The devil's concubine

  • Thread starter Thread starter friardchips
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

friardchips

Guest
Hi. Just a quick thread to ask a simple question which I think I know the answer to but would be helpful to get some definite feedback.

The devil can’t have offspring because he is the devil, right? So ‘the devil’s concubine’ is just a Hollywood idea, correct? The whole subject surrounding Nephilim is only an idea devised in Judiasm? And spawn of satan are those who follow him, not his offspring? Any evil spirits in Scipture, from a true Catholic perspective, are other fallen angels (other than satan)? So any other constructs are just make-believe nonsense? And names given to such evil spirits (demons) in the Hebrew Scriptures that appear are just other fallen angels ?

Thanks.
 
I can’t answer the primary question but the Nephilim are mentioned in two different spots in the Bible that I’m aware of (a quick Google shows that it’s actually 3 spots, in 3 different books). I suppose you could say it’s an idea devised by Judaism if you don’t believe the Bible is inerrant.
 
friardchips said:
Hi. Just a quick thread to ask a simple question which I think I know the answer to but would be helpful to get some definite feedback.

The devil can’t have offspring because he is the devil, right? So ‘the devil’s concubine’ is just a Hollywood idea, correct? The whole subject surrounding Nephilim is only an idea devised in Judiasm? And spawn of satan are those who follow him, not his offspring? Any evil spirits in Scipture, from a true Catholic perspective, are other fallen angels (other than satan)? So any other constructs are just make-believe nonsense? And names given to such evil spirits (demons) in the Hebrew Scriptures that appear are just other fallen angels ?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Some would say Hollywood IS the devil’s concubine.:eek:
 
friardchips said:
Hi. Just a quick thread to ask a simple question which I think I know the answer to but would be helpful to get some definite feedback.

The devil can’t have offspring because he is the devil, right? So ‘the devil’s concubine’ is just a Hollywood idea, correct? The whole subject surrounding Nephilim is only an idea devised in Judiasm? And spawn of satan are those who follow him, not his offspring? Any evil spirits in Scipture, from a true Catholic perspective, are other fallen angels (other than satan)? So any other constructs are just make-believe nonsense? And names given to such evil spirits (demons) in the Hebrew Scriptures that appear are just other fallen angels ?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The answer to all of your questions is: “yes, correct” (with the exception of whether Judaism is the origin of “Nephilim”, which I don’t know the answer to). Satan is a pure spirit, without a body, so he is incapable of having physical offspring. When we speak of the “spawn of Satan” we are very directly referring to those souls who follow his lead in defying God.
 
Jimmy Akin tackles the subject of Nephilim on his blog, if I be not mistaken.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that while demons cannot have physical offspring, a demon called an incubus could impregnate women with human sperm it had collected as a succubus (an incubus being a sex demon in the form of a man and a succubus being a sex demon in the form of a woman) having had sex with a man. I don’t know if I believe it or not, but it’s a doubtful theory.
 
I’m thinking, that as far as an Antichrist goes, there must or will be a willing concubine of Satan to bear him, though the child would still be fully human–a sort of mockery of the Annunciation is what I’m thinking.
 
AKDee said:
I can’t answer the primary question but the Nephilim are mentioned in two different spots in the Bible that I’m aware of (a quick Google shows that it’s actually 3 spots, in 3 different books). I suppose you could say it’s an idea devised by Judaism if you don’t believe the Bible is inerrant.
Click to expand...
Good points. I believe that the Bible contains The Word and so I would tend toward inerrant. But I do believe that some texts need serious exegesis to see what they are saying, as all texts are delivered through mankind, though divinely inspired, leaving room for the people in a particular time to express things in the way in which was familiar to them. If Nephilim do appear then the question of ‘maybe’ exists: were they really fallen angels who were able to pro-create, or was the writer making a commentary about people who fornicated in such and such a way. It would be interesting to see these passages.
 
TheSurvivor said:
Jimmy Akin tackles the subject of Nephilim on his blog, if I be not mistaken.
Click to expand...
I am in the U.K. I do believe Mr. Akin makes for popular reading by Catholics in the U.S. Would you have demo snippet?
 
dshix said:
The answer to all of your questions is: “yes, correct” (with the exception of whether Judaism is the origin of “Nephilim”, which I don’t know the answer to). Satan is a pure spirit, without a body, so he is incapable of having physical offspring. When we speak of the “spawn of Satan” we are very directly referring to those souls who follow his lead in defying God.
Click to expand...
Thank you. 👍
 
Read the book of Enoch.

Before you disqualify the Book of Enoch, check to see if Jesus quoted from the book of Enoch. I heard somewhere that he does so in Mathew.
 
ChibiViolet said:
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that while demons cannot have physical offspring, a demon called an incubus could impregnate women with human sperm it had collected as a succubus (an incubus being a sex demon in the form of a man and a succubus being a sex demon in the form of a woman) having had sex with a man. I don’t know if I believe it or not, but it’s a doubtful theory.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t always right, but he also wasn’t always wrong.

I would go as far as to say that Incubus and a Succubus, due to having been reported often online when people suffer night attacks, are real. But I think these things can be reasoned to the ridiculous - Incubus being able to collect human secretion; reason being, that for life to begin there must be a time limit for the life-span of male fluid, and for it to survive for longer in order to be useful, would need a suitable environment to survive. Because such evil spirits are pure spirit then I don’t see how they could safely store what they gather; moreover, I don’t see how Succubus could then turn into an Incubus, that the collected fluid could work in its own form to further process impregnation. If the Incubus form was built in such a way then it could surely have its own fluid.

I think instead, that they are one and the same, not two separate demons. And I think their names are just fancy names for demons attempting to find a way into a person’s consciousness. When they are given room when persisting in luring the person into giving in more, they make themselves appear attractive, but the outcome would end up being satan himself or a powerful fallen angel, and would not really look like what they appear to be to the person who is being seduced - not nice. Maybe leading to full on possession, eventually, through stages of increasing seriousness.

The only way that I could see impregnation as possible would be if demons could actually take form. I think this is possible. We know that satan can appear. But for their inner workings - they might not have any - to work as a human biological system is a bit unlikely. It is more likely that they feed off the lustful desires of the human. They could enter into lust with the sinner’s desire. But I still don’t think this would breed more demons, for practical reasons!
 
ChibiViolet said:
I’m thinking, that as far as an Antichrist goes, there must or will be a willing concubine of Satan to bear him, though the child would still be fully human–a sort of mockery of the Annunciation is what I’m thinking.
Click to expand...
How Biblical is the understanding of ‘anti-Christ’ (using capital letters in a particular way for a reason!)? The idea of a spawn of satan seems a little wayward. I am just wondering whether the term ‘anti-Christ’ is meant to mean more along the lines of a collective spirit of the world that is given over to satan; IOW, fear, conspiracy, suspicion, life-hating, oppression etc…a kind of culmination of the diabolical being lived through human existence, in entirety, in as much fullness as possible without our Creator’s own sheep turning into goats - the point of maximum enslavement of the worldly, in which only the righteous will prevail, through much torment. What say thee?
 
friardchips said:
St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t always right, but he also wasn’t always wrong.

I would go as far as to say that Incubus and a Succubus, due to having been reported often online when people suffer night attacks, are real. But I think these things can be reasoned to the ridiculous - Incubus being able to collect human secretion; reason being, that for life to begin there must be a time limit for the life-span of male fluid, and for it to survive for longer in order to be useful, would need a suitable environment to survive. Because such evil spirits are pure spirit then I don’t see how they could safely store what they gather; moreover, I don’t see how Succubus could then turn into an Incubus, that the collected fluid could work in its own form to further process impregnation. If the Incubus form was built in such a way then it could surely have its own fluid.

I think instead, that they are one and the same, not two separate demons. And I think their names are just fancy names for demons attempting to find a way into a person’s consciousness. When they are given room when persisting in luring the person into giving in more, they make themselves appear attractive, but the outcome would end up being satan himself or a powerful fallen angel, and would not really look like what they appear to be to the person who is being seduced - not nice. Maybe leading to full on possession, eventually, through stages of increasing seriousness.

The only way that I could see impregnation as possible would be if demons could actually take form. I think this is possible. We know that satan can appear. But for their inner workings - they might not have any - to work as a human biological system is a bit unlikely. It is more likely that they feed off the lustful desires of the human. They could enter into lust with the sinner’s desire. But I still don’t think this would breed more demons, for practical reasons!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I believe in the actual demons themselves and I did say they are interchangeable (like seahorses kind of, except without a real gender–only appearances of.)
 
friardchips said:
How Biblical is the understanding of ‘anti-Christ’ (using capital letters in a particular way for a reason!)? The idea of a spawn of satan seems a little wayward. I am just wondering whether the term ‘anti-Christ’ is meant to mean more along the lines of a collective spirit of the world that is given over to satan; IOW, fear, conspiracy, suspicion, life-hating, oppression etc…a kind of culmination of the diabolical being lived through human existence, in entirety, in as much fullness as possible without our Creator’s own sheep turning into goats - the point of maximum enslavement of the worldly, in which only the righteous will prevail, through much torment. What say thee?
Click to expand...
I don’t remember if its in the Bible in capital letters; I just put names and titles in uppercase. I’m sorry if it offended you. The Bible does mention a leader that is to be called the Antichirst (or anti-christ, as you like) so that’s where I got that notion from–from Revelation and yes, I did read it.
 
ChibiViolet said:
Yeah, I believe in the actual demons themselves and I did say they are interchangeable (like seahorses kind of, except without a real gender–only appearances of.)
Click to expand...
You did. 👍

This late at night and the idea of a seahorse is as abstract to me as those demonic beings (though much nicer).
 
ChibiViolet said:
I don’t remember if its in the Bible in capital letters; I just put names and titles in uppercase. I’m sorry if it offended you. The Bible does mention a leader that is to be called the Antichirst (or anti-christ, as you like) so that’s where I got that notion from–from Revelation and yes, I did read it.
Click to expand...
anti-Christ - I started using small letters for anything which refers to satan. 'Tis why. Takes a lot to offend me, as such, though. Will have to have a gander at Revelation. Thanking you! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top