acted- is my name to be profaned? Never will I yield my glory to another.” 57:16-21 explain a lot of what I’ve been mentioning as well: "For I will not quarrel for ever nor be always angry, for then the spirit would give way before me, the very souls I have made. “Angered by his wicked brutality, I hid my face and struck him in anger. Like a rebel he went the way of his choice; but I have seen the way he went. But I will heal him, and console him, I will comfort him to the full, both him and his afflicted fellows, bringing praise to their lips. Peace, peace to far and near, I will indeed heal him’ says Yahweh. The wicked however are like the restless sea that cannot be still, and washes up mud and slime. “No peace” says my God “for the wicked.””

Ezekiel’s account is very similar, 28:2 mentions: "Though you are a man and not a god, you consider yourself equal to God. Verse 5 “your heart has grown more arrogant.” Hearts are of man, not angels. Verse 9: “No, you are a man and not a god”

Unless I’m mistaken, your statement that “Satan is in heaven right now” means that sinful, godless humans (symbolically referred to as “Satan”) can be found in positions of earthly power (symbolically referred to as “heaven”). But, as I stated above, Paul teaches that when we contend against the devil and his angels, we are not contending with flesh and blood, and therefore, by definition, the devil and his angels are not human.

Ephesians 6:12: “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

Flesh and blood in this verse does not mean that what we are fighting against does not wear flesh and blood, but rather that it is not as simple as a typical man vs. man fight like in literal war. The warfare as I have mentioned before is against wickedness(sin) which rules the world we live in. Just because the war is not against flesh and blood, does not mean that the powers of wickedness must come down from fallen angels. There are tons of scriptures that show that man is responsible for sin, it is not always caused by the influence of fallen angels(if ever). A perfect example of how flesh and blood are used to describe an aspect of man is 1 Cor 14:50, “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God; neither shall corruption possess incorruption.” Now we would not say that since flesh and blood cannot possess God’s kingdom, that only angels are capable. It must mean that the flesh and blood is describing a sense of man that is more earthly, and that what is at war is spiritual. That is why someone that develops the spirit of Christ can inherit God’s kingdom, and at the same time is why that we are at war with people that develop the spirit of anti-christ, which is this world. These people that we are at war with could very well be ourselves.

Thank you again for discussing these matters with me brother.

Peace be with you,

Greg.

 

[pacloc]

@ Linda Marie and @ Evan:

Personal experience with the occult and spiritism does not prove that what you were dealing with were once glorious sons of God. Once you give your mind over to your personal desires, you will be allowed to experience whatever God allows you to experience. The last thing that God wants to do is limit what you want to decide for yourself. He would much rather you come to the realization to abandon all forms of idolatry and spiritism, but if you would cleave to it, God does not want to protect you from the bad consequences for rejecting Him for falsehood, since he makes himself known through His beautiful creation and message that has been brought to the whole world. There are many scriptures that show that God does these things, even through his angels, obedient holy angels mind you.

1 Chronicles 21:1 “And Satan rose up against Isrel: and moved David to number Israel.” This is a parallel account of 2 Samuel 24:1 where we are told that this adversary(satan) of David’s was actually God(through an angel of course). Now did God just feel like tricking David for being a bad guy or something? No, it is clear that this census was something that David was desiring, knowing that doing so was a sin against God. 1 Chronicles 21:17, David confesses: “Am not I he that commanded the people to be numbered? It is I that have sinned: it is I that have done the evil.” Now this is very different than the account we read of Eve when enticed to sin against God. Do you see David ever blame Satan for his action, yet scripture shows that the scenerio was very similar.

Ezekiel 20:24-26, “Because they had not done my judgments, and had cast off my statutes, and had violated my sabbaths, and their eyes had been after the idols of their fathers. Therefore I also gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments, in which they shall not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, when they offered all that opened the womb, for their offences: and they shall know that I am the Lord.” We learn here that God will let you do what your heart desires and will not stop you once you have totally rejected him. He will let you think sacrificing your children is fine if that is really your heart’s desire. So letting you think fallen angels are the cause of your problems or fortunes is not such a big deal.

At 2 Chron 18 we see another example of a man that only wanted to hear what he had already desired, and God even sent real angels to confirm the desires of his heart. In verse 18-22 we see how this happened in the Heavenly Court: “I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the army of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the left. And the Lord said: Who shall deceive Achab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall in Ramoth Galaad? And when one spoke in this manner, and another otherwise: There came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said: I will deceive him. And the Lord said to him: By what means wilt thou deceive him? And he answered: I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said: Thou shalt deceive, and shalt prevail: go out, and do so. Now therefore behold the Lord hath put a spirit of lying in the mouth of all thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.” God allowed this man to think that he would prevail in battle because the man was evil and was abusing the prophets by not really wanting to hear God’s words, but his own. God will allow us to think that we are right if we are not humble enough to rely on his ways for us. So once again if you wanted to see fallen angels/ghosts/whatever, God will let you see it if you put no trust in His rules to stay away from sorcery/magic/spirit mediums. We are told that they really are nonsense over and over.

1 Co 8 really shows that there are no such things as real physical idols/fallen angels. The point being brought up by Paul is that eating meat sacrificed to Idols is not really anything because idols are not real to followers of Christ. Now if the idol was actually being backed up by a fallen angel, this would not make any sense, because in reality, the idol is real in some sense. But it is clear that the idol is a demon, so the demon must mean something other than a fallen angel, such as a Sin of having false Gods in rivalry to Yahweh. Verse 4: “But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.” Verse 7 and 10 shows that some weaker brothers would still believe in the power of Idols, so we are careful to not use our freeness to such lies in a way that would harm the weaker. That is why it would not be wise for me to investigate the occult to prove to myself it exists, that would be going backwards, and would really be damaging to those that know me and still believe in the occult. They would think that “the devil is gonna get him.”

Peace and Love brothers,

Greg

 

[Evan]

@ Linda Marie and @ Evan:

Personal experience with the occult and spiritism does not prove that what you were dealing with were once glorious sons of God. Once you give your mind over to your personal desires, you will be allowed to experience whatever God allows you to experience.

The experience of demons in this world begs the question to be answered: From whence came these beings?

They are not human. They are not angelic (now). They are creatures. They are intelligent.

God does not create evil creatures for he is Good.

So, my thinking is that they must have been created with a free will and have freely chosen the path of evil, ie turn away from God.

We know angels as good, and if they have intelligence and a free will, they must have chosen God.

The consequence of giving many creatures free will is that some will choose to leave.

If angels (and demons) do not have intelligence (like the beasts of the world) they would not have a choice and would act as created: in union with God’s plan. But all evidence points to them as intelligent, and with intelligence comes free will (the ability to use the intelligence) and thus, to accept or deny authority of God (who is the author of all things).

 

[pacloc]

Evan, it is obvious that what you are saying is a common understanding of demons, but with no scriptural backing, it is mere speculation. Just because we do not think it fair that intelligent creation should not be denied free will, does not mean that it is so. Also to really define free will is another topic all its own. Why would free will mean the chance of sinning for an angel? Does God dictate each of their very actions and words, or are they merely being obedient as we are called to be? If you really hope to live in a spiritual state one day, you do recognize that your “free will” really will not be so “free” anymore. You will be unable to sin and will be like the angels, not being able to die. Now is not being able to sin an encroachment on our freedom? If you believe so, you have a long ways to go in your walk with God. I have shown in previous posts that angels, which actually are translated messengers, really are just that, messengers for God. That is why calling them capable of failing is blasphemous to God, because it really is God that we insult by insulting angels.

Also, I have been trying to show that demons and evil spirits really do come from man. I would like to add this to the whole discussion: Even if somehow fallen angels do exist, this should in no way affect a single thing about our faith.

Should we give them the blame for our parents’ fall? Should we think it random whom the fallen angels choose to torture, or is it a planned order? Are the fallen angels somewhat responsible for the drawn out conclusion of these tough times that we live in? Would God really use his holy spirit to lead Jesus and us to be tempted by these evil creatures? Why on Earth would they comply with every order that God gives them, if somehow they have free choice that they are using to defy him? Why doesn’t God send a perfect angel to die on a cross for the redemption of angels that messed up, but are repentent? How are the nephilim guilty of their parents actions, shouln’t they deserve the chance to worship God? Why don’t demons listen in on our conversations and make sure to not fulfill any scripture that has been written about them? Or do these Angels recieve a smaller brain once they rebel, to only be able to give a man a medical condition such as being mute? The list of questions becomes sky high. Forgive me if this is insulting, but I am just trying to show that the list of unknowns just never ends, and where does this fit in on scriptures showing that we are not ignorant of satan’s ways?

Peace,

Greg

 

[Evan]

Evan, it is obvious that what you are saying is a common understanding of demons, but with no scriptural backing, it is mere speculation.

Actually, the scriptual backing is given above and I have no need to repeat it.

Just because we do not think it fair that intelligent creation should not be denied free will, does not mean that it is so. Also to really define free will is another topic all its own. Why would free will mean the chance of sinning for an angel?

An intelligent creature without free will, is not intelligent creature. It’s not fairness, free will comes with the intellect.

Does God dictate each of their very actions and words, or are they merely being obedient as we are called to be? If you really hope to live in a spiritual state one day, you do recognize that your “free will” really will not be so “free” anymore. You will be unable to sin and will be like the angels, not being able to die. Now is not being able to sin an encroachment on our freedom? If you believe so, you have a long ways to go in your walk with God.

Once I die, my will is fixed. I will have made my intelligent choice: for God or for Me. Just as the angels made their choice. Once I die, I will no longer live in time. It will be one day, one moment, the eternal Now. There will be no more choices.

I have shown in previous posts that angels, which actually are translated messengers, really are just that, messengers for God. That is why calling them capable of failing is blasphemous to God, because it really is God that we insult by insulting angels.

Angel means messenger. It is these spiritual beings title, not what they are, but what they do. However, those chosen by God to be his messengers (Angel) are among the spiritual creatures that chose to serve him at their creation.

Also, I have been trying to show that demons and evil spirits really do come from man. I would like to add this to the whole discussion: Even if somehow fallen angels do exist, this should in no way affect a single thing about our faith.

I don’t believe they do affect many things about our faith. It has been revealed that they exist and are cast out of heaven. But that only shows God’s power over them is greater than it would be should they not exist and that God’s power is limited to dealing only with weak men. That adds to the faith.

Now for your leading questions:
Should we give them the blame for our parents’ fall? Never have before, don’t suppose we should start now. We’ve always blamed Adam (o happy fault, sin of Adam)
Should we think it random whom the fallen angels choose to torture, or is it a planned order? As always, it is up to us to allow demons to possess or oppress us in order to show the greater glory of God.
Are the fallen angels somewhat responsible for the drawn out conclusion of these tough times that we live in? I suppose a dispensationalist might think so, the Church has usually turned to human concupiscence for the failures of man in the world.
Would God really use his holy spirit to lead Jesus and us to be tempted by these evil creatures? I thought it was an evil spirits that tempted Jesus in the desert. Similarly when a temptation comes our way it could be from our fallen nature, our innate desires or our listening to the suggestions of evil councilors (demons?).
Why on Earth would they comply with every order that God gives them, if somehow they have free choice that they are using to defy him? God does not command them what to do, they disobey, that is why they are evil.
Why doesn’t God send a perfect angel to die on a cross for the redemption of angels that messed up, but are repentent? Angels (and demons) live outside of time, they do not/cannot repent. That takes a change in attitude, that takes time.
How are the nephilim guilty of their parents actions, shouln’t they deserve the chance to worship God? Neither angels nor demons have parents.
Why don’t demons listen in on our conversations and make sure to not fulfill any scripture that has been written about them? God knows what they will do because he knows there innermost thoughts, just like he knows yours. They cannot change who they are any more than you can. But your will is not fixed, for you live in time.
Or do these Angels recieve a smaller brain once they rebel, to only be able to give a man a medical condition such as being mute? I have no idea what this is referring to.
The list of questions becomes sky high. Forgive me if this is insulting, but I am just trying to show that the list of unknowns just never ends, and where does this fit in on scriptures showing that we are not ignorant of satan’s ways? You have a nicely determined, internally consistent hypothesis that is at odd’s with many verses given above. You need to reject or interpret them creatively in order to keep it consistent. Good luck with that. I’ve seen some unusual hypotheses come to be accepted by people over time. You seem to rely completely on Biblical sources whereas the revelation of the Holy Spirit through time gives us a continuing insight into God and his working in the world. Study what the ECF and early Council’s had to say on the same subject.

Peace.

 

[James224]

Have you ever read about exorcisms? Do you believe evil exists? In Mark 9 and elswhere, Jesus cast out demons. When you are being tempted, what are you being tempted by? It’s a spirit and these are the fallin angels.

 

[pacloc]

James, I would ask that you at least read a little of the discussion for answers to all these questions.

When you are being tempted, what are you being tempted by? It’s a spirit and these are the fallin angels.

This assumption is the very reason that I feel that there is a serious problem in believing the whole theory of fallen angels. Passing the blame for our own sinful nature inherited from Adam off to heavenly creatures.

I think this discussion is going nowhere fast, and I have recieved the answer I was looking for. For some reason, I thought perhaps that Catholicism had some room for independant theory, but it appears that this subject is not one that has that freedom. I may still visit a Catholic church and speak to a Priest about this, but I see that there are actual documents that show the wrongness in not believing fallen angels. Perhaps my understanding of God and scripture fit more into the Protestant realm. I personally feel that God stopped talking to us through prophets soon after Jesus’ contemporaries died, and that God speaks to us only through the Bible. I do understand the need for fellowship with brothers is very important, but do not think that Church leaders’ interpretations are infallable. So I do think that maybe for a very long time, we as a Church were confused on the matter, but we can still correct it. That being the case, I don’t think that God held it against anybody if they believed out of ignorance. I will still answer various questions and discuss scriptures about this subject with those that at least skim through what has already been discussed.

With love,

Greg

 

[EricFilmer]

There is not a big difference in how Jesus handled demons compared to sickness. That was the point I was trying to make.

I beg to differ:
1) Jesus converses with demons. He questions them (such as in Mark 5:9) and commands them not to reveal his identity. On the other hand, Jesus does not converse with illnesses in any manner (other than a simple rebuke which, as I pointed out earlier, he also does with storms).
2) In the event concerning the Gerasene Demoniac, Jesus sent demons into a herd of swine. But whenever he healed someone of an illness, he never sent it into animals.
3) Jesus said that some demons can only be cast out by “fasting and prayer” (Matthew 17:21). He never said this about illness.
4) Jesus specifically calls demons “unclean spirits” (such as in Mark 5:8), but he does not refer to illnesses as spirits (unclean or otherwise).

The reason for the scriptures splitting the two up into two categories of healing diseases and expelling demons had more to do with the people’s lack of understanding that what they considered demons inside people actually were just more severe medical conditions, mainly because of how there was no remedy for them compared to sickness.

Then why wasn’t blindness also treated in Scripture as a demonic possession? Blindness is a severe medical condition which even today has no cure.

Consider also that immediately after the gospel episode of the Gerasene Demoniac, Scripture describes Jesus’ encounter with the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:25-34). The reader is specifically told that this woman’s condition was severe (it had been going on for 12 years) and incurable (her visits to doctors were useless). Nevertheless, none of the gospel descriptions of this event label it as a demonic problem, and Jesus specifically said that she was “healed” of a “disease” (Mark 5:34).

I would challenge you and everyone that believes that fallen angels for some reason want to live inside a human and pretty much just cause them an infirmity of one kind or another, to point out in todays world who has their muteness, blindness, schizophrenia, or other demon, by means of a fallen angel living in them, and not because of a medical disorder.

If I understand you correctly (and let me admit that I’m not sure what the point is you’re trying to make), I think you’re saying that it is a problem to consider the source of every illness as being demonic, and to not seek medical help as a result. I agree. But the solution is not to completely reject the possibility of being afflicted by fallen angels, because such things can, and do, happen. Moreover, I have read several accounts of modern day exorcisms (at least Catholic ones), and the usual process is that the victim first seeks medical assistance before turning to an exorcists. As a matter-of-fact, it is my understanding that a bishop will not approve an exorcism to take place unless the victim has first had proper medical and psychological examinations. Moreover, I believe that Church procedures require a medical doctor to be present during the actual exorcism.

In any event, if there are no such things as fallen angels and demonic possession, then why did Jesus act as if there were in front of people? If Jesus portrayed himself as an exorcist, then naturally the witnesses will believe in exorcism. Hence, believing in demonic possession and exorcism is part of what God intended to reveal to humankind in the actions of Christ and in the words of Scripture.

Moreover, Jesus himself said that demonic possession was possible and a danger to humans:

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man,
he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none.
Then he says, `I will return to my house from which I came.’
And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order.
Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself,
and they enter and dwell there;
and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” (Matthew 12:43-45, RSV)

Now, I’m sure that these references to unclean spirits can be interpreted in different ways. But the question is, what did Jesus, himself, intend for his listeners to understand? Keep in mind that these words were spoken by someone who routinely exorcized demons and was widely known as a powerful exorcist.

As to your question of his super strength, don’t you think it is possible that God allowed these disorders to be extra apparent, so that when Jesus cast them out, it would show that no evil thing was beyond Christ’s healing power.

The ramification of what you’re saying is that the demoniac was not possessed by demons, but rather was “possessed” by God. Frankly, the idea of God mimicking a demon does not sound very credible. Also, if fallen angels do not truly exist then God himself would be perpetuating the myth by doing this. God is Truth, and therefore does not perpetuate falsehood.

Jesus even says that certain people were born with these demons so that he could demonstrate his power.

If there are no such things as demons, and Jesus knew it, then when he said that people were born with demons he was, by definition, lying. Obviously we can’t conclude that Jesus went around lying.

And as I stated a moment ago: if there are no such things as fallen angels and demonic possession, then why did Jesus act as if there were in front of people? If Jesus portrayed himself as an exorcist, then naturally the witnesses will believe in exorcism. Hence, believing in demonic possession and exorcism is part of what God intended to reveal to humankind in the actions of Christ and in the words of Scripture.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

As for the want of God and Christ to rid his followers of such ailments and give them to the wicked deserving of them (swine), there are quite a few scriptures to support this. God’s instruction to the old prophets and Jesus own instruction of hiding the saving power of Christ from wicked people that would only try to cheat and buy their way in is likened to giving them blindness, deafness, and dumbness to the healing power.

I’m honestly not understanding your point here, so I’ll need you to please clarify it before I can respond.

The sea that the pigs went into, is usually a reference to lost mankind that has not established a foundation by God’s stream of life. So the wicked spirits returned back to its source of lost mankind.

In the Bible, the sea is usually symbolic of chaos, from which God renders order. For example, in the Old Testament God defeats Leviathan the sea monster (Job 41:1-34, and also in the Psalter & Isaiah), and in the New Testament Jesus calms storms. In addition to this imagery, in Revelation the sea is referred to as “giving up the dead,” which is a resurrection reference (in light of the long history of drowned sailors). On the other hand, I am not aware of any biblical passages which portray the sea as symbolizing “lost humanity” (although I admit that I could be wrong) so I’ll have to ask you for examples. And seeing as how you seem to indicate that such imagery is common knowledge (i.e., “the sea…is usually a reference to lost mankind” [emphasis added]), I ask you to support your interpretation with quotes from reputable Scripture scholars.

As for the bad Jews being of their father the devil, this can probably be interpreted a few ways. You can not really believe that you think this is literal either, because we know that they decended from Abraham who was of God.

You are correct; I do not believe that this is a literal reference (nor did my point hinge on it being so).

As for the bad Jews being of their father the devil, this can probably be interpreted a few ways. You can not really believe that you think this is literal either, because we know that they decended from Abraham who was of God. In John 8:34 and 35 Jesus says: “Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosover committeth sin, is the servant of sin. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever,; but the son abideth for ever.” This is to show that their adoption to God as sons would not happen, but they would stay subject to Sin and death brought on by Adam, then Cain, then … Adam and Eve and Cain began our history of lies, pride, murder, to say that we did not begin them, then you would have to say that it is a lie that, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.” Romans 5:12,14 There father was their own lusts, as shown in James 1:14,15 “But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence(lust), being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.”

I’m sorry, but I really didn’t see how your response actually answered the question I posed. I say this because I have read your post about three or four times and I am uncertain as to who are what you are saying is the devil, the father of lies, and a murderer from this passage. Are you suggesting that Adam, Eve & Cain are collectively the devil? Is this really what you think Jesus (and John as the writer) intend for the reader to discern?

Also, I would like to humbly point out that you didn’t answer the second point I brought up concerning John 8:42-44 from Post #7. For your convenience, I’ll present again here:

Moreover, earlier you mentioned the problem with people who “have developed a polytheistic view of the world, with Yahweh in one corner and Satan in the other.” And yet isn’t this the kind of view that Jesus himself presented (at least to an extent) in John 8:42-44? He describes both the devil and God as being fathers in opposition to one another (i.e., the children of the Father of Lies vs. the children of the Father of Truth).

Just to clarify, in terms of this point, I was focusing on your statement concerning the problem in thinking of the devil and God in a “polytheistic view of the world, with Yahweh in one corner and Satan in the other”. Therefore, I was pointing out that Jesus himself presents Satan and God in this manner, so obviously there is no problem in us doing so. Of course, Jesus does not consider Satan a god (and therefore the term “polytheistic” is not, technically speaking, applicable to John 8:42-44), but neither do Christians.

And finally, please know that I am also interested in your response to what I presented in Post #8. I’m in no hurry, though, and I realize that there is a lot to go through in this thread. I just didn’t want it to end up perpetually on “the back burner” and be forgotten.

This is all I have time to delve into for now (it’s gearing up to be a busy weekend), but I’ll address your material from Post #21 as time allows.

 

[CatholicRoots]

Thank you R_C for your time in researching that for me. I do realize that almost no one agrees with the idea, but the more I read in scripture, the more evident that it becomes that this is a misconception. I do have to be humble in the matter and realize that I can not be right while the whole world and our dear brothers that have lived and died in their faith all be grossly wrong. That is why I have to conclude that the matter is not of utmost importance in God’s sight as long as we do not let it influence our faith and responsibility for our own faults. I am very aware that in brothers and sisters with a very deep love and faith in God, very little is credited to “Satan” as the source for thier short comings or for their trials. It is the weaker in faith that automatically credit the mighty “Satan” for his influence of their short comings and for every trial presented to them.

I believe that God has allowed and even hinted toward this understanding of external evil forces in some scripture in order to be a test of our faith in our understanding of there being One True God with all control and power. Unknowingly, these weaker in faith, that might not stick around if they don’t get firmly planted and continue to take in knowledge and demonstrate love, will have developed a polytheistic view of the world, with Yahweh in one corner and Satan in the other. One bringing goodness and the other bringing badness, but both powerful enough to control your life.

Personifying evil as a messenger(which is what angel means), really helps us to see the battle that is waged in the world. We live in a battlefeild all day every day against evil, but if it is not described in this matter, we might not realize it or treat seriously as something that we can not allow to conquer us. If you really think about it and are honost to yourself, your mind is your worst enemy (satan), and you must purposely choose to do the right thing, even against what you want to do at times. We are comforted by Christ who destroyed satan at the cross, which means that by living in Christ, we too can be conquerers of satan, but that is only going to fully happen at our death and resurrection into glorious bodies.

As for the references to the gospel demons, this was a demonstration of Christ Jesus’ healing power over our infirmities and their lack of power. If you notice, each demon was described in what we know today to be medical conditions, but at the time, they were unknown evils inside of dear brothers. He cast them out just like he cast out Peter’s wife’s mother’s sickness in Matt 8:15, by the terms, “and the fever left her.” The fever did not really just get up and walk out of her, like many think the demons did, but the scripture sure sounds like it did. Just a few verses down, in verse 17, talking about casting out devils and spirits, he quotes that this was fulfillment of Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 53:4 about “infirmities and carried our sorrows.” This further shows that these devils were infirmities or inward sorrows, not external powerful fallen angels.

Further examination of the incident with Legion shows that the spirits had to have permision from Jesus to move out and into the swine, instead of just doing it themselves. And once in there, the swine did not speak, but merely went crazy. This shows that the “spirits” in them was craziness, which the man had. This personification of the disease of “craziness” whatever medical condition today would describe it, helped to be a witness to the people at the time. They saw that this “spirit” was a condition that wasn’t ready to leave the scene completely yet but at the same time was in subjection to Jesus and his Father, and later to the believers. The time for “evil spirits” is still around today, they will be completely destroyed in the future as is told in Revelation, but for now, they exist and that is why they tell Jesus it is not time yet.

This goes back into the reasoning that these “devils” really are helping us in some ways by strengthening our character. That is why Paul was able to say that the angel of satan helped him to not boast, but at the same time was a painful infirmity that limited his travels. Only God is looking for our best interests, not fallen angels bent on turning us from our faith in God.

I have a lot more to say, but would like to really discuss one or two verses at a time. That is why I only listed a few in the first post. To me, those verses are the most straightforward verses that we learn about angels and how what happens to Satan and his Evil Spirits in the end can not apply to Angels of God, but rather some other kind of messenger, namely disease, mental disorders, wrong thinkings, pride, pretty much what is meant by evil spirits in all cases in the bible, SIN.

Hello Pacloc, I am glad that you are looking into Catholicism and hope you find the beauty that is within it. As a preliminary to me answering your question I would just like to say, I haven’t read all the posts just your intial few so I get the point you are making; so my points may have already been covered so apologies in advance if that is the case. Secondly I believe in the Devil/Satan/Lucifer etc…

I don’t believe the scriptures indicate that these evil spirits are to be taken as a literary devices employed metaphorically for other such things e.g. illnesses. Now as you quite rightly stated people in those times may have believed that these illnesses were evil spirits, which is plausible. However the fact that they make a distinction between an illness and evil spirits makes me think there was no confusion of the two in their minds. Also Christ when in the desert encountered the Devil and even disputed with him so I don’t think that Satan can be a metaphor for our own internal failings for Christ was like man ‘save for sin/fault’ and cannot be reckoned to have any internal failures and Christ also knew everything and therefore couldn’t have been mistaken about whether there was fallen angels or not, unless of course you reject that Christ knew all, which seriously renders his divinity obsolete.

You hint that so called ‘weaker Christians’ may take a dualisitc perspective and think that Satan and God are two equals, which I believe is incorrect; since scripture establishes the inestimable gulf of power between God and any other entity. But does say however, which you also indicated, that God can use fallen angels to test our faith, as he did with Job, the fact that God can utilise even malignant forces doesn’t mean they are metaphors just that God has supreme power.

Further I disagree that believing in the Devil is an attempt to abdicate all responsibility from a person, since the Devil doesn’t force you to sin he only tempts in the same way God doesn’t force you to do good but by the spirit intimates what you ought to do and you either cooperate or ignore. (Additionally some of the greatest Saints didn’t only believe in the Devil they preached for everyone to do the same and not ignore them. Some even got attacked, Padre Pio, these aren’t weak souls but exemplary souls most enlightened to the truths of this faith.)

Jesus said ‘Away with you Satan’ (Mt. 4:10 NJB) unless he was talking to an external and real evil force he was either a) Casting out an internal fault metaphorically. Which makes him imperfect. b) Ignorant that the Devil didn’t exist and mistakenly believed something to be the Devil. Which makes him not all knowing or c) Was hallucinating. Which makes him mentally unbalanced. All these seem to be complications for accepting that Christ was divine, so for a Christian I don’t really see an alternative. On the other hand I invite you to show me an alternative so I may understand how another view is just as credible. I however believe in fallen angels for the above reasons.

 

[EricFilmer]

This is exactly what I believe as well, that what is being talked about in Ezekiel and Isaiah is someone that was perfect and good that fell from grace. The difference is that I believe this is in reference to our father Adam…

I would like to briefly touch on both passages, one at a time. When I initially mentioned Ezekiel 28, I was on a road trip away from my resource books, and relying on an online essay concerning biblical references to the devil. I wasn’t entirely convinced that Ezekiel was, indeed, comparing the king of Tyre with Lucifer, which is why all I said at that point is that a comparison was “possibly” at work. Since then I have been able to double check this with material from my personal library, and am even less convinced that Ezekiel was thinking of Lucifer in the passage in question. For example, like you, the Navarre Bible commentary sees this as a comparison with Adam.

In terms of Isaiah, we are specifically told that the “Day Star” reference (sometimes translated as “Lucifer”) concerns the king of Babylon. The question is, in what manner is this reference being made? Upon further reflection, I think it is possible that this could simply be a poetic description of the Babylonian king, and therefore not a comparison with a second person. But I think it is safe to say that the historical tendency is to consider this passage as a metaphor. According to a Jewish bible commentary, the Day Star could be a compilation of two or more pagan gods from mythology (which, of course, does not rule out the possibility that these myths stem from an even earlier account of a fallen angel; it’s really impossible to tell). Christians, as we know, historically see this a comparison with the devil because the words of Jesus from Luke 10:18 are taken into account (and this is my personal opinion of the passage from Isaiah as well).

I think at this point in our discussion we really need to focus on the wording of Luke 10:18 and not get sidetracked with examinations of Isaiah and Ezekiel. The thing to keep in mind is that Jesus specifically referred to “Satan” in this gospel passage, not “Day Star” (as Isaiah did). Contrary to your theory, I do not see how this can feasibly be a reference to Adam, and I say this for the following reasons:

1) Although there are many references to the devil in Scripture (including the names of Satan and Lucifer), none of them actually state that they are about Adam.

2) In the Book of Job, Satan is specifically named as the one who torments Job. Obviously, Jesus knew that when he said that he saw Satan fall like lightning, his listeners would presume that he was talking about the same Satan mentioned in Job, an adversary who is clearly an angelic being (i.e., not Adam, nor any other human).

3) Jesus specifically called the devil “Satan” when tempted in the wilderness (ex., Matthew 4:10). Clearly, Jesus was not tempted in the wilderness by Adam. Nor can we say that the devil/Satan is a literary device denoting the temptations which arise from concupiscence, seeing as Jesus had no concupiscence to begin with.

4) Jesus also specifically mentioned Satan by name when Peter tried to tempt him to veer from the path of the cross. Jesus told him, “Get behind me Satan” (Matthew 16:23).

Therefore, in light of all this, the Satan whom Jesus saw fall from heaven is the same being who tempted him during his earthly ministry as well as once tormented Job, and therefore Satan cannot be referring to Adam.

It can be pointed out, however, that the name “Satan” means “adversary” or indicates an obstacle to ones goal, so it could be said that Peter was called “Satan” simply because he was acting in such a role (although his heart was in the right place). So there are those who would claim that Satan is simply a generic term or a literary device. But the problem with this interpretation arises when one tries to apply it to Luke 10:18. Simply put, a generic term or a literary device cannot fall from heaven like lightning. As I mentioned in an earlier post, such an event can only happen to a person (more specifically, a person with a moral capacity who is initially good but then chooses to be evil).

In light of all this, the only definition of Satan that makes sense when all the gospel passages concerning Satan are examined is that he is a fallen angel.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Ephesians 6:12: “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

Flesh and blood in this verse does not mean that what we are fighting against does not wear flesh and blood, but rather that it is not as simple as a typical man vs. man fight like in literal war. The warfare as I have mentioned before is against wickedness(sin) which rules the world we live in. Just because the war is not against flesh and blood, does not mean that the powers of wickedness must come down from fallen angels.

But doesn’t your interpretation contradict the very words that Paul used in this passage? He was very clear to point out that the context deals with confrontations with angelic beings, and he says nothing here about a war against sin. For example…

Ephesians, Chapter 6

Paul’s Instruction:
“[11] Put on the whole armor of God…”

Reason for the Instruction:
”…that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil."

Clarification & Elaboration (i.e., why do we need the armor of God when fighting the devil rather than, say, normal armor, such as that which soldiers wear?):
[12] “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

“Principalities” and “powers” are names for angelic choirs, and if that description is not enough, Paul also hammers the point home by saying that our adversaries are not flesh and blood, but are “spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Therefore, Paul’s instruction to “put on the whole armor of God” makes sense because normal armor made of metal and leather cannot defend us against fallen angels.

There are tons of scriptures that show that man is responsible for sin, it is not always caused by the influence of fallen angels(if ever).

It is not a question as to whether or not fallen angels “cause” sin, but whether or not they can tempt us to sin. Paul clearly stated that there are “spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” which we “contend with”. What can this possibly mean aside from a description of how we have to resist the temptation to sin brought on by fallen angels?

Moreover, if fallen angels do not exist (and therefore cannot tempt us), who tempted Jesus in the wilderness? As I said before, Jesus had no concupiscence, so he personally had no fallen human nature from which temptations could arise. He had to be tempted by an external agent. If we say that he was tempted by a human (the gospels imply that he was alone in the wilderness, but do not specifically state this), then exactly who was this human who asked to be worshiped while having the ability to grant world power? Who was this human who was able to transport Jesus from the wilderness to the top of the temple and then to the top of a mountain?

A perfect example of how flesh and blood are used to describe an aspect of man is 1 Cor 14:50, “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God; neither shall corruption possess incorruption.” Now we would not say that since flesh and blood cannot possess God’s kingdom, that only angels are capable. It must mean that the flesh and blood is describing a sense of man that is more earthly, and that what is at war is spiritual.

Yes, the war is spiritual, but the spiritual aspects of this war include (even if not strictly limited to) contending against fallen angels. Once again, in Ephesians 6, Paul specifically stated that this is so.

That is why someone that develops the spirit of Christ can inherit God’s kingdom, and at the same time is why that we are at war with people that develop the spirit of anti-christ, which is this world. These people that we are at war with could very well be ourselves.

You said that “flesh and blood” is “describing a sense of man that is more earthly”, and that we are at war “with people”, including possibly “ourselves.” If that is the case then we are, indeed, contending with flesh and blood, and yet Paul specifically stated that we are not contending with flesh and blood.

If you are saying that what we contend with is not flesh and blood human bodies, but rather the wickedness they embrace, meaning “the spirit of the anti-christ, which is this world”, then why did Paul describe this worldly spirit as “principalities,” “powers” and “spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places”?

Generally speaking, any text can be interpreted in a variety of ways, including ways that directly contradict one another. Therefore, it is not enough to simply come up with a possible interpretation, but also a probable one. In this regard, it helps to ask ourselves whether or not an interpretation seems to actually be what the writer was trying to convey. It appears to me that your theory concerning the biblical references to fallen angels, while interesting to ponder, goes far afield as to what the authors intended. I think that I have demonstrated in this thread that, when the Bible is examined in its totality, the only way to define the devil and demons in a way that is free from contradictions is to conclude that they are, in fact, angelic beings who have fallen from grace, and not literary devices, examples of personification, etc.

 

[pacloc]

A lot of things have developed since I last wrote in this thread. I have been in RCIA for about 2 months and have decided that this issue is not important enough to hold me back from joining the Church. I am content enough to know that while Saint Augustine did believe in fallen angels, he didn’t believe in them coming and marrying women and breeding nephilim, and that he viewed the references in 2 Peter and Jude to being about man, not angels in darkness. Also teachings from Scott Hahn and others that the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness are exactly paralleled to the temptations of the Israelites when Moses lead them into the wilderness. Also Mitch Pacwa’s teachings I’ve heard recently on EWTN about the scripture where a demon leaves a man and when he returns 7 more come, worse than at first, is in fact an illustration of a bad habit that we do not really get rid of by the power of Jesus. He mentioned no literal demons in his answer to a question on that scripture.

So I’m am content to agree that at least some aspects as to the evil spirits/ demons / satan has to do with man’s own evil, not that of Holy Angels. I have read about how some of the early church fathers believe that a long time ago the angels made the choice to either follow god or not, it is not an option to change their minds at anytime, but kind of like they did so almost immediately after their creation. I can kind of see how this may have some truth to it, but I would argue that the creatures that did so where not spiritual angels, but rather animals of the animal kingdom such as the serpent. The only reason I say so, is in fear of insulting the holy angels.

So what do you guys think of Augustine’s words in the City of God book XV ch 22 and ch23?