SPLIT: Are there really fallen angels?

[pacloc]

I also do not believe in fallen angels and do not think the bible supports such a view if you really investigate the few scriptures that may seem to say otherwise. I would like to see this conversation continued. I am looking into catholicism because of it being the origin of Christianity, and would really like to know that I can believe in some things such as this and still be accepted by my brothers in the Catholic faith. From what I think i’m reading, it seems that maybe even some priests do not believe in fallen angels, if any sources of this could be provided, I would really appreciate it.

Main reasons I do not believe in fallen angels are from the following verses:

Matt 22:30 Angels can not marry like many think they did in Genesis, restated in Mark 12:25 to further prove that the text is literal and again in Luke 20:35, 36. Verse 36 shows even further that the resurrection of man will make us immortal like angels. Immortal means the can not die and in Revelation 20:9, the so called “fallen angel” leader “Satan” will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is called the second death in 20:14.

Heb 1:7, 14 which quotes psalm 104:4 shows that angels are merely ministers of God, and are likened more to wind and fire from God that are sent for us humans, to teach us. The understanding in both old and new testament in these verses do not show room for these angels to fail at carrying out what there whole purpose is. That is why in Hebrews it shows God’s real love and adoption of sons for us humans above the angels. If angels had to be tested and choose to stay with God, it would not be fair or logical to think that us making the right choice is more valuable than the “good” angels sticking with God.

One more is 2 Cor 12:7 where Paul credits an angel of Satan for helping him to keep from boasting, and teaching him to rely on God’s grace instead of his own power. If responded to wrongly, this very well could have been a cause for further stumbling, but it actually upbuilt Paul. Discipline from God builds and refines us like Gold and builds our character.

There are many more to discuss, but I feel these few are very clear that the current understanding of fallen angels is a little off.

 

[R_C]

I also do not believe in fallen angels and do not think the bible supports such a view if you really investigate the few scriptures that may seem to say otherwise. …] I feel these few are very clear that the current understanding of fallen angels is a little off.

We are glad you are learning more about the Magisterium (the best place above all to begin is here), and we do not reject anybody, especially not a brother in Christ! I hope that as you learn more about the Catholic Church you will also grow a bit closer to Her.

Do you perhaps think that Catholic theologians in the past 19 centuries have missed these verses? If the Church teaches that there are fallen angels, then we know that the Scriptures support this teaching.

This section of the Catechism summarizes some of the teachings on this topic:

Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

— notes —
268 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800.
269 Cf. 2 Pet 2:4.
270 Gen 3:5.
271 1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44.
272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.

As you can see, both the Old and the New Testament are quoted, and especially clear is the writing of St. Peter:

2 Pet 2:4 “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment”

There are also a few other verses worth mentioning:

Lk 10:18 “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”

1 Cor 6:3 “Do you not know that we will judge angels?”

Finally, the Doctor of the Church St. John of Damascus (645-749) is mentioned in a reference to his work “De fide orthodoxa”. Book 2 has chapters 3 (“Concerning angels”) and 4 (“Concerning the deviland demons”) dedicated to this topic.

He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him : and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light.

being the work of the Creator and being made good …] produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil.

Theology is so ancient and extended that we have very good reasons (beyond the virtue of obedience) to believe in the teachings of the Church.

 

[EricFilmer]

I also do not believe in fallen angels and do not think the bible supports such a view if you really investigate the few scriptures that may seem to say otherwise. I would like to see this conversation continued…

As you can see in my posts in this thread, I believe that that demons/devils are fallen angels. But before I continue, please provide your interpretation of the biblical references to demons (a.k.a., evil spirits, such as in the exorcism accounts of the gospels) as well as the references specifically concerning Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub. In other words, based upon your interpretation, who or what is being actually described? Your post seemed to touch a little on this, but not enough for me to fully glean what your perspective is.

 

[pacloc]

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.

 

[pacloc]

So to start with 2 Peter 2, which the whole chapter must be read in context, we can begin since it is one of the most used to show that Angels are in Hell, therefore sinned against God. I also admire how through reading the forums and watching EWTN, that Catholics are very much opposed to single verse theology, but recognize the need to read the Bible in context of the whole chapter or even the whole book. Here is the whole chapter quoted from the Douay Rheim’s 1899 American Edition with some of my comments on the verses:

2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (speaking of wicked men that will come into the congregation, not demons)

2 And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. (Other men, weak in faith will fall away due to these other evil men’s riot like attitude, hurting the reputation of Jesus, The Way.)

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not. (These false brothers have had their punishment coming to them since the rebellion of Adam, but God has been patient so that vessels of mercy should be made known)

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment: (The sudden transition to angels from man is a little confusing, but I believe he is actually mocking some of the false stories that were circulating at the time about God binding angels in hell. This was exactly who Peter was warning about, because later in the chapter he honors angels as not being able to do bad.)

5 And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. (Peter goes back to the judgement of wicked mankind.)

6 And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly. (more judgement of mankind.)

7 And delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked. (more judgement on mankind’s wickedness.)

8 For in sight and hearing he was just: dwelling among them, who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works. (more judgement on mankind’s bad influence.)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented. (The day of judgement will bring great torment to wicked man and relief to righteous men, which is a reversal of what seems to happen during this time of waiting.)

10 And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming. (Further explanation of what it means to be a wicked man deserving of torment on the last day.)

11 Whereas angels who are greater in strength and power, bring not against themselves a railing judgment. (This is a key scripture showing that angels do not bring judgement against the wicked men. (this translation says “themselves”, but most translate it “them”, as in the wicked) Many believe that fallen angels in fact do try to say to God that men are evil and greedy just as they are. The reality is that angels only communicate to God what other men say of each other. They truly are just messengers used by God to interact with us humans. This is shown in many scriptures that warn of hating our brothers, because of their angels message to God could be bad for you. So they do none of the actual judgement, as we know that only the Father and Son will do. We also see that they are great in strength and power, which also shows Peter’s admiration of them.)

12 But these men, as irrational beasts, naturally tending to the snare and to destruction, blaspheming those things which they know not, shall perish in their corruption, (This goes back to false stories being circulated about angels falling and being bound in hell. The ones speaking such false stories are likened to irrational beasts on their way to destruction because of their blasphemy of the Angels. Peter shows since they spread lies about what they don’t know anything about, they will perish for their corrupting influence on the congregation. It is clear that this verse and verse 11 are speaking about angels because why would he bring them up in verse 11. So the blasphemy must be against them.)

13 Receiving the reward of their injustice, counting for a pleasure the delights of a day: stains and spots, sporting themselves to excess, rioting in their feasts with you: (More things of which they will be destroyed for.)

14 Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls, having their heart exercised with covetousness, children of malediction: (more sins)

15 Leaving the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity, (Balaam was unable to see the angel that was trying to protect him from going on even after God had told him to not go. Balaam was against the angel of God, because of the wages he was to recieve. Just as Peter is trying to show that false stories of angels is being against angels of God. Bringing this man up is no mere coincidence, but his confrontation against an angel was important.)

16 But had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which speaking with man’s voice, forbade the folly of the prophet. (The donkey that feared the angel’s warning even showed Balaam that something was really wrong by continuing on his journey against God’s order.)

17 These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved. (more judgement)

18 For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness, those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error: (more judgement and accusation of being in error in their understandings)

19 Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave. (These false stories lead to being enslaved to wrong ideas that change the reality of God’s purpose. As mentioned already, idolatry of fallen angels being like evil gods was reintroduced, making men slaves to them.)

20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. (These ones that were taught the truth of God and Jesus got caught up again with false teachings and now are really guilty compared to their first guilt of ignorance.)

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. (Ignorance in things is less of a sin than returning back to false stories.)

22 For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire. (prophecies that many men would turn back to false ideas.)

So, taking all things in context, the fall of angels does not even fit the chapter’s topic of man’s perversion of truth. It actually shows that the fall of angels, which were written about in a false book of Enoch, is an example of the gross blasphemies of God.

 

[EricFilmer]

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.

First of all, according to Catholic teaching, the temptation to sin can come from three different sources: ourselves (due to our fallen nature), the world (i.e., many things of the created order may be morally neutral, but can appeal to our senses and be misused in a sinful manner) and demonic forces. Some of what you have described above falls into this framework.

But the problem with seeing the devil as simply a personification of evil is that it makes it very difficult to explain certain passages (and if you’ve read the past material in this thread then you, no doubt, see this coming):

And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”
(Luke 10:18, RSV)

In light of this, I ask you to give a response to these questions:

1. Give an interpretation of what is being described as “Satan” in Luke 10:18.
2. Clarify how this “Satan” was in heaven to begin with, and then explain (in accordance with your theory) how and why this “Satan” fell from heaven.

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.

First of all, the gospels always make a distinction between the healing of an illness and the exorcism of a demon.

Secondly, what medical condition is there concerning breaking chains (Mark 5:4), the inability to be restrained by others (also Mark 5:4) and knowledge of the identity of Jesus (Mark 1:24, 5:7)? And before responding I ask you to critique your interpretations against what Mark himself seems to be conveying based upon the plain words of Scripture. For example, a person who says that the demoniac broke chains and fetters because he had adrenaline does not really do justice to the impact of Mark’s description: "…no one could bind him anymore, even with a chain; for he had often been bound with fetters and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the fetters he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him.

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.

I am currently on a trip and therefore away from my Greek reference books (which would allow me to examine the nuances of the words in question). But simply saying that a fever “leaves” someone does not necessarily indicate something “getting up and walking out.” If something “leaves” it simply “goes away”, whether on two feet, or because of an expiration of time, etc.

Moreover, when you say that Jesus cast out demons “like he cast out Peter’s wife’s mother’s sickness in Matt 8:15”, I presume that you are making a reference to the gospel usage of the term “rebuke.” When Jesus helps people, the language of the gospels sometimes has Jesus “rebuking” demons as well as illness. An alternate explanation to what you’ve presented is that a “rebuke” is a quick, verbal action, and therefore Jesus is able to deal with demons and illness simply by commanding them to be gone. He needs neither incantations nor exorcism rituals to cast out demons, nor does he need medicine to cast out illness. Therefore, the gospels are not necessarily saying that illness and demonic possession are identical, but that a simple command from Jesus is sufficient to handle both.

Also keep in mind that Jesus “rebukes” storms (for example, Mark 4:39). Obviously Mark does not intend his readers to think that a storm is an illness. Therefore, if one believes that the gospels are teaching that demonic possession is an illness because Jesus “rebukes” demons in the way he “rebukes” illness then how does that explain why Jesus “rebukes” storms?

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.

I honestly don’t see how you’ve made your case here. Jesus “carries our sorrows” by accepting upon himself the totality of human sin and suffering. Sin and suffering has both internal and external agents. I don’t see how this passage from Isaiah is meant to exclusively describe the former.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

I’m not sure what you’re point is. Are you saying that Jesus healed the demoniac of mental illness but allowed the pigs to go crazy as a sign that mental illness would still continue to problematic in human society? If that is the case, the same could be said of problems of being blind, deaf, mute, lame and having a fever. And yet Jesus did not cast these conditions into animals (for example, the fever did not leave Peter’s mother-in-law and inhabit a nearby animal). So if possession is simply a medical condition in the gospels, why the big difference in how Jesus treated it?

A simpler and more biblical explanation of the pigs being possessed is that Jesus wanted to compare this event to the vision described in Daniel 7, where beasts rise from the sea and come onto the land (representing certain kings), including a terrible forth beast. In Daniel 7, the fate of this beast is displayed, and immediately following it Daniel sees “a Son of Man” who receives “dominion, glory and kingdom” from God, the Ancient of Days. So I think Jesus is using the situation of the pigs to show that he is this Son of Man, and that he reverses the order of things in our broken world. Whereas Daniel described evil (in the form of a beast) rising from the sea to harm humans, Jesus sends evil (also in the form of beasts) back into the sea, and therefore saves humans.

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.

Demons can “help” us to strengthen our character simply by giving us the opportunity to exercise virtue in the face of temptation. But this does not necessarily mean that they are sent to us by God for this express purpose (which you seem to imply). For example, competing against an opposing team in a game of football likewise strengthens our football skills, but helping us in this manner is not the intention or the goal of the other side. In light of this, it can be said that God permits demons to contend with us in order to help us become more virtuous, but the role of these demons is different from the role of the angels who never fell.

Moreover, Jesus said to certain people, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:42-44, RSV). If Satan is not a fallen angel, how do you explain Jesus’ descriptions of him being “a murderer from the beginning” who “has nothing to do with the truth” and who’s nature is to lie?

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).

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.

How can disease, mental disorders, and sin tell lies (as per John 8:44)?
How can disease, mental disorders, and sin be in heaven and then fall from heaven (as per Luke 10:18)?
These Bible verses only make sense if what is being described is a person with moral capacity and freewill.

 

[EricFilmer]

So to start with 2 Peter 2, which the whole chapter must be read in context, we can begin since it is one of the most used to show that Angels are in Hell, therefore sinned against God…

You said that you were going to examine Peter “in context”, but it seems to me that when it came to the verses describing angels as fallen beings, you explained them away with extrapolations beyond what Peter and the rest of the Bible actually states. For example, Peter points out that God punishes the wicked and saves the righteous, and he briefly went through a string of biblical examples by saying that God punished even the angels who rebelled, as well as the whole earth (the flood) and Sodom & Gomorrah. Therefore, in light of these examples, it is foolish for a sinner to presume that, for some reason, he will escape God’s condemnation.

Here is how you interpreted this passage’s reference to the angels:

(The sudden transition to angels from man is a little confusing, but I believe he is actually mocking some of the false stories that were circulating at the time about God binding angels in hell. This was exactly who Peter was warning about, because later in the chapter he honors angels as not being able to do bad.)

So in order to support your interpretation, you have to make extrapolations such as Peter mocking false stories. Why would he do something like that? If he opposed the telling of these “false stories” then how does referencing them help the situation? It seems to me that if he felt these stories were false then he would have clarified it, rather than hope the writer will perceive some sort of mocking tone in the text. Furthermore, exactly where and how does Peter say that angels “are not able to do bad”?

Moving on, according to the traditional understanding of this epistle, the mentioning of the fallen angels makes perfect sense. In other words, if a powerful supernatural being like an angel can’t escape God’s judgement, how can a mere human hope to?

Moreover, I would say that the book most used to show that there are fallen angels is Revelation. For example, “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev 12:7-9).

You stated before that saying that there are fallen angels is a kind of blasphemy, and that Peter was indicating that “The ones speaking such false stories are likened to irrational beasts on their way to destruction because of their blasphemy of the Angels.”

But obviously we cannot say that when John wrote Revelation he was an “irrational beast” who was “on the way to destruction” due to “blasphemy of the angels”.

 

[pacloc]

Dear brother, I admire your firm convictions in your faith and reliance on scripture. Please understand that I for a very, very long time too accepted the traditional view of Satan and fallen angels. I even went so far as to teach others about it and I was firmly convinced that a lot of things where the result of Satan’s (as a fallen angel) influence, such as great atrocities like the world wars, or almost any war for that matter. I knew how to defend such an idea, very similar to what scriptures you use, so I can really relate and understand what you are saying. I would also like for you to know that I have no ulterior motive at all for this different belief that I have. As in that it is not necessary for any other belief really, or that I just don’t think personally that it wouldn’t be fair of God, or whatever. Personally, I wish that I had never learned to think of Satan and demons as something different than what is majorly accepted, except for case that it could possibly bring me closer to understanding our Father and His Son, our Lord. But definitely on a personal level, it is challenging to know that almost nobody sees it the way that I truly believe the scriptures show, and that I will most likely die somewhat alone in the understanding, with the exception of my wife and a few friends. That is why I ask, if one day if I revert back to Catholicism (I was baptized as a baby, and then my Mom became a Jehovah’s Witness soon after. I was a JW for some time, and pretty recently left. They have the same traditional view of Satan, so they are not the source of my newer understanding.) I want to know if the freedom exists for me to hold this view and still be Catholic.

I can tell that you are firmly planted in your understanding and only ask for a somewhat open mind to what I’m saying. Like I said, discussing multiple scriptures makes it hard to focus in on the lesson learned in one passage, but it is hard to discuss a scripture without showing all the evidence supporting it in other places.

I would also like to clarify that I do not claim to know perfectly the whole situation of every instance of Satan, Demons, Angels, Spirits, and other things. I don’t believe that anyone really does, but we can try to get as close to the reality as possible. I also have never taken any Bible courses, or really read any work from Bible scholars. I pretty much just read the Bible and read things online. I have recently become interested in early Catholic Saint’s writings and bought a couple of books on Augustine and Aquinas. So please accept my humble qualifications brothers. So please don’t feel tension with me, I would really like to have these conversations in a loving manner brother. I can tell you are very much like me in that you really feel strongly about the matter and would really be happy if you could convince me to see it the same way. I will tell you now, that I haven’t skipped over any verse entirely that seems to show that fallen angels exist. These verses you are showing me are read very frequently by me, because it was hard for me to make the decision that I would have to begin to look at these verses differently if I was to really believe in the idea that fallen angels do not exist. In my mind I had to go back and forth over the matter so many times because of how literal it sounds that they could exist. But I tell you brother, that there is too much evidence in scripture that this could never have been the case. And further, it could almost be dangerous to think it did happen (as I mentioned earlier, as far as creating other gods). One thing to help make the decisive step was to reason that not believing fallen angels really does not compromise a single thing in my relationship with my Father and Jesus, but believing in them and giving them too much credit could effect my relationship with God.

So to answer your first 2 questions:

"In light of this, I ask you to give a response to these questions:

1. Give an interpretation of what is being described as “Satan” in Luke 10:18.
2. Clarify how this “Satan” was in heaven to begin with, and then explain (in accordance with your theory) how and why this “Satan” fell from heaven. "
3. To quote Luke 10:15 “And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell.” and 10:18 “And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.” I truly believe that Satan in this term is referring to all the egotistical humans that would climb to the top in this world at the cost of turning from God and from loving their fellow man. They are called Satan for their main attribute in which Christ judges them which is sinful pride, instead of righteous love. These are the ones that have exalted themselves up to the Heavens, which is in the context of way up high in the sky or air, not the house of our Holy Father. Heavens is also referred to governmental authority in scripture, so eventually and even in some respects ever since Christ’s lifetime, the evil men that rule mankind will be thrown down, and Jesus will rule entirely. Isaiah 2:8-22 shows this in a remarkable way. Arrogant men are likened to tall tress and mountains and hills, and towers that will brought low. Also Isaiah 26:5,6. 34:1-5 really shows their “heavenly state” that will be destroyed all the while speaking about men. Lamentations 2:1 also speaks of Israel’s fall from power as being likened from falling from heaven, showing that it is mankind, not angels that were in heaven. Psalm 83:12 and Gen 11:4 also show how man had tried to inhabit the heavens through their own means.
4. Already answered, but to be clear, Satan is in heaven right now, by God allowing us to govern ourselves with egotistic, prideful rulers that are against God’s kingdom, and they will fall from heaven totally when Christ returns. They already fell from heaven in a sense by our baptism and hope in Jesus Christ, because they do not rule over us anymore. They still exist though, so they still need to be thrown down totally.

I will answer some more of your concerns tomorrow brother. Please understand that I am not perfect in my reasonings. I want to say so much, but can not really type it all out in one sitting. I just again ask for you to try to keep an open mind when reading my posts. I don’t really think I will ever convince many, but I really don’t need that, but rather need acceptance in my understanding.

 

[R_C]

Dear Pacloc, the problem I see here is that you are developing your own interpretation of the Scriptures.

However, it is Holy Church who has received authority to understand and teach the Scriptures, through the permanent guidance of the Holy Spirit and of Christ, Her mystical Spouse.

Every time we try to come up with our own understandings contradicting what the Church teaches on these matters, there is one thing we can be certain of: we are being misled.

Please do not take offense in my words, because I love you like a brother and I rejoice in your search for the truth and in your utmost respect of the Scriptures, but I would like to mention something that St. John of the Cross, a great mystic and theologian, as well as a great exorcist, once wrote on one of his treatises:

[Just like our reasoning can be moved by our own powerful mind as well as by the Holy Spirit], the devil also introduces himself in our thoughts, forming by suggestion to the intellect concepts and words, and with seemingly true and incredibly subtle things he deludes them. In this way he often disturbs [those who have separated themselves from the Church] filling their mind with ideas and thoughts that are very subtle, yet false and erroneous.

If I had come up with my own interpretation on certain parts of the Scriptures, I would be open and ready to accept that I was entirely wrong and that you are entirely right.

However, as members of the Church, we simply transmit to you a tradition that we have received, or as St. Paul would say, “what we received we passed on to you”, and we also transmit to you St. Paul’s exhortation to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by letter”.

 

[pacloc]

" I’m not sure what you’re point is. Are you saying that Jesus healed the demoniac of mental illness but allowed the pigs to go crazy as a sign that mental illness would still continue to problematic in human society? If that is the case, the same could be said of problems of being blind, deaf, mute, lame and having a fever. And yet Jesus did not cast these conditions into animals (for example, the fever did not leave Peter’s mother-in-law and inhabit a nearby animal). So if possession is simply a medical condition in the gospels, why the big difference in how Jesus treated it? "

There is not a big difference in how Jesus handled demons compared to sickness. That was the point I was trying to make. 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. 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. 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. Jesus even says that certain people were born with these demons so that he could demonstrate his power.

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. 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.

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.”

 

[johnnyjones]

If you believe the words of Jesus , yes.

 

[pacloc]

@ johnnyjones, I did not start this thread, so I did not ask the question. I know that satan exists, it is more of who or what is really satan. So I do believe Jesus words.

@ R_C Thank you for your kind and caring words brother. I really do wish to not be against the majority of my brothers in this understanding, but there are some that agree. I would say that this topic doesn’t really fit in a category of the Church fully understanding either. I know there is a lot of contraversy about specifics. Many do not think that the Sons of God that married the daughter of man in Genesis were Angels, even my DRC bible says this was a misconception. Also the stories in Ezekiel and Isaiah about the kings of Tyre and Babylon are not majorly accepted as describing Satan’s fall from grace, but more specific to evil mankind. Briefly reading Aquinas writings shows that there was never a long period of time where the fallen angels were good, but rather chose their rebellion almost instantly after creation, so somethings about them later chaning their mind do not match up with that way of thinking. Being cast down to earth from Heaven is also in question as to when it happened, before Adam, at Jesus death, in the future right before Jesus return? Lots of interpretations are present, so I do not feel so against the grain in that I view it a little different yet. I don’t think that it really matters too much which way you believe, as long as you know that you can conquer Satan and will finally crush him in the future. Being in terror of him and putting undue fault on him is where I do not like the major understanding.

 

[EricFilmer]

Dear brother, I admire your firm convictions in your faith and reliance on scripture…

…I would also like for you to know that I have no ulterior motive at all for this different belief that I have. As in that it is not necessary for any other belief really, or that I just don’t think personally that it wouldn’t be fair of God, or whatever.

I do not perceive any ulterior motives on your part, either. I think the topic of how the devil is portrayed is a complex one, and therefore worthy of biblical and theological discussion.

That is why I ask, if one day if I revert back to Catholicism (I was baptized as a baby, and then my Mom became a Jehovah’s Witness soon after. I was a JW for some time, and pretty recently left. They have the same traditional view of Satan, so they are not the source of my newer understanding.) I want to know if the freedom exists for me to hold this view and still be Catholic.

My understanding (as I outlined earlier in this thread) is that the existence of the devil, and his identity as a fallen angel, are doctrines of the faith. As such, Catholics are to believe in them.

I can tell that you are firmly planted in your understanding and only ask for a somewhat open mind to what I’m saying.

Generally speaking, I try to keep an open mind about many things, and am willing to discuss Scripture accordingly. Because we are speaking about a biblical interpretation of Satan, my intention is to critique your material in light of biblical context as well as the language and grammar of the Bible. What I am interested in examining is two-fold: first of all, whether or not your interpretation of Scripture has merit (i.e., in light of the Bible’s context, language and grammar), at least according to my own understanding of Scripture, and secondly, why you think your interpretation is more credible than the traditional one. I will try to be as fair and objective as possible.

…please don’t feel tension with me, I would really like to have these conversations in a loving manner brother.

Rest assured, I intend to discuss this topic in a civilized, courteous manner, as is my custom on CAF. As a side note, the “curt” responses I presented to the OP earlier in this thread arose from my perception that he was acting in an intellectually dishonest manner (i.e., dodging questions, ignoring rebuttals, etc.), and was wasting everyone’s time (and that’s the only kind of situation in CAF where I call people to task in a brusque manner). I see no such issues on your end of things, and I predict we will have a pleasant, meaningful discussion.

Before we continue, I think we should examine whether or not this specific thread should be continued as opposed to starting an entirely new one. The reason I am saying this is because we may be getting off topic, at least in terms of our biblical discussion of the nature of the devil. The title of the thread addressed the topic of whether or not a Catholic must believe in the devil. Of course, you are interested in the same question (and clearly stated this at least twice), which is why you wanted this discussion to continue. The Catholic response, however, does not really address how the devil is treated in Scripture, but rather addresses whether or not the existence of the devil is a doctrine of the faith. So even if certain biblical passages can be authentically interpreted in a manner which suggests that the devil is not a fallen angel or such, such an endeavor would not have a bearing on what Catholics are supposed to believe.

I think that a discussion on the biblical portrayal of the devil is both an interesting topic and worthy of discussion, but it probably should be in the context of its own thread rather than a continuation of this one. Perhaps a good thread title would be, “The Devil in Scripture: Person or Personification?”

 

[Julian0404]

Hi everyone,

As I’m sure most of you are aware our modern conceptualisation of Satan is the product of theological evolution. In the Old Testament “Satan” was merely a righteous angel of God sent by God to test the faith of individuals; in fact the correct translation is “The Satan” (the adversary), and was a role that could be delegated to any angel.

For the most part The Church accepts that Satan represents a single being who is the absolute personification of evil; however I have seen nothing to suggest that the belief in a personal being called Satan is De Fide.

In Christ, through Mary

Kropotkin

Read about the life of Saint Padre Pio and you will understand more of the dangers of satan and of not taking his presence as a very real threat.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I did not need any Church documents to believe that satan exists. Before I became a Catholic, I used to dabble in the occult. It is through personal experience that I came to believe that satan exists, that he roams the world seeking souls to devour.

Believe me, you do not want to make a personal acquaintance.

One of the biggest successes satan has had is convincing people that he does not exist.

Belief in satan is de fide since the rejection of him is part of the baptismal promises. Baptismal promises are required belief. They do not contain anything that is open for discussion. (indeed, I have heard it argued that the only things we are required to believe are those stated in the baptismal promises) You cannot reject someone you do not believe exists, nor would the Church require this rejection if he did not exist. We are not asked to reject an idea of evil, or the power of temptation. We are asked to renounce satan.

From Sancta Missa - Rituale Romanum
Rite for baptism of adults

1. He questions them further, with all giving the answers together, each one for himself in the singular forms:

P: Do you renounce Satan?

All: I do renounce him.

P: And all his works?

All: I do renounce them.

P: And all his attractions?

All: I do renounce them.

The Ministry of Angels and the Work of Devils

The teaching of the Church is very clear (De Fide, Fourth Lateran Council). The angels were created in the state of innocence, but not impeccable, in heaven. They were subjected to a trial of their fidelity (perhaps belief in and adoration of the Incarnation). One-third of the heavenly host revolted in pride (Rev. 12:4). “And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the ‘devil’ and ‘Satan,’ who leads astray the whole world; and he was cast down to the earth and with him his angels were cast down” (Rev. 12:9). Further, they were cast into hell—created for them. “Then he will say to those on his left hand, ‘depart from me, you accursed ones, into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’” (Mt. 25:41).

<…>
Personal being though he is, the devil’s trump card is anonymity; his chef d’oeuvre is the belief that he does not exist. The French author, Gide, in one of his written dialogues, puts these words in the mouth of Satan: “Well, why are you scared of me? You know very well that I don’t exist.”

The Doctrine of the Last Things

1. Properties of Hell

a)   Eternity

The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide.)

The Caput Firmiter of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declares: “Those (the rejected) will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil.” Dz 429. Cf. Dz 40, 835, 840.

 

[Evan]

Perhaps it would be useful to have read about possession by demons.

Try “The Rite” amazon.com/The-Rite-Making-Modern-Exorcist/dp/0385522703

If you don’t want to purchase a book. Here is a pamplette describing a possession in the 30’s (I think) in Earling Iowa: ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/BEGONESA.htm

 

[EricFilmer]

To all recent participants in this thread…

This thread discussion has now been split.

Please continue the original discussion (i.e., whether or not a Catholic is required to believe in Satan) in this thread: Must I Believe in Satan?

Please use the thread at hand to continue discussing the question as to whether the devil and demons in Scripture are actual fallen angels or personifications of sin and evil.

 

[EricFilmer]

So to answer your first 2 questions:

"In light of this, I ask you to give a response to these questions:

1. Give an interpretation of what is being described as “Satan” in Luke 10:18.
2. Clarify how this “Satan” was in heaven to begin with, and then explain (in accordance with your theory) how and why this “Satan” fell from heaven. "
3. To quote Luke 10:15 “And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell.” and 10:18 “And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.” I truly believe that Satan in this term is referring to all the egotistical humans that would climb to the top in this world at the cost of turning from God and from loving their fellow man.

I agree that there is merit to what you have stated here. The way Luke 10:18 is phrased brings to mind this passage from Isaiah:

"How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
who shook kingdoms… (Isaiah 14:12-16, RSV)

The “Day Star” title is traditionally considered to be a reference to Lucifer, and some English translations of Isaiah actually use the term “Lucifer” instead (including the Douay Rheims; see also this link).

Nevertheless, the context of Isaiah has us to understand that the person being described is the king of Babylon (see Isaiah 14:4). Therefore, the Lucifer reference of 14:12 is supposed to serve as a metaphor. In other words, the king of Babylon is like Lucifer because he is a splendid person (being adorned in a wealthy manner) and holds a lofty position from which he falls (due to the sin of pride). So the king of Babylon is a powerful, prideful human who should learn from the example of Lucifer. Simply put, if pride can cause an angel to fall from heaven itself, so much more can pride cause an earthly king to fall from his throne. As a side note, the same sort of metaphor is possibly at work in Ezekiel 28:12-20 concerning the king of Tyre.

In light of all this, the similarly phrased Luke 10:18 can be considered a description of, as you put it, “egotistical humans that would climb to the top in this world at the cost of turning from God and from loving their fellow man (Jesus was probably using this saying as a warning to his disciples not to get prideful in light of the miracles they were allowed to perform). But, in my opinion, you have taken this interpretation too far. In other words, whereas I say that passages such as Isaiah 14:4 & Luke 10:18 are descriptions of both prideful humans and the devil as a fallen angel, you seem to be saying that they are descriptions exclusively of prideful humans. This is a non- sequitur, because it does not logically follow that because Isaiah 14:4 and Luke 10:18 can refer to humans, they cannot also refer to fallen angels.

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.

Returning to your comments concerning Luke 10:18…

They are called Satan for their main attribute in which Christ judges them which is sinful pride, instead of righteous love. These are the ones that have exalted themselves up to the Heavens, which is in the context of way up high in the sky or air, not the house of our Holy Father. Heavens is also referred to governmental authority in scripture, so eventually and even in some respects ever since Christ’s lifetime, the evil men that rule mankind will be thrown down, and Jesus will rule entirely.

Once again, what is at hand is a metaphor. Heaven can be a biblical image representing governmental authority, but it also refers to the home of God. The whole idea is to make a comparison between the two. Hence, it is not correct to say that heaven refers to lofty positions of earthly power but is “not the house of our Holy Father.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Isaiah 2:8-22 shows this in a remarkable way. Arrogant men are likened to tall tress and mountains and hills, and towers that will brought low.

To be honest, I don’t see how this says that the same thing can’t happen to angels.

Also Isaiah 26:5,6. 34:1-5 really shows their “heavenly state” that will be destroyed all the while speaking about men. Lamentations 2:1 also speaks of Israel’s fall from power as being likened from falling from heaven, showing that it is mankind, not angels that were in heaven. Psalm 83:12 and Gen 11:4 also show how man had tried to inhabit the heavens through their own means.

If I understand you correctly, the reason that you presented this string of Bible quotes is to show descriptions of humans falling from heaven (at least in a symbolic way) while noting that these particular descriptions do not include angels. But seeing as they serve as warnings, prophecies, etc. concerning Israel, I do not see why one would expect them to specifically mention fallen angels. Seeing as such a reference would be out of context, the absence of such references doesn’t really indicate anything.

Moreover, there are plenty of Bible passages which address the concept of fallen angels, such as the following (and I know that you have already commented on 2Peter, but I think it bears repeating here):

For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned,
but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom
to be kept until the judgment (2Pet 2:4)

Put on the whole armor of God,
that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
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. (Eph 6:11-12, RSV)

(Note that here Paul specifically says that the devil and his angels are not flesh and blood, which places this passage in direct contradiction to the idea that the fallen angels symbolically refer to sinful humans)

And the angels that did not keep their own position
but left their proper dwelling
have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom
until the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6, RSV)

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon;
and the dragon and his angels fought,
but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan,
the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth,
and his angels were thrown down with him. (Rev 12:7-9, RSV)

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven,
holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain.
And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan,
and bound him for a thousand years,
and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him,
that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended.
After that he must be loosed for a little while. (Rev 20:1-3, RSV)

…and the devil who had deceived them
was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur
where the beast and the false prophet were,
and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev 20:10, RSV)

1. Already answered, but to be clear, Satan is in heaven right now, by God allowing us to govern ourselves with egotistic, prideful rulers that are against God’s kingdom, and they will fall from heaven totally when Christ returns. They already fell from heaven in a sense by our baptism and hope in Jesus Christ, because they do not rule over us anymore. They still exist though, so they still need to be thrown down totally.

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.

And just to briefly reiterate my (name removed by moderator)ut of your position, I think it has a good deal of merit and Scriptural support because some of what we are discussing concerning evil can have multiple meanings, including being references to sinful humans. But it seems to me that Scripture does not truly support a position that all these references exclusively indicate humans and not actual fallen angels.