Fallen angels

[Sammo]

Hi everyone

I'd have to say I'm firmly in the Seth camp – I think there are several good reasons why the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 couldn't have been angels.

Firstly, in Luke 20 Jesus tells us that angels don't marry:

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

If angels coudn't marry in Jesus' day, then they definitely couldn't in Noah's day either.

Secondly, can there be any such thing as a fallen angel? Verse 36 also says that angels “neither die any more”, because they are immortal. Yet Romans 6:23 says that “the wages of sin is death”. Therefore if it were possible for angels for sin, it would also mean that angels could die, which would contradict what Jesus says in Luke 20:36.

Jesus says that our hope, to be “children of the resurrection”, is to be “equal unto the angels”. It would certainly take some of the gloss off this if we could still sin and die, even after resurrection! Rather, our hope is to be immortal and perfect in God's kingdom – just as the angels are now.

Can the “sons of God” be men then, if they aren't angels? I'd say absolutely – there are several passages even in the Old Testament where men are called the sons of God, such as Hosea 1:10…

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

As the apostle John says, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (1 John 3:1).

Finally, are the “giant” offspring in Genesis 6:4 evidence of angelic parents? I'd say no. The sons of Anak were giants (Numbers 13:33) and their parents certainly weren't angels, as they lived well after any angels alive in Genesis 6 were destroyed in the flood. There are exceedingly tall people in the world today – but is that really evidence that their parents were angels?

Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts, I'd be interested in your comments.

God bless,
Sam

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

good points… especially the giants thing – though i think that there is a connection between nephilim and giants… umm… similar hebrew origins… but i might have to check that out…

i think though that the luke passage actually says that we'll be like the angels in that can't die… but it is debateable…

i think the crux of the argument lies in the concept of fallen angels. if you believe in fallen angels, certainly you could belive them capable of impregnating the “daughters of man”… i mean creation in its many forms is inherent to all living creatures… but if you don't believe in fallen angels, i don't know how you would account for the devil and demons… that is, unless god created them evil, which i think is a bit far-fetched.

anyway, just some thought which i hope will promote further discussion…

cheers,

nate.

[ringo111]

Itsme

Quote

i do likey your thinking but i don't exactly agree with it all… You see, i still believe that satan is an angel.  it is not explained in scripture but there ARE some angels that are locked up, and there are some angels that are not… Matthew 25 41″Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Revelation 12 7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. The dragon (Satan) who was indeed hurled down to the earth which i still believe he IS an angel, though a fallen one, and he had angels with him. I mean, i would think that would mean that there are angels roaming the earth as well as locked up…right? what do you think about this?

Well, You see, they are satans angels. In otherwords, they are Satans Messangers. They are Not refered to as GoD's angels that rebelled and followed satan. They are purly satans messangers.

There is not even a place in bible anywhere to support that mass amounts of GoD's angels followed satan either. At least I dont think so. Never read it, or heard it, apart from the theory of satan as an angel, with a third of GoD's angels under his controll.(not in bible)

Now…. an angel can be refered to as, someones “There angel doesnt fail to see god”(jesus talking about children, rough quote) and is still gods angel. But i see no evidence that this is true for satans beings that follow him.

As for being locked up, GoD would not say so unless it is done. As for satan, he accuses before GoD. So yer, another reason as to say Satan is not, and has never been an angel of GoD.

I have not read the posts in between, Hmm, maybe i do that now.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Sammo,
Welcome. Good post, certainly some good points raised and you have me thinking and diving for the concordance – which is always a good thing. I wish I had enough time to go through it all point by point but unfortunately I don't. I will address one or two though

Quote (Sammo @ Aug. 30 2004,18:58)

Secondly, can there be any such thing as a fallen angel? Verse 36 also says that angels “neither die any more”, because they are immortal. Yet Romans 6:23 says that “the wages of sin is death”. Therefore if it were possible for angels for sin, it would also mean that angels could die, which would contradict what Jesus says in Luke 20:36.

Fallen angels are mentioned in Jude 6, 7:
6″And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned thier proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the great day. 7….since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh….” The consistency with Genesis 6 to me is uncanny. Can demons go after strange flesh? It would be difficult to find scriptural support for that. Its difficult to know what exactly happaned in Noahs day because the details are so scant – but to me its clear that angels somehow left their abode, abondoned their spirit bodies for a downgraded human model and “indulged in gross immorality”. Its my conjecture I know but Im not alone in holding it.

The question of whether angels can die is an interesting one. Certainly the unfallen kind dont have our physical bodies so can't experience our physical death (i.e the separation of the soul & spirit from the body – the first death). But I believe the second death (the seperation of the soul from God, Rev 20:14, 21:8) could certainly apply to them. After all, Jude tells us angels are kept in eternal bonds under darkness, awaiting judgement (2 Pet 2:4 reinterates this).

Quote

Can the “sons of God” be men then, if they aren't angels? I'd say absolutely – there are several passages even in the Old Testament where men are called the sons of God, such as Hosea 1:10… 10  Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. As the apostle John says, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (1 John 3:1).

The term “the Sons of God” (Gen 6:1) translated in the Hebrew is B'nai HaElohim (Sons of Elohim). This is a term that is used exclusively in the Old Testament for angels.

Quote

Finally, are the “giant” offspring in Genesis 6:4 evidence of angelic parents? I'd say no. The sons of Anak were giants (Numbers 13:33) and their parents certainly weren't angels, as they lived well after any angels alive in Genesis 6 were destroyed in the flood. There are exceedingly tall people in the world today – but is that really evidence that their parents were angels?

Why were the offspring uniquely designated “mighty” and “men of reknown?” This description seems a little odd if the parents were regular humans like us, even if they were Godly – and where are the woman of renown, the nephilim seem to be all male?

God Bless

[Proclaimer]

Just some food for thought regarding Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Could be way off track and I am very sceptical with the following, but I read somewhere once that Hercules as a legend of old, has a Father who was a god (Zues) and his mother Gaea, means mother-earth. So perhaps Hercules was really a giant and his father was a god (angel) and his mother from earth. Of course this is based on a legend, but it does mention heroes of old in Genesis 6:4.

It would certainly be strange if Hercules in Greek mythology turned out to be based on a real person, but strange things do happen in this world.

Also a side note: Some christians believe that Jesus (the Greek name for Yahshua our messiah) was paganised to read  'JeZeus', ('God is Zeus') which later became 'Jesus' in the English language (pronounced 'Jezus'). I do not hold to this belief as I have no evidence to prove otherwise, but it could make a good discussion. If someone wants to start a discussion based on this, it could be useful to get to the bottom of this one. Who knows what we may learn?

I do wonder sometimes how Yahshua in Hebrew turns into Jesus in Greek?

[Proclaimer]

It may have already been mentioned but the Book of Enoch goes into great detail regarding the Sons of God who left their abodes and took for themselves many wives.

https://heavennet.net/writings/enoch.htm

[ringo111]

I personally believe “the book of enoch” to be insane ramblings of a sataniscally influenced person. With direct borrowing of other scriptures. Having borrowed from the origonal book. Or many books. 

For if angels were able to have sex, then people would be having demonic children all the time!!!

Satan is condemed allready, he has nothing to lose!!!

To believe that angels can have sex, is as i see it, is a blaitant lie, and contrary to the teachings. And can only serve as an alienation device that im sure people will use to dehumanize certain people's, or races, and say that they are not in fact human, But born of angels!! and are evil, and should be destroyed!! For they should not be born!!!

No!!! angels cannot have sex! and we will be like the angels who neither marry, nor are given in marrage.

[Sammo]

Hi Nate,

Quote

i think though that the luke passage actually says that we'll be like the angels in that can't die… but it is debateable…

Well, maybe so, although I admit that's not how it reads it me. There's a whole lot of different versions of that verse here if anyone's interested: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir….html#36

Quote

i think the crux of the argument lies in the concept of fallen angels. if you believe in fallen angels, certainly you could belive them capable of impregnating the “daughters of man”… i mean creation in its many forms is inherent to all living creatures…

Yeah, I agree.

Quote

but if you don't believe in fallen angels, i don't know how you would account for the devil and demons… that is, unless god created them evil, which i think is a bit far-fetched.

Well, actually I'd say that the devil and demons don't exist at all except in a figurative sense – but that's another can of worms!

Take care,
Sam

[Proclaimer]

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 01 2004,02:01)

I personally believe “the book of enoch” to be insane ramblings of a sataniscally influenced person. With direct borrowing of other scriptures. Having borrowed from the origonal book. Or many books.  For if angels were able to have sex, then people would be having demonic children all the time!!! Satan is condemed allready, he has nothing to lose!!! To believe that angels can have sex, is as i see it, is a blaitant lie, and contrary to the teachings. And can only serve as an alienation device that im sure people will use to dehumanize certain people's, or races, and say that they are not in fact human, But born of angels!! and are evil, and should be destroyed!! For they should not be born!!! No!!! angels cannot have sex! and we will be like the angels who neither marry, nor are given in marrage.

Does your condemnation include Genesis 6:4:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

[Sammo]

Hi Is 1:18,

My take on Jude 5-6 is possibly different to most you've seen before, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me. Here's the passage:

Quote

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Firstly, the word for “angels” can also be used of men, in much the same way that I'd say “sons of God” can be applied to either angels or men. Angelos just means “messenger” – but not all messengers are necessarily divine. For example, Jesus of John the Baptist, “Behold, I send my messenger (angelos) before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” (Matthew 11:10). Clearly John the Baptist wasn't an angel in the “immortal minister of God” sense (not to say that these don't exist), but he certainly was a messenger. Luke 7:24, 9:52 and James 2:25 all make the same point.

So maybe the angels in Jude 6 were men, who lived at some stage in Israel's past. In fact, the context is given in verse 5: “having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not”. Maybe there were men that lived just after the exodus from Egypt of whom it could truly be said “which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day”.

I think there's an exact match in the story of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16:

Quote

1 ¶ Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: 2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: 3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? . . 8 And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi: 9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them? 10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also? . . 28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. 29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me. 30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. 31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. 33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.

These guys were representatives of a rebellion (Numbers 16:1-2), so I guess it's fair enough to call them “messengers”.

They rebelled because they weren't content with their status and role (Numbers 16:9-11), so I guess it's also fair enough to say that they “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation”.

Then they were buried alive in a pit (Numbers 16:31-33), where they will stay until “the day of judgment” (eg 2 Peter 2:9). Hence therefore “he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day”.

Jude then goes on to mention Korah again in verse 11.

So basically my view of Jude 5-6 is that it's referring to the rebellion in Numbers 16, and not to fallen angels. Now I don't think I can definitely prove that's right, but I do think it makes sense, and avoids the discrepencies that I think arise from believing in fallen angels.

Quote

The term “the Sons of God” (Gen 6:1) translated in the Hebrew is B'nai HaElohim (Sons of Elohim). This is a term that is used exclusively in the Old Testament for angels.

The only other places I could find were in Job – are there others? One of these (Job 38:7), I agree is talking about angels, but the other two (Job 1:6 and 2:1) I've always understood to mean some kind of human congregation that Job belonged to. But this post is long enough already!

Quote

Why were the offspring uniquely designated “mighty” and “men of reknown?” This description seems a little odd if the parents were regular humans like us, even if they were Godly – and where are the woman of renown, the nephilim seem to be all male?

I'm not sure, that's interesting. Maybe “men” can be taken as inclusive of women, I don't know.

God bless,
Sam

[itsme]

hey…whatsup?

Quote

Satan is condemed allready, he has nothing to lose!!!

Thats cool, and true. I mean, we gotta be on our guard cause satan is lurking around and has nothing to loose as ringo put.
Personally, i don't believe angels have sex if thats what your talking about…and I've never read the book of Enoch…i'll be sure to read it sometime.

ringo…

Quote

Well, You see, they are satans angels. In otherwords, they are Satans Messangers. They are Not refered to as GoD's angels that rebelled and followed satan. They are purly satans messangers. There is not even a place in bible anywhere to support that mass amounts of GoD's angels followed satan either. At least I dont think so. Never read it, or heard it, apart from the theory of satan as an angel, with a third of GoD's angels under his controll.(not in bible) Now…. an angel can be refered to as, someones “There angel doesnt fail to see god”(jesus talking about children, rough quote) and is still gods angel. But i see no evidence that this is true for satans beings that follow him. As for being locked up, GoD would not say so unless it is done. As for satan, he accuses before GoD. So yer, another reason as to say Satan is not, and has never been an angel of GoD.

i really dont know what you mean all the way, … i mean, your saying that satan was never an angel of God…but…why? just wondering and stuff…but anyway…gotta go…getting kinda late…kinda

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Sammo @ Aug. 31 2004,20:03)

Well, actually I'd say that the devil and demons don't exist at all except in a figurative sense – but that's another can of worms!   Take care, Sam

Hi Sammo,
Yes it definately is a can of worms, lets open it….
All through the gospels Jesus addresses, and is addressed in turn, by demons (e.g Lk 8:30). He also has a conversation with satan in the temptation passage (Lk 4). The Father also converses with him in Job 1. You can only have a conversation with a real person. How do you account for this without allegorising these verses into oblivion? Just curious.
God Bless

[Anonymous]

and then there's legion – cast out of one man, and possessed a herd of pigs…

cheers,

nate.

[itsme]

of course there are all the other times Jesus had to help the demon possessed and all in the bible… so many other times…

[Sammo]

Hi guys

Quote

Yes it definately is a can of worms, lets open it….

OH, it is

Quote

All through the gospels Jesus addresses, and is addressed in turn, by demons (e.g Lk 8:30). He also has a conversation with satan in the temptation passage (Lk 4). The Father also converses with him in Job 1. You can only have a conversation with a real person. How do you account for this without allegorising these verses into oblivion? Just curious.

I should say right from the start that I certainly don't expect you to instantly agree with me, but here's what I think nonetheless…

There's really several issues here, Satan, the devil, and demons. I guess Satan would be a good start.

If you look up Satan in a concordance, you'll find that the basic meaning is “adversary”. Not everyone realises (certainly not all pastors will tell you) that the very first use of the word “satan” is actually describing an angel representing God, in Numbers 22:

Quote

22 ¶ And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for a satan against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

Men are called Satan (1 Kings 11:14, Matthew 16:23), and if you compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1, you'll find that even God is called Satan. If Satan really is the proper noun for an immortal fallen angel, then surely this is very odd. So basically, I think “satan” just means “adversary”.

Similarly with the devil, “diabolos” primarily means “slanderer”, and is also very definitely used of non-immortal, non-fallen, non-angels. It's used of women (1 Timothy 3:11, Titus 2:3), men (2 Timothy 3:3) and Judas (John 6:70). If Devil is also the proper noun for an immortal fallen angel, then this is just as odd for Satan. Basically, I think “devil” just means “slanderer”.

Often, both Satan and the devil are used to personify sin. Is it not true that sin is our “adversary”, that “slanders” us before God? For instance, Paul says in Hebrews 2:

Quote

14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil

Yet he also says in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is death”. The “power of death” in Romans is sin, and “him that had the power of death” in Hebrews is the devil – thus the reasoning that the devil personifies sin. There is more to this, but this will do for now.

So what do I believe about the devil and Satan? That both terms can be used of men to mean “slanderer” and “adversary”. In the case of Satan, this term is even used of a righteous angel and God himself. Sometimes these words are personified to represent sin.

Reasons not to believe that the Devil/Satan is an immortal fallen angel:

• Angels cannot “fall”. If they sinned they would die (Romans 6:23), but they are immortal (Luke 20:36). Therefore angels cannot sin – they are “all” the “ministers of God” (Psalm 103:20-21)
• If Devil and Satan are proprer nouns for an immortal fallen angel, then they should not be used of regular men, women, a righteous angel and even God
• Inconsistencies in verses used to demonstrate the fall of the devil from heaven. For example, when exactly did this happen? How is the devil back in the presence of God in Job 1 etc?
• Rather, lust and sin come from within us (James 1:13-15, Mark 7:20-23, Jeremiah 17:9). We're not naturally good – we don't need the help!
• When bad things happen in the world, it's God who's in control (eg Amos 3:6), not a rival supernatural being.
• Similarly, when bad things happen to us, these are from God too (eg Job 1:21) – but at least we know that God is in control in our lives, and “all things work together for good” in the end (Rom 8:28)

Demons in a separate post. I'm interested in your thoughts.

God bless,
Sam

ps – I didn't think much of this up for myself. The following are links to some good articles that go into much more depth, and no doubt say it much better than I can. To do them justice, they'd probably need about 15 minutes each, but please take the time if you're at all interested.

http://www.bbie.org/english/Study06GodandEvil/0601GodAndEvil.html

http://www.bbie.org/english/Study06GodandEvil/0602DevilAndSatan.html

[ringo111]

Quote

Angels cannot “fall”. If they sinned they would die (Romans 6:23), but they are are immortal (Luke 20:36). Therefore angels cannot sin – they are “all” the “ministers of God” (Psalm 103:20-21)

hmm, consider this…. Now when Adam and Eve were told they would surely die!!! did they??? it was a different kind of death, a seperation between them and GoD's best will for theyre lives. The same with the angels that sin. And they do sin.

as you see your quote has nothing to do with angels not having the ability to sin. But It only says praise him, you angels, the ones who obey his word. As for those who do not. There is no mention of them in psalm 103. But in Jude, we find.

Psalm 103
20 Praise the LORD , you his angels,
you mighty ones who do his bidding,
who obey his word.
21 Praise the LORD , all his heavenly hosts,
you his servants who do his will.

In jude we find. that angels can sin. Allthough, as im looking at the context, It looks as though this is refering mre to prophets and heads of state, who abandoned theyre positions. At a later time id like to look through the old testiment about this.

Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

********************************

Quote

If Devil and Satan are proprer nouns for an immortal fallen angel, then they should not be used of regular men, women, a righteous angel and even God Inconsistencies in verses used to demonstrate the fall of the devil from heaven. For example, when exactly did this happen? How is the devil back in the presence of God in Job 1 etc?

Good point, that is why i do not believe for at all, tha satan was an angel, I believe he was made for the purpose he exists for today.

Quote

Rather, lust and sin come from within us (James 1:13-15, Mark 7:20-23, Jeremiah 17:9). We're not naturally good – we don't need the help!

Oh, whether or not we dont need the help, is granted, allthough, it is obvious that demons do influence people into blieving and doing actions. As is stated many times in the bible, girl with propheticgift, Jesus telling demons to come out of people, because the demons would say through people, “You Are the Son of GoD!” When it wasnt time for him to proclaim it. The demons possesed man, with the legion inside him. So many accounts.

When bad things happen in the world, it's God who's in control (eg Amos 3:6), not a rival supernatural being.

Quote

Similarly, when bad things happen to us, these are from God too (eg Job 1:21) – but at least we know that God is in control in our lives, and “all things work together for good” in the end (Rom 8:28)

GoD made satan, he knows how to stop him, just like people aswell, GoD allows all bad to happen, Sometimes he steps in and protects people. Ultimatly it is GoD's choice for anything to happen to us. So lets trust in him.

I have seen demons, and know people who see both angels and demons. So, To me there is no question of whether they exist.

[Sammo]

Hi Ringo

Quote

hmm, consider this…. Now when Adam and Eve were told they would surely die!!! did they??? it was a different kind of death, a seperation between them and GoD's best will for theyre lives. The same with the angels that sin. And they do sin.

Well, I understand that to mean that Adam and Eve “surely died” in the sense that they became mortal, which was after all the curse given in Genesis 3:19. Romans 5:

Quote

12 Wherefore, by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

I think that means literal death, and that's the only kind of death that I'm aware of. Could you expand on what you were saying about different kinds of death?

Quote

as you see your quote has nothing to do with angels not having the ability to sin. But It only says praise him, you angels, the ones who obey his word. As for those who do not. There is no mention of them in psalm 103. But in Jude, we find. Psalm 103 20 Praise the LORD , you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word. 21 Praise the LORD , all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will.

My idea was that “all his heavenly hosts” are described as “servants who do his will”, which implies to me that they can't sin. No, it doesn't explicitly say that angels can't sin in that passage, but I think it's implied. I won't push it.

Quote

In jude we find. that angels can sin. Allthough, as im looking at the context, It looks as though this is refering mre to prophets and heads of state, who abandoned theyre positions. At a later time id like to look through the old testiment about this.

I agree – I see it in an Old Testament context too. I posted about Numbers 16 on page 3 of this thread – you may or may not agree, but it sounds good to me. I don't think that Jude 6 says that angels can sin, amongst other reasons because I think that this would flatly contradict verses like Romans 6:23 and Luke 20:36.

Quote

I have seen demons, and know people who see both angels and demons. So, To me there is no question of whether they exist.

Could you tell me more about this?

Thanks for your thoughts,
Sam

[Sammo]

OK – demons!

Rightly or wrongly (I'm convinced wrongly) most Christians believe that demons are evil spirits in the service of the Devil.

The first point to make then, is that if anything I've said about the devil is correct, then this is enough on its own to undermine orthodox belief in demons. If the devil is not an immortal fallen angel, then demons certainly aren't the servants of an immortal fallen angel. If one doctrine falls, then so does the other.

Demons are mostly associated with illness, as a quick search in a concordance makes pretty obvious. In a sentence, I'd say that “demons” were simply the way that people in New Testament times expressed otherwise unexplainable illnesses.

• Imagine a broken leg. Nobody would have said: “I saw Joe fall out of tree, and now he has a demon”.
• Imagine an otherwise unexplainable mental illness. Yes, I do think people might have said: “Joe is acting very strange, Joe has a demon”. What else were they supposed to say? They had to call it something.

People in Jesus' day did believe in evil spirits that caused illness, just like most Christians do today. But what I would strongly suggest, is that so deeply rooted was this belief in their society, that “demons” was simply the way they spoke of illnesses, it was simply of the language of the day.

This is a serious question. Think about the symptoms of those people who had “demons” in the New Testament (eg Mark 5:1-5, 9:17-27). If you saw people with these symptoms today, would you diagnose a demon as the cause? Or, would you diagnose some kind of mental illness?

Why is it that the New Testament symptoms of demons, in the 21st century, go away when you take the right tablets? Does anyone really believe that medicine can overcome supernatural beings?

Paul uses “demon” interchangably with “idol”, because demons were a pagan belief of the day, whose idols were worshipped by pagans. 1 Corinthians 10:

Quote

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons. . . 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof

In the context of these same idols (i.e. demons) Paul specifically tells us there is no such thing as a supernatural power that opposes God. He plainly says this in 1 Corinthians 8:

Quote

4 ¶ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I believe that Paul clearly teaches that God has no supernatural opposition. I think Paul shows us that demons were false pagan gods.

Reasons I don't believe in supernatural demons:

• For all the reasons that I don't believe in the Devil. If belief in the Devil falls, then so too does belief in supernatural demons.
• Today, the symptoms of “demons” would be identified as nothing more than mental illness. That explains why today, many are demonstrably schizophrenic or epileptic, etc. Personally, I'm totally unaware of any demonstrable demoniacs.
• Paul identifies demons as the pagan deities represented by idols in New Testament days. These were clearly false Gods, with no existence or being, much less power to cause illness.
• Rather, in the context of miracles, I see “demons” as simply the way that people in New Testament times expressed otherwise unexplainable illnesses. After all, what else were they supposed to call them?
• I believe that God is in control in our lives, and thank God that he is!

There's a much fuller argument in this article: http://www.bbie.org/english/Study06GodandEvil/0603Demons.html Please take the time to read it.

Take care everyone,
Sam

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

what about the parable of the sheep and the goats where jesus says, he will say to those on his left, depart from me, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and HIS angels? even if you read this as the adversiary and his messengers, it is still a pronoun… and it still indicates that there are demons – or whatever you want to call them.

or when the adversiary tempted jesus in the wilderness? these temptations weren't the kind that an ordinary human could offer. and why would god say, all this i will give to you if you will worship me… because it is god who we worship – this just doesn't make sense… the only other option i can find is that it was the devil – the same for whom the eternal fire was prepared…

there's also the war in heaven where michael and his angels fight the dragon (rev 12:7) – this says that not only is the dragon in heaven, but also that both michael and the dragon had angels, indicating to me that the heavenly host are not the only supernatural beings.

i know you said that demons were how the ancient world expressed inexplicable sickness, but these references have nothing to do with illnesses… though regardless of what people thought, surely jesus would know whether demon were real, and we read that – sometimes he healed people, and other times he cast demons out (actually called them out, or called them by name)… there seems to be a clear deliniation here, which is hard to explain through mere “expression”…

personally i have no problem with orthodox belief being wrong – i don't believe in the trinity docrine, but this is because the bible is very vague in that regard, so when jesus says, the devil (or adversiary, or whatever) and HIS angels (or messengers, or whatever), it makes a fairly definite impression on my thinking. if not for references like the above i would be happy to at least consider the possibility that your comments on “demons” are valid, but i think you'll have to explain these references first.

cheers,

nate.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Guys,
Wow, some great posts today! Im impressed with the concise and cogent arguments on both sides of the fence. Sammo, I can see why you hold the views that you do, and I appeciate you going to a lot of trouble to explain them, but for me it would leave far too many scriptural discrepencies to try to resolve.

If demons are idioms for illnesses, idols etc. Then why are they personified in so many verses. e.g:

“the demons also believe, and SHUDDER” Js 2:19.

“And then Jesus asked HIM, “What is your name?” And HE said Legion” Lk 8:30

“…was not permitting the demons to SPEAK” Mk 1:24

They can shudder and speak, these are not things that illness or idols can do – and if you apply these idioms to the texts, they no longer make any sense.

Also in Acts 19:14 we read that the seven sons of Sceva, after a conversation with an evil spirit, had their buts kicked by him, leaving them “naked and wounded”. Clearly this was a violent encounter and an episode of illness doesn't fit at all.

I agree with Nate's sentiments on the Satan issue – for me he is clearly portrayed as a specific and unique spiritual entity, a leader of demons. I believe the Bible teaches that he has access to both heaven and earth until some time during the tribulation when he will be kicked out for good (Rev 12:7-10).

You write:

Quote

I believe that Paul clearly teaches that God has no supernatural opposition. I think Paul shows us that demons were false pagan gods.

I agree that God doesnt have supernatural opposition. He alone is infinately powerful and therefore His authority cannot be threatened in any tangible way. However, I disagree with your idea on Paul's views:

“….that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” Eph 6:11-13.

I can't see any reference to idols here – he is clearly teaching us that an evil spiritual realm exists (including a scheming devil), and it has our worst interests at heart.

Sammo, Im enjoying your post though, its good to read opposing viewpoints – even if I cant agree with them.
Bless you

[Author]

Posts