Angels and Demons

Scott1 · Jan 15, 2005

What sort of beings are they? What do they know and when do they know it? How did the demons go bad? And what do they have to do with us?

By Alfred J. Freddoso
Full article here.

No*s · Jan 15, 2005

Scott, the link is broken.

EDIT:

I mean specifically the one on the text "angels and demons"

robtex · Jan 15, 2005

Those darn demons. First they take down the links on this forum next thing you know they will converting believers into atheists........

Scott, if Angles are as apparent as God, (pure form) why use them at all as messengers? God is everywhere but he sends angels?

Does the church name any of these angels? If God made angels so much better (by the description in the article) than man...why bother making Man at all? Angels sound a lot more entertaining for a divine being to associate with .

Where (text wise) did the Catholic church first get the notion of the existance of this race? If a demon is a fallen angel is Lucifer a demon? Or did I misread that?

lilithu · Jan 15, 2005

robtex said:
Scott, if Angles are as apparent as God, (pure form) why use them at all as messengers? God is everywhere but he sends angels?

Does the church name any of these angels? If God made angels so much better (by the description in the article) than man...why bother making Man at all? Angels sound a lot more entertaining for a divine being to associate with .

Where (text wise) did the Catholic church first get the notion of the existance of this race?

Can I comment even tho I'm not Catholic and am not Scott? I'm still not sure about the rules of this place. Oh well, I'm going to comment anyway, because I am curious to see how my own understanding of angels compares with the Catholic view.... or one Catholic's view.

My understanding is that angels are aspects of God. Thus they are of the same substance yet finite and thus perceivable by humans. Ignoring for the moment the idea of God incarnating as a human Jesus, a wholly (and holy) transcendant God would be difficult if not impossible for a human to perceive and relate to. So God sending an angel as a messenger to humans would be God sending one limited aspect of Godself so that humans can better relate. This also solves the question of God's omnipressence. Actually, now that I think about it, this also explains why God says "let us make man in our image." If there is only one God, why the plural?

Why would God bother with humans since there are angels? Because angels have no free will. They are so close to God, so attuned with God, that they cannot act separately from God's will. It would get boring being surrounded by a bunch of "mirrors" after a while, dontcha think? Humans are made in the image of God but we are not God, so we are something which is not so different that we can't relate yet different enough that we can ... be different.

(Don't ask me how Satan fell if angels don't have free will. I prefer the Jewish view of Satan in which he never fell.)

Where in the text are angels mentioned? Is that the question? They are mentioned quite a bit, I think. God and two angels... or is it three angels?...(as I'm trying to imply, there's little difference) come to tell Abraham that God will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Jacob wrestles with an angel/God. An angel announces to Mary that she has been chosen to bear the son of God. Revelations talks a lot about angels. Probably, Daniel does too since Revelations parallels so much of Daniel. And there are supposedly the approcryphal books like Enoch.

My understanding is that only two angels are specifically named in scripture - Michael and Gabriel. ("-el" means "of God" btw) Another is named in the approcrypha - I think it's Raphael. I don't know where all the other names come from, and there are a lot!

Scott, I truly am curious to see how much of what I've written agrees and disagrees with the Catholic view. From what I skimmed of the article, I got the impression that calling angels "aspects" of God isn't kosher (so to speak).

-lilith

No*s · Jan 15, 2005

Even though I'm Orthodox, I'm going to add a quick bit (and then I'm retreating again):

The fallen angels belief, including a fallen Satan, is a Jewish belief. Just because it wasn't preserved into Modern Judaism, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. One particular book to note is I Enoch which explains the issue in a rather overwhelming amount of detail (how much of that is symbolic and how much isn't is anyone's guess given that it's Apocalyptic). In Enoch, the angels rebel and fall. They subsequently have sex with human women.

The same thing is true in regard to the names for the various archangels. It was present in Ancient Judaism.

When the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, most forms of Judaism went extinct. Basically, one group prevailed and descended into the modern variaty. As such, just because it isn't present now doesn't mean it wasn't taught by Essenes, Sadduccees, and so on. Many of the beliefs regarding angels were actually quite Jewish, but while they went extinct in mainstream Judaism, they did not go extinct in Christianity.

may · Jan 15, 2005

SOGFPP said:
But who are these angels and demons? What sort of beings are they? What do they know and when do they know it? How did the demons go bad? And what do they have to do with us?

By Alfred J. Freddoso
Full article here.

The bible talks about an angel who tells people everywhere to worship God.(revelation 14; 6-7) so, does the angel shout from heaven so that everyone can hear it, no, rather Jesus followers on earth talk to others about God, and the angels guide them in their work. the angels make sure that those who really want to know about God have a chance to hear.so there are some good angels , who want to do Gods will.

michel · Jan 15, 2005

Quote[Scott, if Angles are as apparent as God, (pure form) why use them at all as messengers? God is everywhere but he sends angels?

Does the church name any of these angels? If God made angels so much better (by the description in the article) than man...why bother making Man at all? Angels sound a lot more entertaining for a divine being to associate with .

Where (text wise) did the Catholic church first get the notion of the existance of this race? ]
Lilithu
Why bother with man? without man in the equation, to 'mess things up properly, there would'nt be any point in angels

may · Jan 15, 2005

In the Bible, the two words used for "angel" are mal·akh´ (Hebrew) and ag´ge·los (Greek). These both mean "messenger." They tell us something about one of the functions of angels. The angels serve as messengers, or couriers, between God and man.

However, the question remains: What are the angels doing today? Are they affecting us right now? Yes, they certainly are!

Recall that in his prophecy concerning "the conclusion of the system of things" Jesus foretold: "When the Son of man arrives in his glory [assuming Kingdom power], and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another."Matthew 24:3; 25:31, 32.

t3gah · Jan 15, 2005

http://www.catholiccollegestudents.org/fefreddoso.html said:
First, none of an angels acts depends on matter; hence, all of his acts are either intellectual acts of knowing and willing or else the consequences of such acts. This means, for one thing, that angels do not have sensory cognition or any powers which, like imagination and sensory memory, are linked to sensation. (A question: Does this entail that there is no such thing as angelic art? Even if there is no angelic music or painting or architecture, are there, for instance, pieces of fiction passed from one angel to another? And might there be some angelic counterpart to the other arts?)

Everyting in red is an assumption and bad one at that. Angels came down to earth after they noticed women during Noah's days. What did they notice? That the women were beautiful to look at. Sensory perception or cognition. What do you suppose those angels were imagining about those women?

They don't have imaginations or sensory memory? How are they able to make human bodies for themselves complete with working sexual organs? Why do they bother eating when they are in so-called human form? See the account of Lot.

No imagination? Why did they want to enter (possess) the pigs during the section of "Legion"? In fact, why did they want to possess people? What was the motivation to kill those pigs? What is the motivation to torment people? Sounds like sensory memory of something they've done before or knew what the actions would do to them emotionally.

http://www.catholiccollegestudents.org/fefreddoso.html said:
Second, angels do not have lower life-functions such as digestion, growth, or sexual reproduction. In fact, they cannot reproduce themselves in any way at all, since they do not have parts that can serve as angelic genetic material. But, then again, neither do they grow old or suffer from sickness and physical deterioration. (For instance, unlike some of us oldsters, angels do not need reading glasses of various strengths for different tasks!) Needless to say, angels cannot die or, as St. Thomas would put it, undergo corruption.

We people have no idea just what angels really are as there is no mention of composition in the scriptures. There is no mention of them having to eat in heaven. When the angels had bodies on earth they ate. Where did the food they ate go when they went back to heaven? Only those who have been to heaven know what's what.

God is mentioned to be a spirit, but that is no reason to assume that the angels are the same. In the book of Genesis God is remarked as saying that He is going to make man in 'our image'. We have no idea who the 'our' is. Accounts in the old testament with Moses and others seeing God tells of God having different humanlike body parts. Just because God is a spirit doesn't mean that those parts that were humanlike weren't spirit type humanlike body parts. Accounts in the gospels show that Jesus was the Word and was in the beginning with God which could explain the other part of we, meaning of 'our' in this case, as in the explanation of who was there, but that still doesn't tell us just what kind of materials angels are made of. What else could they be? Only God knows since no person has ever been to heaven.

Angels cannot die? Now this point goes back to sensory cognition. Jesus finds the person who's in the tomb area scaring people, slashing himself with stones and breaking out of the bonds they, the poeple put this person into. When Jesus approaches this person, the demons cry out not to be put into the pit or be put to death or see corruption, if I have the correct story here. Sounds like they are scared of something doesn't? Sounds like they know what it is to die? Sounds like an emotional outburst.

http://www.catholiccollegestudents.org/fefreddoso.html said:
Third, if angels have some relation to places and to bodily things, then this relation is unlike anything else we knowwith the possible exception of the very strange behavior attributed to the fundamental particles described by contemporary quantum physicists. Nonetheless, it is natural to believeat least some pretty impressive ancient philosophers didthat the intelligences do have some sort of power over bodies.

We know angels have relations with places as they, the angels, seem to know how to get around while on earth. We people do know how it could work because we think of far away places we'd like to go and then we go there. We are made by the same entity that made angels. It may be a bad assumption, but why wouldn't God give angels the same type of brain capacities and functions that he gave men? And then there is no explanation in some cases whether they, the angels, are in human form or not. Just actions are depicted. This fact or lack of explanation cannot be construed as evidence that the angels don't have bodies. It may be just a fact that is unimportant to the main point of the story being told. One case in point is when the farmers are told about the messiah's birth. Those angels are depicted to have appeared. A heavenly host. No description of what they looked like or were made of. Why? Unimportant for the point being made.

Fundamental particles makes the assumption that people know that these messengers are made out of something that's not corporeal. Jesus' body seemed pretty real to the apostles before he ascended to heaven. Why didn't he change into a spirit like the assumptions of the masses before going to heaven? When Jesus transfigures himself in the mountain before the three apostles, he doesn't change into three spirits. He changes into three persons. Moses, Elijah and himself.

Impressive ancient philosophers were needed to understand that these angels have intelligence to have some sort of power over bodies?! The point of angels coming down in human form with desires such as eating and having sexual relations is one indication from the scriptures which no one is in need of a philosophers interpretaton of the accounts. Then there's the portions of the scriptures that show demons (fallen angels) possessing persons and making them do all sorts of things or having a crippling effect on the persons who are possessed. Let the scriptures 'speak' for themselves and 'you will know the truth and the truth will set you free'.

lilithu · Jan 15, 2005

t3gah said:
Everyting in red is an assumption and bad one at that. Angels came down to earth after they noticed women during Noah's days. What did they notice? That the women were beautiful to look at. Sensory perception or cognition. What do you suppose those angels were imagining about those women?

Hi t3gah, namaste.

I thought of that passage when I was first replying, but if I remember correctly, the text doesn't actually call them angels. It says something like "the sons of heaven" looked down and saw that women were beautiful etc. (I'm too lazy at the moment to look it up so I could be wrong about the wording, but I'm quite certain it doesn't say "angels".) Most people assume that was refering to angels, but I didn't want to make that assumption. Don't know what else they could be.

-lilith

lilithu · Jan 15, 2005

No*s said:
The fallen angels belief, including a fallen Satan, is a Jewish belief. Just because it wasn't preserved into Modern Judaism, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. One particular book to note is I Enoch which explains the issue in a rather overwhelming amount of detail (how much of that is symbolic and how much isn't is anyone's guess given that it's Apocalyptic). In Enoch, the angels rebel and fall. They subsequently have sex with human women.

Hi No*s, namaste.

To say that the idea of a fallen Satan is a Jewish belief because it exists in Jewish non-canonical texts is like saying that the idea that Jesus was merely human is a Christian belief because it exists in Christian non-cannonical texts. You're right that the ideas are there but to say that they are Jewish or Christian ignores the contradictory, larger, more dominant ideas that exist. I'm not making a value judgement as to which is "true." I'm just addressing the issue of how one can say whether something is Jewish or is Christian. It's a difficult thing to do. But in response to your comments, I will ammend what I wrote to say that within modern Judaism, Satan never fell. There is certainly no evidence of it in the Tanakh.

And this is the interpretation of Satan that I prefer. It avoids the question of how an angel, who supposedly has no free will, can turn from God. It avoids the traditional Christian problem of believing in an entity that is almost as powerful as God (or even more so depending on what percentage of humanity one believes will fall to the Devil). AND it takes away the ability to blame one's own moral failings on an external agent. The Devil made me do it... not. Satan may present obstacles and temptations, but we are ultimately responsible for our choices.

-lilith

No*s · Jan 15, 2005

lilithu said:
No*s, namaste.

Grecians (and it looks like I'm not slinking away after all lol).

lilithu said:
To say that the idea of a fallen Satan is a Jewish belief because it exists in Jewish non-canonical texts is like saying that the idea that Jesus was merely human is a Christian belief because it exists in Christian non-cannonical texts. You're right that the ideas are there but to say that they are Jewish or Christian ignores the contradictory, [/color]larger, more dominant ideas that exist. I'm not making a value judgement as to which is "true." I'm just addressing the issue of how one can say whether something is Jewish or is Christian. It's a difficult thing to do. But in response to your comments, I will ammend what I wrote to say that within modern Judaism, Satan never fell. There is certainly no evidence of it in the Tanakh.

I'll agree to the terminology, but I most dispute making it sound as if it weren't held by a large number of Jews in Christ's day or the days preceding. Judaism was made up of a number of different groups (sects is not exactly appropriate). When the Temple was destroyed, it eliminated practically all of them. A fallen Satan was mainstream then. It isn't now. I'm not saying that something is Jewish simply because it exists in non-canonical texts, I'm saying it is because it appears to have been pretty wide-spread at the time. For me, that's a pretty big difference.

lilithu said:
And this is the interpretation of Satan that I prefer. It avoids the question of how an angel, who supposedly has no free will, can turn from God. It avoids the traditional Christian problem of believing in an entity that is almost as powerful as God (or even more so depending on what percentage of humanity one believes will fall to the Devil). AND it takes away the ability to blame one's own moral failings on an external agent. The Devil made me do it... not. Satan may present obstacles and temptations, but we are ultimately responsible for our choices.

It may well be the interpretation you prefer, but this paragraph tells me you don't understand the Christian interpretation.

Well, actually, not every Christian denies that angels have freewill. I've met Catholics that ascribe some to them. Mine does. So, we do believe in free will in angels. The article in question actively ascribes freewill to angels by stating they say "I will not serve." That is a choice. I believe what we deny is that they have passions like us, which is a little different than freewill.

Also, I've never heard a Christian say that angels are almost as powerful as God. Not Roman Catholic, not Protestant, and not Orthodox. That would be odd indeed.

"The Devil made me do it" was created not by Christianity, but by a comedian. It has always been taught that we may resist temptations, whether they come from us or demons. It doesn't remove our own responsability at all, unless we remove our free will.

The problems you have, they aren't problems that we have. None of them are statements made by Christians (well, you'll probably find some fringe Christians that will...but there's a fringe group saying any conceivable thing). Orthodox Catholics teach otherwise, and so do Roman Catholics.

lilithu · Jan 15, 2005

No*s said:
I'll agree to the terminology, but I most dispute making it sound as if it weren't held by a large number of Jews in Christ's day or the days preceding. Judaism was made up of a number of different groups (sects is not exactly appropriate). When the Temple was destroyed, it eliminated practically all of them. A fallen Satan was mainstream then. It isn't now. I'm not saying that something is Jewish simply because it exists in non-canonical texts, I'm saying it is because it appears to have been pretty wide-spread at the time. For me, that's a pretty big difference.

But there were a large number of Christians in the early days who did not believe that Jesus was born divine. It was a big enough controversy that people were killing each other in the streets over it. It wasn't until the conversion of Constantine and the forced convening of the Council of Nicea that the thing got settled and even then the vote was close. I'm not saying this in order to argue against the divinity of Jesus. My only point is that its hard to say what is Jewish or Christian and what is not. And if you're going to argue that the fall of Satan is a Jewish idea, you certainly have a basis for it but it opens you up to a similar argument about Christ's divinity.

No*s said:
It may well be the interpretation you prefer, but this paragraph tells me you don't understand the Christian interpretation.

Again, I would argue that there is no the Christian interpretation. There are many Christian interpretations and I don't claim to understand all of them.

No*s said:
Well, actually, not every Christian denies that angels have freewill. I've met Catholics that ascribe some to them. Mine does. So, we do believe in free will in angels. The article in question actively ascribes freewill to angels by stating they say "I will not serve." That is a choice. I believe what we deny is that they have passions like us, which is a little different than freewill.

If one doesn't deny that angels have free will, then I agree that it's not a problem to believe in fallen angels.

No*s said:
Also, I've never heard a Christian say that angels are almost as powerful as God. Not Roman Catholic, not Protestant, and not Orthodox. That would be odd indeed.

Sorry, that was the non-Christian in me peeping thru. I did not mean to imply that that was part of any Christian doctrine. My comment was from an outsider's perspective looking at the idea that there is a battle being waged for the souls of men. Even tho it is believed that God is more powerful and will vanquish Satan and the damned in the end, I look at the Protestant belief that most souls will end up in Hell and only a few will go to heaven, and I can't help but think in some ways they think that Satan is more powerful, even if they would never consciously say such a thing. Since Catholicism does not teach that most souls go to hell, this isn't an issue there. And I imagine the same is true for Eastern Orthodox.

No*s said:
"The Devil made me do it" was created not by Christianity, but by a comedian. It has always been taught that we may resist temptations, whether they come from us or demons. It doesn't remove our own responsability at all, unless we remove our free will.

The problems you have, they aren't problems that we have. None of them are statements made by Christians (well, you'll probably find some fringe Christians that will...but there's a fringe group saying any conceivable thing). Orthodox Catholics teach otherwise, and so do Roman Catholics.

No*s, I've only had limited exposure to Orthodox Christian beliefs - one person that I met on another religious forum and a fellow student in a class last semester. (So I must admit that I am particularly interested in the ideas that you present.) From my limited exposure, I get the idea that Orthodox beliefs are much more similar to Catholic beliefs than to Protestant, and a world away from certain Fundamentalist beliefs. Thus, you may think what I've written is highly peculiar. But please believe me when I say that I know from experience that it is not just a fringe group of Christians who are willing to abdicate moral responsibility and blame it on the Devil. There are still even hardcore Calvinists out there who deny that we humans have free will. I know that the Orthodox and Catholic churches teach otherwise, which is something that I love you guys for!

No*s · Jan 15, 2005

lilithu said:
But there were a large number of Christians in the early days who did not believe that Jesus was born divine. It was a big enough controversy that people were killing each other in the streets over it. It wasn't until the conversion of Constantine and the forced convening of the Council of Nicea that the thing got settled and even then the vote was close. I'm not saying this in order to argue against the divinity of Jesus. My only point is that its hard to say what is Jewish or Christian and what is not. And if you're going to argue that the fall of Satan is a Jewish idea, you certainly have a basis for it but it opens you up to a similar argument about Christ's divinity.

I must concede strength to this argument. There is a fundamental difference here. Christianity was "organized" from day one. It started with bishops, gained deacons, and by the end priests. It also had a system of beliefs passed down in an organized fashion. As a result, it was pretty conservative (you should read some of the debates when they first introduced pews in the West lol).

Arius, in the fourth century, began teaching something that was technically in line with much of what was written. However, it was something that was foreign to Christianity. It hadn't been taught before, so Arianism shattered into sects like Protestantism, but unlike the Prots it dissolved.

I do cede your point, though. I just have this inane tendency to dispute things

. It drives the people around me nuts. A very good difference would probably be what books are "Scripture." In Orthodoxy, we have little to call on for canon (the Seventh Ecumenical Council including the Qunisextit Council) to settle the matter. As a result, there are multiple canons within us, another in Roman Catholicism, and a pretty liberal one in Protestantism. Which is the Christian canon? It can be pretty hard to tell.

lilithu said:
Again, I would argue that there is no the Christian interpretation. There are many Christian interpretations and I don't claim to understand all of them.

That really depends on one's view of history, actually. If Christianity started out as a heterogenous bunch of sects, then there is no interpretation. If, however, the Apostles taught men, these men taught other men, and so on, preserving its teachings, then you can find some interpretations you can apply "the" to. However, this doesn't apply to all interpretations, obviously.

lilithu said:
If one doesn't deny that angels have free will, then I agree that it's not a problem to believe in fallen angels.

Glad that's done

.

lilithu said:
Sorry, that was the non-Christian in me peeping thru. I did not mean to imply that that was part of any Christian doctrine. My comment was from an outsider's perspective looking at the idea that there is a battle being waged for the souls of men. Even tho it is believed that God is more powerful and will vanquish Satan and the damned in the end, I look at the Protestant belief that most souls will end up in Hell and only a few will go to heaven, and I can't help but think in some ways they think that Satan is more powerful, even if they would never consciously say such a thing. Since Catholicism does not teach that most souls go to hell, this isn't an issue there. And I imagine the same is true for Eastern Orthodox.

Yes, I can see that point. Orthodoxy doesn't make too much of a statement. You can find anything from people who deny everyone outside Orthodoxy to people who accept quite a few. We don't have official statements. What Roman Cathlicism and we agree on pertinent to this discussion is that it isn't simply a contest for our souls. For some reason, God allowed Satan and his angels to fall before us (I dont' guess the mind of God), and He allowed us to fall. As a result, we are subject to them in many places. It is a contest of souls, of sorts, but it isn't one of "God cast the vote for you, the Devil cast one against you, and you cast the deciding vote." That's a little simplistic.

I can understand where you're coming from, though.

lilithu said:
No*s, I've only had limited exposure to Orthodox Christian beliefs - one person that I met on another religious forum and a fellow student in a class last semester. (So I must admit that I am particularly interested in the ideas that you present.) From my limited exposure, I get the idea that Orthodox beliefs are much more similar to Catholic beliefs than to Protestant, and a world away from certain Fundamentalist beliefs. Thus, you may think what I've written is highly peculiar. But please believe me when I say that I know from experience that it is not just a fringe group of Christians who are willing to abdicate moral responsibility and blame it on the Devil. There are still even hardcore Calvinists out there who deny that we humans have free will. I know that the Orthodox and Catholic churches teach otherwise, which is something that I love you guys for!

I understand that, and I'd love to discuss those some time, because I can understand the confusion, but I won't on a Roman Catholic board. It's not the place for me to discuss the differences between us. I can understand your peculiuarities, because I came from Protestantism and have had my fair share of exposure to things like Calvinism. It makes perfect sense...some of these can get quite...odd.

To Scott: I apologize. I think the discussion is relevant, but I think that we have overstepped our bounds a little. I've half a mind to start a discussion on this in the debate forum.

t3gah · Jan 15, 2005

lilithu said:
Hi t3gah, namaste.

I thought of that passage when I was first replying, but if I remember correctly, the text doesn't actually call them angels. It says something like "the sons of heaven" looked down and saw that women were beautiful etc. (I'm too lazy at the moment to look it up so I could be wrong about the wording, but I'm quite certain it doesn't say "angels".) Most people assume that was refering to angels, but I didn't want to make that assumption. Don't know what else they could be.

-lilith

[World English Bible]Genesis 6:1 It happened, when men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 that Gods sons saw that mens daughters were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives of all that they chose. 6:3 Yahweh said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; yet will his days be one hundred twenty years. 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when Gods sons came in to mens daughters. They bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God didnt spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 2:5 and didnt spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly;

lilithu · Jan 16, 2005

Hi t3gah, namaste.

Thanks for looking up the verse in question (Gen 6:1-). But I'm sorry, I don't see how your second verse explains the first. You will have to spell it out for me, if you have the patience. How do we know that "God's sons" refers specifically to angels? As I said, I agree that it's a very reasonable interpretation but I don't see the proof.

-lilith

lilithu · Jan 16, 2005

Namaste, No*s!

No*s said:
I must concede strength to this argument. There is a fundamental difference here. Christianity was "organized" from day one. It started with bishops, gained deacons, and by the end priests. It also had a system of beliefs passed down in an organized fashion. As a result, it was pretty conservative (you should read some of the debates when they first introduced pews in the West lol).

I don't wish to argue this with you. It is neither the appropriate place nor do I see anything to be gained by it. So I'll just say that I understand that this is the Orthodox (and Catholic) view but this is not what I believe.

No*s said:
Arius, in the fourth century, began teaching something that was technically in line with much of what was written. However, it was something that was foreign to Christianity. It hadn't been taught before, so Arianism shattered into sects like Protestantism, but unlike the Prots it dissolved.

I wasn't just refering to Arianism. There are many books that did not make it into the canon, some of which paint Jesus in a much more human way.

No*s said:
I do cede your point, though. I just have this inane tendency to dispute things . It drives the people around me nuts.

No problem! I am the same way. It's the academic in me, always looking for what's wrong with an argument even when I agree with the main point. And people who aren't used to it can find it offputting.

No*s said:
That really depends on one's view of history, actually. If Christianity started out as a heterogenous bunch of sects, then there is no interpretation. If, however, the Apostles taught men, these men taught other men, and so on, preserving its teachings, then you can find some interpretations you can apply "the" to.

I know enough about Orthodox teachings to inderstand that this is the Orthodox view, but I am coming at it from the viewpoint of an academic, and have been taught that there was indeed a heterogenous bunch of sects at the beginning which then gave way to one church - the catholic, ie - universal church (which then split between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic).

No*s said:
For some reason, God allowed Satan and his angels to fall before us (I dont' guess the mind of God), and He allowed us to fall. As a result, we are subject to them in many places.

The Fall was inevitable once God gave us free will. There need be no other reason and to question why is erroneous.

No*s said:
It is a contest of souls, of sorts, but it isn't one of "God cast the vote for you, the Devil cast one against you, and you cast the deciding vote." That's a little simplistic. I can understand where you're coming from, though.

That's actually not what I meant. I mean if some interpretations are right and only 144,000 (for example) are saved, then come Judgement Day, God ends up with 144,000 while Satan ends up with billions. That to me, calls into question which one is more powerful. But as I said, it's not an issue for Catholics or Orthodox christians or any other christians who don't place a limit upon God's love.

No*s said:
To Scott: I apologize. I think the discussion is relevant, but I think that we have overstepped our bounds a little. I've half a mind to start a discussion on this in the debate forum.

I too apologize for going off-topic (even as I perpetuate it). I don't usually pay much attention to what is on or off topic but since I feel like a guest in the Catholic forum, I'm more aware of my rudeness. I would be happy to return to the original topic of angels and demons by asking No*s what the Orthodox responses would be to Robtex's questions.

-lilith

No*s · Jan 16, 2005

lilithu said:
I too apologize for going off-topic (even as I perpetuate it). I don't usually pay much attention to what is on or off topic but since I feel like a guest in the Catholic forum, I'm more aware of my rudeness. I would be happy to return to the original topic of angels and demons by asking No*s what the Orthodox responses would be to Robtex's questions. -lilith

That is likely to be the same as the Roman Catholic, so I'm willing to offer that. We drifted way too off-topic. That's why I don't normally post in boards I don't have reason to be in. I'm too argumenative

.

robtex said:
Those darn demons. First they take down the links on this forum next thing you know they will converting believers into atheists........

Scott, if Angles are as apparent as God, (pure form) why use them at all as messengers? God is everywhere but he sends angels?

The standard Orthodox answer: I don't know.

robtex said:
Does the church name any of these angels? If God made angels so much better (by the description in the article) than man...why bother making Man at all? Angels sound a lot more entertaining for a divine being to associate with .

Where (text wise) did the Catholic church first get the notion of the existance of this race? If a demon is a fallen angel is Lucifer a demon? Or did I misread that?

Yes, and it is present in both traditions. I can't remember all their names, though

. I'm too lax there.

Why make man? Why make anything? That same answer of "I don't know" comes in.

Where does the notion of the race come from? Now that, ultimately comes from revelation, and it proceeds back to ancient Judaism. That is where the names for the angels come from, and the term "fallen angel" is pretty interchangeable with "demon."

I believe Roman Catholicism shares those, and on the "I don't knows," it may be more specific (I no doubt can find Fathers who are).

t3gah · Jan 28, 2005

lilithu said:
looked down and saw that women were beautiful

'looked down from heaven'. they are either angels, seraph's or cherubs. all messengers of god. all sons of god but in heaven.

lilithu said:
Thanks for looking up the verse in question (Gen 6:1-). But I'm sorry, I don't see how your second verse explains the first. You will have to spell it out for me, if you have the patience. How do we know that "God's sons" refers specifically to angels? As I said, I agree that it's a very reasonable interpretation but I don't see the proof.

-lilith

Son of man are all humans. Son of God are all angels. Gabriel, Michael, the two angels that got Lot out of Sodom, all sons of God. Except there's two scriptures that state the Adam is also a Son of God and that's in John and Matthew. So in the case of Adam he's also a Son of God.

The scriptures I quoted point to the 'angels that forgot their place'. Their punishment became Tartarus.

2 Peter 2:4,5 is talking about those sons of god, the world at hand then, noah and what happened. Are they angels? what else could they be? There is no mention of any other type of beings except God's angels and humans in the scriptures. There's another scripture that says the morning stars or daystars all shouted with glee when God made the green grass shout forth and made people, etc.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God didnt spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 2:5 and didnt spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly;

t3gah · Jan 28, 2005

robtex said:
Scott, if Angels are as apparent as God, (pure form) why use them at all as messengers? God is everywhere but he sends angels?

One answer might be the scripture that states that no man may see god and yet live.

Also, God has not always sent an angel. In the tabernacle God spoke to Moses and Aaron while stationed over the ark of the covenant. God also spoke to Moses on many occasions far away and long away in time from the burning bush incident.

Angels and Demons

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

Veteran Member

The Devil's Advocate

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Devil's Advocate

The Devil's Advocate

Captain Obvious

The Devil's Advocate

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

The Devil's Advocate

The Devil's Advocate

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member