On Fallen Angels

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
15,150
Reaction score
4,784
Points
108
Location
London UK
This from notes on the DBH translation of the New Testament:

During the intertestamental period, before the “official” canon of Hebrew scripture was generally established for either Jews or Christians, among the most influential holy texts for both communities were visionary books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, which (among many other things) recount the apostasy and punishment of various angels and their offspring in the days after the expulsion of Adam and Eve, and the evils these angelic dissidents visited upon the world—the ultimate consequence of which was the flood, sent by God to rescue the world from the iniquity they had set loose.

The idea of a pre-cosmic fall of the Archangel “Lucifer” or “Satan” was a later development of Christian thought (cf Luke 10:18; 2 Peter 1:19; Revelation 22:6).

In the flood narratives known to the earliest Christians, the only angelic rebellion was that of those “sons of Elohim,” or angels, who, according to Genesis 6:2, were drawn by the beauty of “the daughters of men” to wed them; and according to these texts the mysterious “nefilim” of Genesis 6:6 (understood as monstrous giants) ‘were the children sired by these angels on human women. According to 1 Enoch there were two hundred of these sons of Elohim, or “Watchers,” who abandoned God’s heavenly court, led by a Watcher called Semyaza; they not only became fathers of the nefilim, but taught their human wives to practice sorcery; sorcery; and one of them, Azazel, taught humanity how to make weapons, jewelry, and cosmetics (with predictably dire results).

On being informed of these transgressions by four of his Archangels, God sent the Archangel Michael to imprison the celestial dissidents in the darkness below and to slay the nefilim; but the ghosts of the nefilim then became the demons that now haunt the world.

According to the book of Jubilees, the angels who became enchanted with the beauty of human women were angels of a lower order assigned to govern the natural elements and kinds of this cosmos. In that version of the tale, the celestial angels imprisoned these fallen cosmic angels in the dark below to await the final judgment, while the nefilim were driven to fall upon and kill one another. After the flood, however, the ghosts of the ‘nefilim were still wandering the earth as demons under their leader, Mastema or Beliar (assuming these are the same figure).

When God ordered these bound in prison as well, Mastema prevailed on him to allow a tenth of their number to continue roaming the world till the last day, so as to test humanity and punish the wicked; and thus Mastema comes to serve as “a satan” (that is, an Accuser) in this age, The reference to Christ journeying to these spirits to make his proclamation to them seems to echo the account of Enoch journeying to their abode in order to proclaim God’s condemnation upon them (in chapters 12-15 of 1 Enoch).
 
I see this tradition going back to Zostrian/Parsic//ancient Persian myth. The "Minor Spirit" (Shaitan) opposed the "Major Spirit" (God). The "Major Spirit" accepted the challenge for "1000"years. The Parsic traditions have been written down late in the Khorda Bundahishn, but I think that they have already been told around 400 BCE, in the Jewish 2nd Temple period.
The later traditions on the fall of Iblis(commonly identified with the devil, although the name is different from Shaitan) have been even quoted (I would say, as an illustration) in the Quran.

I understand that as a myth. But what does it mean to us?
 
I'd say that is determined by how we read 'myth'.

Our stories from antiquity come from a time when told tales of living out our brief lives in the presence of the immortal powers, under their sometimes benevolent but often baleful gaze – The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

(The term 'person' derives via the Etruscan Phersu, meaning the mask worn by an actor in performance; the Latin Persona means 'actor's mask' or 'character in a play'. The Greek Prosopa means 'face' or 'mask'. The idea of 'a person' as a self-determining conscious being is very late, a post-Christian development. Curiously, the Chriostological disputes fed into this philosophical development of the individual.)

'Histories', as a term we understand today, the forensic records of events in ordinary time, came much, much later.

Myths are the histories we told of the time before time.

By "once upon a time" we should immediately understood not a time in the sense of tempus or chronos, but rather in that “age” (aevum, aion) that lies in the interval between our time and eternity.

In Genesis 2, for example, YHWH Elohim "took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Genesis 2:16)

It was the Gods who taught us to speak of ourselves as placed within nature but also somehow set apart from it.

Myths recall the time, that once long ago existed, when anthropomorphic deities and theomorphic human beings walked, as it were, and talked. In those tales, where the Gods told us about our origins, taught us to think for ourselves, and offered salutary warnings about the calamities that lie in wait, that even they could not avoid ... those myths shape who and what we are, even today.

We cannot escape them. They are our Dreamtime. It's no coincidence that the Greek Myths encompass the archetypes of human psychologies.

We cannot escape the fact we are narrative creatures, and the most powerful and natural narrative idiom is the myth – it shapes us entirely.

+++

And they are true, in their own sense, and real, in a way our modern histories are not.

+++

Myth is the most real, the most true and the most beautiful narrative form.
 
People is that we go and look of the name of the devils. We see some are biblical and other are not even though their are evidence of demons in the world. Lucifer is not his name remember it latin for lightbringer. Does lucifer have name ? Hollywood has invented many lies about him. Satan is not his name it means enemy or oppositor. He has a name and it will not be told but. Do fallen angels are in the bible. Yes they are and are mention in rea life world. They have ?
 
Lucifer does NOT mean "lightbearer"; that is a title reserved for Christ, The Light of the World.

Lucifer drew a third of the angels of heaven into his army with his tales/lies (Rev. 12:3-4), and led a coup attempt against God and Prince Michael/Christ 6000 years ago (Isa. 14:12-17; Rev. 12:7-9), before being cast out to the EARTH, along with the angels (Beings - Matt. 7:11; Luke 9:55) that fought with Lucifer/Satan.

That is why Lucifer is referred to by his titles the "devil" (liar) and "Satan" (the Opposer), as well as the red dragon, and serpent, the prince of darkness (this world), etc.
 
Lucifer does NOT mean "lightbearer"; that is a title reserved for Christ, The Light of the World.
Actually, it does.

Lucifer appears in the 4th century Latin translation of the Bible, as the Latin word lucifer means "the morning star", with reference to the planet Venus. It is a translation of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל, hêlēl, meaning "Shining One".

The Latin corresponds to the Greek names Φωσφόρος, phosphoros, light-bringer" and Ἑωσφόρος, eosphorus, "dawn-bringer" – again in reference to astronomical observations of Venus.

While the Latin 'Lucifer' was later absorbed into Christianity as a name for the Devil, derived from Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!", Lucifer was then seen as an archangel who led the rebellion in heaven and fell.

In the New Testament, any reference to the Day Star is in reference to Christ, as you say, but this appelation is subsequent to the Hebrew, Latin and Greek understanding of the term.
 
Actually, it does.

Lucifer appears in the 4th century Latin translation of the Bible, as the Latin word lucifer means "the morning star", with reference to the planet Venus. It is a translation of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל, hêlēl, meaning "Shining One".

The Latin corresponds to the Greek names Φωσφόρος, phosphoros, light-bringer" and Ἑωσφόρος, eosphorus, "dawn-bringer" – again in reference to astronomical observations of Venus.

While the Latin 'Lucifer' was later absorbed into Christianity as a name for the Devil, derived from Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!", Lucifer was then seen as an archangel who led the rebellion in heaven and fell.

In the New Testament, any reference to the Day Star is in reference to Christ, as you say, but this appelation is subsequent to the Hebrew, Latin and Greek understanding of the term.
Wrong again.

Anyone who believes the worldly propaganda that the prince of darkness is somehow the "lightbearer" is quite obviously among the spiritually blind being led by the blind, and still defending Lucifer/Satan after 6000 years.

Christ is The Light of this World. Period.
 
Lucifer does NOT mean "lightbearer"; that is a title reserved for Christ, The Light of the World.

Lucifer drew a third of the angels of heaven into his army with his tales/lies (Rev. 12:3-4), and led a coup attempt against God and Prince Michael/Christ 6000 years ago (Isa. 14:12-17; Rev. 12:7-9), before being cast out to the EARTH, along with the angels (Beings - Matt. 7:11; Luke 9:55) that fought with Lucifer/Satan.

That is why Lucifer is referred to by his titles the "devil" (liar) and "Satan" (the Opposer), as well as the red dragon, and serpent, the prince of darkness (this world), etc.
Yes it does big guy! Where have you been?


Lucifer = "light-bearer"

  1. shining one, morning star, Lucifer
 
Yes it does big guy! Where have you been?


Lucifer = "light-bearer"

  1. shining one, morning star, Lucifer
I'm well aware of what Lucifer/Satan has duped people into writing to glorify himself. That doesn't make it so; it only illustrates the sad state of the world today that people defend such total nonsense.
 
Revelation 2:. 26 And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—

27 ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—
as I also have received from My Father; 28 and I will give him the morning star.

29 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

 
I'm well aware of what Lucifer/Satan has duped people into writing to glorify himself. That doesn't make it so; it only illustrates the sad state of the world today that people defend such total nonsense.
And some guy in the 20th century figured out that 2000 years of church history.. doctrine and bible translations were wrong. I don't know what God you believe in but mine would not allow it.
 
And some guy in the 20th century figured out that 2000 years of church history.. doctrine and bible translations were wrong. I don't know what God you believe in but mine would not allow it.
Several throughout the centuries. Always treated as heretics or forced to create spinoffs when they see something in doctrine that doesn't make sense to them/that they think might be wrong.

I mean one could argue that church teachings were innovations that claimed Judaism was wrong, and additionally didn't even directly address whether or not Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or any other ancient religion with thousands of years of orthodoxy were right or wrong...
 
Wrong again.

Anyone who believes the worldly propaganda that the prince of darkness is somehow the "lightbearer" is quite obviously among the spiritually blind being led by the blind, and still defending Lucifer/Satan after 6000 years.
No, no, no. You fail to understand
The word Lucifer, refers to light. Every other word like it does, like the name Lux or Lucy.
I'm not quite sure whether the bible outright equates Satan with Lucifer, though there seems to be strong tradition assuming it.
Nobody is saying what you seem to be implying. They just know the etymology of the word. You don't? How can that be?
 
The possesion of boy in new testament they call themselves legion. that part of chapter. and the other one biblically is king Saul that he an evil spirit. They are but interpretation is that an evil spirit. Really is the word the demon correct or fallen angel that is why we have discussion.

Robbie Mannheim: A boy who was the subject of an exorcism in 1949, which inspired The Exorcist
they say this one Pazazu.

The Loudun possessions, a witchcraft trial in 1634 in the Kingdom of France.

They are other names but if they do happen and more.
 
Here a man who has gone and exorcism even though you see this the world will keep denying Satan exist and demons exist.


Gabriele Amorth is man who has exorcism many people some will tell ya not all of them exorcise and didn't have demons but he has met Lucifer morningstar and did have exorcise many that did. Many won't believe him but those things do happen that the devil has brothers who are like him.
 
interpretation is that an evil spirit. Really is the word the demon correct or fallen angel that is why we have discussion.
right some people seem to offer the idea of a fallen angel, others the idea of other kinds of malevolent spirits
a number of religions have some idea of malevolent spirits, are they talking about the same thing? Do you know?
In Islam, if I'm not mistaken, there is the concept of beings called "djinn" which can be malevolent but are sometimes neutral and sometimes not really bad at all. To your knowledge are these the same or different?
What about earth based religions or folktales where people spoke of faerie beings or other beings. Do you think they are associated with anything remotely like what you call demons, or totally separate?
What about ghosts?
What about various paranormal phenomenon?
See, some people claim these things are "demons" others insist they are separate, or that other phenomenon better explain what some religions refer to as "demons"
I suspect there are all sorts of supernatural entities of all kinds, "more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of of our philosophies" to paraphrase Hamlet, but humans have nothing to hold onto about this but stories. Very, very little in the way of actual data or anything consistent that would help people get a handle on what any of this actually is.
 
Here a man who has gone and exorcism even though you see this the world will keep denying Satan exist and demons exist.


Gabriele Amorth is man who has exorcism many people some will tell ya not all of them exorcise and didn't have demons but he has met Lucifer morningstar and did have exorcise many that did. Many won't believe him but those things do happen that the devil has brothers who are like him.
uh, yeah... I skimmed the article to get an overview, and this guy actually out and out says that "yoga" is ""evil"" 🧐 because it supposedly leads to "practicing Hinduism" (data on this?) which he claims is ""false"" because of its ""false teachings"" of reincarnation and that it is somehow relevant to "evil" like ""reading Harry Potter leading to evil""😒

uh, yea... no. This guy is taking it many, many bridges too far.

I think a good, solid book written by serious people who have interviewed many exorcists might be helpful.

For example if a believing faithful Jew interviewed a number of exorcists from the Catholic church or other traditions -- I like the idea of someone who is some kind of believer asking serious respectful deep questions of members from another faith -- they will share some of the same ideas but not the same biases. I think that difference will help correct biases.

What we need is more data on this kind of stuff. Some people believe it deeply, others dismiss it, I think more information, presented in an analytical and serious way (not dramatized, not evangelized, just serious assessments) I think that would help.
 
Back
Top