Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

YOU BLUE-EYED DEMON!

Donations

Total amount
$1,642.00
Goal
$5,080.00

jeremiah1five

 
Member
I post this to show that what we think as true just may not be and that only an open mind who is serious about the truth of Scripture and
In Shakespeare's "Hamlet" the main figure of this play, Hamlet replies to Horatio, " “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
He is suggesting that the human imagination is limited and that there are many things we don’t know, things that haven’t been discovered and, in fact, things we haven’t even dreamt of.


"DEMONS"
Part One

There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word "demon" or "devils" (for example, "demons": Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; "goat-demons": Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; "devils": 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think "demons" when they read things like "an evil spirit," even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).

In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.

This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.

Idols and Demons

A good place to begin is Deuteronomy 32:16-17:

16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. (NRSV)
Hebrew text







The Hebrew word translated "demons" in verse 17 (שׁד, seed) occurs here in the plural with the preposition "to" and vocalized with the definite article "the" (לשּׁדים, lassedim), which gives us "to the demons."

It is important to be aware that translation is not a matter of finding a single word in one language that translates another word in another language. Translation is more often the translation of ideas and concepts rather than merely words, and there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of single words between languages. This is especially true of languages that are separated by 3,000 years of history and culture.

Also, there are other features of language besides just the words that affect translation. Words do not have fixed or inherent meaning in any language. The historical and cultural context in which they are used, the literary features that accompany them, the topics they are used to address, even who is speaking or writing the words can all affect "meaning," what a term communicates and how it is to be understood. There are many words in English that can take on different meanings in different circumstances, or that can be used as technical terms in one context and yet take on a more common meaning in another context.

Take for example the simple English verb "run." It has a fairly simple meaning in most contexts, referring to a human action, "to go faster than a walk." However, in different contexts it can refer to what a candidate does in a political campaign, to play a musical passage quickly, to go back and forth or spread out between two points, to melt, to remain constant, to penetrate or slip through, etc. It is usually a context or contexts, as well as other terms in that context, that give us clues to which meaning is meant.

Rather than complicating the meaning, in many places in Hebrew Scriptures some of these features actually help us better understand the meaning of a term no matter what English word we use to translate it. There is one unique and prominent feature of Hebrew writing that is especially helpful in providing a context for the meaning of words. It is known as parallelism, in which ideas are related and emphasized by the grouping of synonyms or antonyms (see Parallelism in Hebrew Writing).

Along with the term translated "demons," in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:16-17 there are a whole series of terms with similar meaning ("synonymous parallelism") that will help us understand how the writer is using the term שׁד (seed). In these two verses, there are four other parallel terms and phrases that are used with the word translated as "demons":

strange or foreign gods (זרים, zariym)
abhorrent things (תועבת, to‘eybot)
demons (לשּׁדים, lashshediym)
gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)
new ones [recently come {of whom} your fathers were not afraid] (חדשים, chadashim,)

The first of these parallel terms is simply the word "strange" (or "stranger") or "foreign" ("foreigner"). It is most often used of things that present a threat to the community, such as foreign people who are enemies (Hos 7:9, Isa 1:7, Jer 5:19, etc.), prostitutes ("strange women," Prov 2:16), or things that violate custom or law ("strange fire," Lev 10:1, Num 3:4; "strange incense," Ex 30:9). In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).

The same is true of the second term, "abhorrent things." This term is often used to refer generally to the whole practice of Baal worship that included cult objects like household idols, images, sacred poles, trees, and high places, as well as sexual practices of the fertility religion, which were all "abhorrent" or "offensive" to Israelites (Lev. 18:22, Deut 7:25, 1 King 14:24, etc).

The final two terms also refer to the gods of Canaan with which the Israelites had come into contact only after their entry into the land (for the time frame of Deuteronomy see The Book of Deuteronomy; the "golden calf" or bull in Exodus 32 may have reflected Egyptian religious beliefs). In this sense they were "new" gods that the people "did not know" before.

It seems obvious in this context from these parallel terms that the term translated "demons" also refers to the gods of the surrounding peoples that posed a threat to Israel’s worship of Yahweh. In this passage in Deuteronomy, the wider context is an appeal, in the form of recounting Israel’s failure to worship God and their practice of worshipping the idols of Canaan, to worship God properly as the only God.



Conclusion

In summary, there is no Hebrew word that can be translated as "demons" to communicate what that word implies in English. There does lie behind the Old Testament conception a basic animistic and mythological world view with which the Israelites are in dialog. But they are using the terms and in dialog with such conceptions, not because they accept them or are dominated by them, but precisely to deny the validity of such mythological world views. The biblical writers use the terms, not to accept what they represent, but precisely to reject it. It is clear that there was a popular belief among Israelites in such things as ghosts and the mythological creatures of Canaanite religion. But the biblical tradition as it stands moves beyond such popular mythological conceptions to a vision of a Creator, a sovereign God who is in sole control of the world, and does not share that with anything or anyone. So again, there are no "demons" in the Old Testament, with what that word implies in modern popular English, only idols that are rejected as "no-gods."

CONTINUED BELOW
 
"DEMONS"
(Part Two)


The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these "demons" or "strange gods" or "abhorrent things" that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):

32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.

This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as "demons" does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are "no god."

In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: "they sacrificed to demons, not God." This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed "to the demons" instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated "they sacrificed to demons that are not god," which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).

In any case, a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šędu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear.

It is instructive, then, to note that LXX translates שׁד (seed) in Deuteronomy 32:17 with δαιμονίοις (daimoniois, "demons"), not in the context of "demonic powers" or minions of the devil as we want to hear the term, or even in the context of the NT usage, but in the context of mythological creatures that are specifically stated to be "no-god" (ου θεω, ou theo). In other words, even though the Greek translation uses a term that sounds much closer to our word "demons," the meaning is not what that word means to us in English, but rather what the Hebrew term communicates.

Further, the word שׁד (seed) only occurs twice in the MT, here in Deuteronomy 32:17 and in Psalm 106:36-37. It is no accident that the context in the Psalm is precisely the same as the Deuteronomy passage; that is, the condemnation of the Israelites for worshipping the idols of foreign deities.

Psalm 106:36 They served their idols and they became a hindrance to them; 37 they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons. 38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.

Once again, parallelism gives us some indication of the meaning of the word. The Hebrew word שׁד (seed) in verse 36 is parallel to the word עצבים (‘atsabim), "idols" or "graven images, and in verse 38 to עצבי כנען (‘atsabey kená‘an), "idols of Canaan." Clearly, שׁד (seed) is related to the gods of the Canaanites. And again the Septuagint translates שּׁדים (sedim) by τοις δαιμονιοις (tois daimoniois) to describe these false gods of the Canaanites, as is clear from the latter part of the verse.

So, it can be concluded that the Hebrew term שׁד (seed) is a loanword from the mythology of the surrounding peoples. Originally, it referred to the mythological creatures of Canaanite and Assyrian religion that were representations of various gods. In biblical usage, it becomes synonymous with "idol," a pejorative way to refer to Canaanite deities.

CONTINUED BELOW

 
"DEMONS"
(Part Three)

Goats and Satyrs

In other places, other Hebrew terms are sometimes also translated as "demons." However, in every case, the context of the term is an attack upon the idolatrous practices of Baal worship, or a negative reference to Canaanite mythology. For example, in 2 Chronicles 11:15, an account of the pagan practices introduced by Jeroboam in the Northern Kingdom, the KJV translates "devils" for a different Hebrew term.

11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. (KJV)

11:15 and had appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons, and for the calves that he had made. (NRSV)

Here the Hebrew word translated "devils" in the KJV or "goat-demons" in the NRSV is שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). The most common meaning of the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is "goat," specifically "he-goat" or buck (for example, Gen 37:1; Lev 4:24, etc.; 53 times in the MT). A feminine form of the word occurs twice to refer to "she-goat" (Lev 4:28, 5:6). The root of this word in Hebrew is the word שׂער (se‘ar), which means "hair," either of animals (Gen 25:25) or of persons (Ju 16:22). Another derived cognate of this word is the word שׂערה (se‘orah), which is usually translated "barley," that is, a hairy or bearded grain. The connotation of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is that of a "hairy" animal, which is appropriate since many goats in the Middle East are longhaired or Angora goats.

However, there are four occurrences in the Hebrew text where the term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) takes on a slightly different shade of meaning (2 Chron 11:15, Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, and 34:14) while at the same time retaining the basic meaning of "he-goat." Leviticus 17:7 reads:

Lev 17:7 . . . they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves . . ..

The context here is the regulation of the killing and eating of meat, specifically prohibiting the killing of animals in the open fields or even within the camp without subsuming the taking of life under the covenantal worship of God. Directly forbidden in verse seven is the offering of sacrifices to the "he-goats" instead of to Yahweh. It becomes clear, then, that the "he-goat" is not just an ordinary goat, but refers to something that is a false object of worship, especially with the term "prostitute" that is commonly used in the Old Testament to describe graphically the unfaithfulness of the people in worshipping pagan gods.

In 2 Chronicles 11:15,שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is connected with "calves" and "high places" that are both associated with pagan Canaanite religious practices. Likewise, in Leviticus 17:7, "he-goat" refers to idolatrous images, either physically represented or part of Canaanite mythology.

The two other occurrences of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) are both in Isaiah (13:21; 34:14). Although in a different context with a different emphasis, the meaning is similar in both passages.

13:21 But wild animals will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will live, and there goat-demons will dance. 13:22 Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand, and its days will not be prolonged.

34:13 Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals, an abode for ostriches. 34:14 Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest. 34:15 There shall the owl nest and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow; there too the buzzards shall gather, each one with its mate.

In both passages the emphasis is on wild animals that inhabit the desolate places of the desert. These verses are highly poetic descriptions of the desolation of the land under God’s judgment, specifically Babylon (ch. 13) and Edom (ch. 34). The imagery is that of cities being so thoroughly destroyed and overgrown with thorns that only wild animals live there. Among the wild animals, the Hebrew text refers to שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). While it could be argued that the term refers to the ordinary goat, this was a domesticated animal in biblical times. Even though it wandered the hillsides, it was not really a "wild" animal. In other words, "goat" does not fit the imagery here to symbolize devastated and uninhabitable land.

Some versions (for example, KJV) translate שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these verses not as "devils" or "evil spirits" or even "he-goat" but as "satyr". The satyr is a legendary creature that shows up in the mythologies of various cultures of the ancient world as the guardian of holy places or deities, or as the personification of debauchery and revelry. It was portrayed as half-human and half-animal, usually with the feet, tail and ears of a longhaired goat or horse and the torso, head and arms of a man. In Greek mythology, the satyrs were the escorts, guardians, and companions of the god Dionysus, the god of mirth, wine, and revelry. They were thought to inhabit the countryside, especially waste areas and ruins. The Greek god Pan was often portrayed in paintings as a satyr.

Much of what we know about satyrs in ancient mythology comes from Greek and Roman sources. Yet, there seems to be some connection between the idea of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in the ancient Middle East and the satyr in western mythology. Some have even suggested a linguistic connection between the terms. In any case, the Hebrew term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these four verses seems to refer to mythological creatures from Canaanite religion, false idols that the people worshipped instead of Yahweh.

There are overtones in the Isaiah passages of the mythological creatures associated with these particular animals, for example the idea of the satyr behind the use of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). However, the real point is that Isaiah is using the creatures as metaphorical symbols of desolation, of destruction, of total devastation that results in a place fit only for wild creatures, real or mythological, who inhabit the humanly uninhabitable places of the earth. This picks up the overtones of "emptiness" that is associated with the idols elsewhere (see below). To read more into this by trying to connect the term with the modern idea of demons is drastically to misunderstand the function of poetic language (sometimes called "mythopoetic" language) in prophetic oracles.

An interesting passage in 2 Kings 23:8 can be further instructive at this point.

23:8 He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on the left at the gate of the city.

CONTINUED BELOW:
 
"DEMONS"
(Part Four)
The context of this passage is the religious reforms of Josiah in which he tore down the pagan altars and idols in response to the discovery of the law book in the temple. The Hebrew text here reads "high places of the gates" (השּׁערים, hashshe‘ariym, "the gates"). However, "gates" does not fit with the meaning of this verse here. Most textual scholars suggest that the letter שׁ(sh) in the Massoretic text should be corrected to the letter שׂ (s). They suggest that the reading of the initial letter שׂ (s) as שׁ (sh) was influenced by the repeated occurrence of the word שׁער (sha‘ar) "gate" in the verse ("gate of Joshua," "gates of the city"). With this correction, the word would read השּׂערים (hasse‘iriym), "satyrs." So, a better translation of this passage is " . . .he broke down the high places of the satyrs that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city . . .

So again the usage of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) indicates reference to a pagan idol that was being improperly worshipped as a symbol of Canaanite deity. This understanding makes 2 Chronicles 11:15 even more clear. The context there is the sin of Jeroboam I in banishing the Levitical priesthood from the Northern Kingdom and setting up idols of bulls and goats for the people to worship. In fact, this idolatry of Jeroboam I in setting up images of animals to represent the gods of the Canaanites became a paradigm in Israelite theology of the sinful ruler who rejected Yahweh to follow the false gods of the land (compare 1 Kings 12:25-33; 16:25-26).

It is again instructive to note the Septuagint rendering of these verses. In 2 Chronicles 11:15, rather than simply translating the Hebrew word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) with another word, the translators attempt to translate the "concept" or the meaning. The Greek reading for שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is "the idols and the worthless" (και τοις ειδωλοις και τοις ματαιοις, kai tois eidolois kai tois mataiois). This clearly indicates that the understanding of the term was pagan idols. Especially interesting here is the use of the nominal adjective ματαιοις (mataiois, "vanities," "emptiness," "worthless things") to describe these idols: they are empty, worthless, powerless things! (Note the use of the nominal form of this word in Ephesians 4:17.) It is with this understanding that we note that the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in Leviticus 17:7 is translated in the Septuagint solely by the word τοις ματαιοις (tois mataiois): "And they shall no longer offer sacrifices to emptiness."

All of this clearly indicates that this word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is not used in Hebrew Scriptures to mean anything close to our idea of "demonic powers" but exclusively to refer to the idols of the pagan deities who were recognized to be nothing or empty, devoid of any power. This negative connotation of the imagery of "he-goat" may well be related to the use of a goat in the Israelite sacrificial system as the bearer of the sins of the people (for example, Lev 16:21-22), although it is impossible to know which way the influence ran.

It can be debated whether Israelites viewed these idols in ontological terms, whether they would ever have asked if the gods they represented "really" existed or not. They would most likely not have asked such a question, since those categories of ultimate reality are alien to the ancient world. They tended to express things in functional terms (what they can do) rather than ontological terms (whether they exist). However, it is clear that the biblical traditions did not view the שׁד (seed) or the שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) as anything to be feared. They simply represented the idols of the Canaanites, which were powerless and could be treated as "emptiness" or "nothing." In Hebrew thought, that comes close to what moderns mean when they say, "does not exist."
 
With out any doubt I know the demonic exists because the Holy Spirit told me .

One night after an encounter on a forum online with a person that left me wondering if they were a person or a demon . I was sitting in my usual spot outside in the darkness to start my prayer time . I had been there a minute of two when I heard this awful wet snarl over my shoulder . The snarl did not sound like any animal I have ever heard or human . But there was no fear on my part because in the middle of the snarl the Holy Spirit said " That is demonic ." The demon could not touch me but they were NOT happy . Remember this verse .
Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
 
In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).

And behind those "gods of foreign peoples" stood who? The "god" of this world, the devil (and his demonic hordes).

2 Corinthians 4:4
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Ephesians 6:10-12
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.
11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

1 Peter 5:8
8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.


John 12:30-31
30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not mine.
31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

Hebrews 2:14
14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

James 4:7
7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.


In summary, there is no Hebrew word that can be translated as "demons" to communicate what that word implies in English. There does lie behind the Old Testament conception a basic animistic and mythological world view with which the Israelites are in dialog. But they are using the terms and in dialog with such conceptions, not because they accept them or are dominated by them, but precisely to deny the validity of such mythological world views. The biblical writers use the terms, not to accept what they represent, but precisely to reject it. It is clear that there was a popular belief among Israelites in such things as ghosts and the mythological creatures of Canaanite religion. But the biblical tradition as it stands moves beyond such popular mythological conceptions to a vision of a Creator, a sovereign God who is in sole control of the world, and does not share that with anything or anyone. So again, there are no "demons" in the Old Testament, with what that word implies in modern popular English, only idols that are rejected as "no-gods."

This is a giant non-sequitur. Because it seems possible to argue along the lines of "mythological conceptions," doing so doesn't necessarily establish such a line as certain, or even particularly plausible. To my mind, this idea of demons as mere mythology is exceedingly weak - especially when taken in concert with the NT and Jesus' several, direct interactions with the demonic.

In any case, demons were acknowledged in the OT, not merely as mythological figments of ancient pagan religions, but as objects of worship:

Leviticus 17:7
7 "They shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations."'

Deuteronomy 32:16-17
16 "They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 "They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread.


Here, the "gods" of pagan worship are identified, not as mere myths, but as demons. Behind the grotesque and bloodthirsty gods of OT paganism were supernatural agents of the devil: demons.

Psalm 106:35-38
35 But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
36 And served their idols, Which became a snare to them.
37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,
38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood.


The Psalmist here acknowledged that OT idols were not mere symbolic embodiments of some pagan concept (fertility, wisdom, war, etc.) to which the Israelites sacrificed their children, but to demons. Why make any distinction between idols and demons if they were essentially synonymous as mere pagan ideas? Why didn't the Psalmist simply continue to refer to idols, as he did both before and after his reference to demons? It seems to me quite apparent that he was clarifying the nature of the object of the sacrifices; that is was not to mere conceptually-representative constructs of wood and stone, but to evil beings - "the demons" - that the Israelites made blood-sacrifices of their sons and daughters. This is certainly a completely justified reading of the text - especially if one is not importing a liberal "wind of doctrine" into one's reading.

Again, taken in tandem with the NT, the merely mythological view of demons mentioned in the OT collapses.

Continued below.
 
The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these "demons" or "strange gods" or "abhorrent things" that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):

32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.

This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as "demons" does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are "no god."

This is another glaring non sequitur; namely, that since an idol doesn't represent an actual "god," it cannot, therefore, represent an actual demon. How does this follow, exactly? People might think that Bob is a certified teacher when he's not, but the fact that he's no such thing doesn't also mean Bob himself doesn't exist. That's just a plainly silly thing to conclude. Likewise, people might think a demon is a "god" when it's not, but the fact that the demon isn't a "god" doesn't mean the demon doesn't exist.

In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: "they sacrificed to demons, not God." This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed "to the demons" instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated "they sacrificed to demons that are not god," which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).

This is all just semantical fussing that doesn't do anything to advance the "demons are mythological" view.

1 Timothy 6:3-4
3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness...
4 ...He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words...


The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all.

And, again, that there are no such things as "gods" doesn't mean there are no such things as demons. See above.

So, it can be concluded that the Hebrew term שׁד (seed) is a loanword from the mythology of the surrounding peoples. Originally, it referred to the mythological creatures of Canaanite and Assyrian religion that were representations of various gods. In biblical usage, it becomes synonymous with "idol," a pejorative way to refer to Canaanite deities.

Actually, you've merely asserted the idea that the Hebrews borrowed from the Assyrian language the word for "demon" but you've by no means proven this assertion.

And the fact that "idols" don't represent actual gods doesn't mean that demons don't exist and are actually the true object of worship behind the "gods" of OT pagan worship.

In any case, the Hebrew term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these four verses seems to refer to mythological creatures from Canaanite religion, false idols that the people worshipped instead of Yahweh.

There are overtones in the Isaiah passages of the mythological creatures associated with these particular animals, for example the idea of the satyr behind the use of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). However, the real point is that Isaiah is using the creatures as metaphorical symbols of desolation, of destruction, of total devastation that results in a place fit only for wild creatures, real or mythological, who inhabit the humanly uninhabitable places of the earth. This picks up the overtones of "emptiness" that is associated with the idols elsewhere (see below). To read more into this by trying to connect the term with the modern idea of demons is drastically to misunderstand the function of poetic language (sometimes called "mythopoetic" language) in prophetic oracles.

King John may have the lion associated with himself, appearing on King John's flags, his signet ring, and his royal heraldry; King John might even have lion statues standing on either side of his throne; but though King John isn't actually a lion himself, and may, in fact, be quite un-lionlike in his general character, it doesn't follow, therefore, that King John doesn't exist. In the same way, though the "gods" of pagan nations around Israel didn't really exist, as such, the demons those "gods" and idols represented were not, therefore, also mere mythological figments.

It can be debated whether Israelites viewed these idols in ontological terms, whether they would ever have asked if the gods they represented "really" existed or not. They would most likely not have asked such a question, since those categories of ultimate reality are alien to the ancient world.

Just asserting this by no means secures it as truth.

A great deal of your linguistic "study" fails completely to advance your basic premise: the OT Hebrews understood that pagan gods did not exist, as such, and so believed that demons did not exist. You haven't, however, actually shown this. In fact, all the "study" of terms appears to be offered in an attempt to obscure from the unskilled reader the fundamental non sequitur underpinning your argument.

And, again, taken in concert with the NT, from the words and deeds of Christ himself, the assertion that demons are mere figments evaporates.

I'm left wondering, too, how the Hebrews, who had seen God act in overt, powerful ways many times, could be persuaded to worship inert, impotent objects that did absolutely nothing in response to all the rites and sacrifices offered to them. Modern accounts of occult demon-worship describe very shocking, concrete and powerful acts by the demonic in response to those seeking them. Similar accounts are recorded in the NT. The OT Hebrews, then, would have to have been exceedingly credulous, even extremely stupid, people to have been drawn away from the active, evident, super-powerful Jehovah into worship of things from which nothing supernatural (that is, demonic) ever resulted. But this isn't how the demonic acted in the NT, nor in present-day occult communities.
 
Tenchi The god of this world is man.

If the angels that sinned are all locked up, then whatever belief the Church has held in the past and today is in error.
Above is the history of these so-called "demons."
If there is no history of "demons" the way the Gentile Church today believes they are then there must be something wrong with the Gentile Churches' beliefs about them.
Everything in the Old Testament is drawn out in the New Testament. But there is no "demons" in the Old Testament the way the Gentile Church believes. It is really a new concept that finds its present form in thought through the leaning of man on his own understanding in the vanity of their minds.
 
If the angels that sinned are all locked up, then whatever belief the Church has held in the past and today is in error.

On what grounds do you say that "the angels that sinned are all locked up"? And how do you square this idea that every demon is locked away with the instances in Scripture - and in human history - that demonstrate that this isn't so?

Also, the "god of this world" is NOT Man.

2 Corinthians 4:4
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


It seems to me quite evident in this verse that the "god of this world" and those whom he blinds to the light of the Gospel are not one-and-the-same thing. Why distinguish the "god of this world" from those who have not yet believed the Gospel, if, essentially, they are synonymous? Paul certainly never indicated in the verse, or its immediate context, that he was using the noun phrase "god of this world" as a way of referring to mankind. This reading has to be forced into the verse, not drawn out of it. A natural reading of the verse leads the reader to understand that the "god of this world" is a being distinct from those he blinds, above them, more powerful than they are, exerting god-like control over the world.

John 12:31
31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.


Was Jesus referring to a human ruler, here? There was no single, "ruler of the world" in Jesus' time on earth. Who, then, was he speaking of in this verse? And when Jesus had accomplished the will of the Father by dying sacrificially for all of mankind, what human ruler was "cast out"? Was Caesar cast out from his place as Roman Emperor upon the completion of the atoning work of Christ at Calvary? No. Centuries would pass before Rome finally collapsed and the role of Caesar ended. So, what did Jesus mean that now the "ruler of this world will be cast out"? Every commentary that I consult about the question of who the "rule of this world" is agrees that this is a reference to the devil (aka - "the god of this world").

Ephesians 2:2
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—


Here, Paul indicated that "following the course of this world," accompanies "following the prince of the power of the air" who is a spirit working in the "sons of disobedience." This spirit bears the title of "prince," and induces people to rebellion toward God. Who is this, exactly? The one called the "god of this world," and the "ruler of this world" in Scripture who has so influenced the world that to follow the world - its values, philosophies and goals - is to follow this "god," and "ruler," and "prince."

Ephesians 6:12
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.


If the devil and all of his angels are shut up in the Pit, how does one make sense of this verse? How can there be "spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places" if the devil and all of his demons are incarcerated? Why did Paul say that believers wrestled against forces and powers that were spiritual, not flesh and blood, if all such evil "cosmic powers" are bound, impotent, in darkness? These powers and forces are above humanity, supernatural, not of humanity, so it's not possible to claim that Paul was referring only to human agencies of authority and power in this verse.

If there is no history of "demons" the way the Gentile Church today believes they are then there must be something wrong with the Gentile Churches' beliefs about them.

Or, alternatively, YOU could be the one who is wrong, misreading Scripture against the millennia-old orthodoxy of Christian belief. This seems to me far more likely than that for two thousand years the general, orthodox understanding of the devil and his demons has been utterly in error.

Everything in the Old Testament is drawn out in the New Testament. But there is no "demons" in the Old Testament the way the Gentile Church believes.

No, the OT is a "shadow" of the "mysteries" revealed in the NT:

Romans 16:25-26
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
26 but has now been disclosed
and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

Ephesians 3:8-10
8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

Colossians 1:25-27
25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.


Even though the "mystery hidden for ages and generations" has now been revealed, we still only "see through a glass darkly." How much darker, then, was the revelation of God in the OT? Much, obviously. So, then, it is a mistake to attempt to set the OT as the clarifying, illuminating lens through which to understand God's revelation of Himself and His truth in the NT. The exact opposite - NT illuminating the OT - is the appropriate order by which to understand divine revelation.

It is really a new concept that finds its present form in thought through the leaning of man on his own understanding in the vanity of their minds.

This is such a bizarre thing to assert in light of the directly contradicting facts of the New Testament. Jesus himself both taught of the devil and the demonic and confronted both the devil and his demons directly, overtly and repeatedly.

Matthew 4:1-11
Matthew 9:32-33
Matthew 12:22
Matthew 12:26-27
Matthew 13:38-39
Matthew 15:21-28
Matthew 17:14-18
Mark 5:1-19
Luke 13:10-17
Luke 22:3
John 8:44
John 13:2


My own grandfather, a pastor for forty years and then a "revivalist" preacher for twenty-five years, wrote a book on the matter of the demonic within the Church. He entitled it "Fellowship With the Fallen." In the book, he chronicled the many times he confronted the demonic directly, and by what means they so often infiltrate a community of believers. It is a hair-raising, though illuminating, read! Other pastors I've known over the years have their own similar stories, as do many missionaries. Only in the affluent, technological, "scientific" West has the demonic hidden itself in plain sight, deceiving even professing believers into thinking they aren't active in the world (and may not even exist). And so, as far as I'm concerned, the plain testimony of Scripture and the experience of those on the "front lines" spiritually dissolve all the peculiar ideas you're trying to put forward about the devil and the demonic.
 
My own grandfather, a pastor for forty years and then a "revivalist" preacher for twenty-five years, wrote a book on the matter of the demonic within the Church. He entitled it "Fellowship With the Fallen." In the book, he chronicled the many times he confronted the demonic directly, and by what means they so often infiltrate a community of believers. It is a hair-raising, though illuminating, read!
Today we stand on the shoulders of these faithful men of God like your grandfather Tenchi . I would like to read his book . :study
 
On what grounds do you say that "the angels that sinned are all locked up"? And how do you square this idea that every demon is locked away with the instances in Scripture - and in human history - that demonstrate that this isn't so?

Also, the "god of this world" is NOT Man.

2 Corinthians 4:4
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


It seems to me quite evident in this verse that the "god of this world" and those whom he blinds to the light of the Gospel are not one-and-the-same thing. Why distinguish the "god of this world" from those who have not yet believed the Gospel, if, essentially, they are synonymous? Paul certainly never indicated in the verse, or its immediate context, that he was using the noun phrase "god of this world" as a way of referring to mankind. This reading has to be forced into the verse, not drawn out of it. A natural reading of the verse leads the reader to understand that the "god of this world" is a being distinct from those he blinds, above them, more powerful than they are, exerting god-like control over the world.

John 12:31
31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.


Was Jesus referring to a human ruler, here? There was no single, "ruler of the world" in Jesus' time on earth. Who, then, was he speaking of in this verse? And when Jesus had accomplished the will of the Father by dying sacrificially for all of mankind, what human ruler was "cast out"? Was Caesar cast out from his place as Roman Emperor upon the completion of the atoning work of Christ at Calvary? No. Centuries would pass before Rome finally collapsed and the role of Caesar ended. So, what did Jesus mean that now the "ruler of this world will be cast out"? Every commentary that I consult about the question of who the "rule of this world" is agrees that this is a reference to the devil (aka - "the god of this world").

Ephesians 2:2
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—


Here, Paul indicated that "following the course of this world," accompanies "following the prince of the power of the air" who is a spirit working in the "sons of disobedience." This spirit bears the title of "prince," and induces people to rebellion toward God. Who is this, exactly? The one called the "god of this world," and the "ruler of this world" in Scripture who has so influenced the world that to follow the world - its values, philosophies and goals - is to follow this "god," and "ruler," and "prince."

Ephesians 6:12
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.


If the devil and all of his angels are shut up in the Pit, how does one make sense of this verse? How can there be "spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places" if the devil and all of his demons are incarcerated? Why did Paul say that believers wrestled against forces and powers that were spiritual, not flesh and blood, if all such evil "cosmic powers" are bound, impotent, in darkness? These powers and forces are above humanity, supernatural, not of humanity, so it's not possible to claim that Paul was referring only to human agencies of authority and power in this verse.



Or, alternatively, YOU could be the one who is wrong, misreading Scripture against the millennia-old orthodoxy of Christian belief. This seems to me far more likely than that for two thousand years the general, orthodox understanding of the devil and his demons has been utterly in error.



No, the OT is a "shadow" of the "mysteries" revealed in the NT:

Romans 16:25-26
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
26 but has now been disclosed
and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

Ephesians 3:8-10
8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

Colossians 1:25-27
25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.


Even though the "mystery hidden for ages and generations" has now been revealed, we still only "see through a glass darkly." How much darker, then, was the revelation of God in the OT? Much, obviously. So, then, it is a mistake to attempt to set the OT as the clarifying, illuminating lens through which to understand God's revelation of Himself and His truth in the NT. The exact opposite - NT illuminating the OT - is the appropriate order by which to understand divine revelation.



This is such a bizarre thing to assert in light of the directly contradicting facts of the New Testament. Jesus himself both taught of the devil and the demonic and confronted both the devil and his demons directly, overtly and repeatedly.

Matthew 4:1-11
Matthew 9:32-33
Matthew 12:22
Matthew 12:26-27
Matthew 13:38-39
Matthew 15:21-28
Matthew 17:14-18
Mark 5:1-19
Luke 13:10-17
Luke 22:3
John 8:44
John 13:2


My own grandfather, a pastor for forty years and then a "revivalist" preacher for twenty-five years, wrote a book on the matter of the demonic within the Church. He entitled it "Fellowship With the Fallen." In the book, he chronicled the many times he confronted the demonic directly, and by what means they so often infiltrate a community of believers. It is a hair-raising, though illuminating, read! Other pastors I've known over the years have their own similar stories, as do many missionaries. Only in the affluent, technological, "scientific" West has the demonic hidden itself in plain sight, deceiving even professing believers into thinking they aren't active in the world (and may not even exist). And so, as far as I'm concerned, the plain testimony of Scripture and the experience of those on the "front lines" spiritually dissolve all the peculiar ideas you're trying to put forward about the devil and the demonic.
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2 Peter 2:3–4.

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.
Jude 6.

Two of the Lord's apostles say the same thing that the angels that sinned are locked up.
They would know.
I receive the Scripture as written and when the Lord caused these two passages to 'jump out" at me I knew I had to revise my previous understanding on this subject. And I have.
The Scripture tells me what to believe.
Doesn't it you?
 
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2 Peter 2:3–4.

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.
Jude 6.

Two of the Lord's apostles say the same thing that the angels that sinned are locked up.
They would know.
I receive the Scripture as written and when the Lord caused these two passages to 'jump out" at me I knew I had to revise my previous understanding on this subject. And I have.
The Scripture tells me what to believe.
Doesn't it you?

I don't see in what Peter wrote in the verse above where it says that all angels were "cast down to hell" and "delivered into chains of darkness." And in light of their activity in the NT Gospels, this makes sense. As the occasions recorded in the Gospels illustrate, legions of demons and the devil himself are not yet "cast down" and "chained."

Jude also never wrote that all demons are in "everlasting chains under darkness." And he wouldn't since doing so would contradict the Gospel accounts.

What's sad (and a bit amusing) here is how flatly you say you "receive Scripture as written" but then add to it (all demons instead of some) and ignore it where it contradicts your additions (Jesus tempted of the devil, Jesus casting out demons). I appreciate that you want to respect Scripture, but in an...unfortunate attempt to do so, you've actually done the exact opposite!
 
I don't see in what Peter wrote in the verse above where it says that all angels were "cast down to hell" and "delivered into chains of darkness." And in light of their activity in the NT Gospels, this makes sense. As the occasions recorded in the Gospels illustrate, legions of demons and the devil himself are not yet "cast down" and "chained."
Then Peter and Jude are liars.
Or you are calling them liars by refusing to believe God (1 John 5:9-10.)
I think my brother's Peter and Jude are telling the truth and it is your understanding of this subject that needs to be re-aligned with Scripture.
Jude also never wrote that all demons are in "everlasting chains under darkness." And he wouldn't since doing so would contradict the Gospel accounts.
The gospel accounts are in perfect sync with what the Holy Spirit has revealed about the angels that sinned being in hell and locked up and restrained by Peter and Jude. It's your understanding and the Church's understanding that needs to fall in line with Scripture.

What's sad (and a bit amusing) here is how flatly you say you "receive Scripture as written" but then add to it (all demons instead of some) and ignore it where it contradicts your additions (Jesus tempted of the devil, Jesus casting out demons). I appreciate that you want to respect Scripture, but in an...unfortunate attempt to do so, you've actually done the exact opposite!
The angels that DIDN'T sin are God's servants. But the angels that sinned are all locked up.
There is no history in the Old Testament of the "demons" the way the Gentile Church believes today. If there's no precedent in the OT, then there's something wrong with the Gentile-Church doctrine and understanding on this subject.
Plain and simple.
Let me ask you something: Where in the New Testament does it show Jesus healing a mental condition or disease? Show me Scripture.
 
Then Peter and Jude are liars.
Or you are calling them liars by refusing to believe God (1 John 5:9-10.)
I think my brother's Peter and Jude are telling the truth and it is your understanding of this subject that needs to be re-aligned with Scripture.

You aren't listening. Neither Peter nor Jude wrote that all fallen angels - demons - are chained in darkness. You have inserted "all" into their words.

So, no, I don't think they are liars. I believe exactly what they've written and what other parts of Scripture give me cause to believe. Your addition to what they've written, however, I reject as the false stuff it is, for the reasons I've already explained.

The gospel accounts are in perfect sync with what the Holy Spirit has revealed about the angels that sinned being in hell and locked up and restrained by Peter and Jude. It's your understanding and the Church's understanding that needs to fall in line with Scripture.

Nope. I'm not the one adding "all" to what Peter and Jude wrote. See above.

The angels that DIDN'T sin are God's servants. But the angels that sinned are all locked up.

But as I've pointed out, this isn't what Peter or Jude actually wrote and it isn't what other parts of Scripture support, either. Not all fallen angels are "locked up" as the Gospels clearly indicate.

There is no history in the Old Testament of the "demons" the way the Gentile Church believes today. If there's no precedent in the OT, then there's something wrong with the Gentile-Church doctrine and understanding on this subject.

Says who? The NT is a greater revelation of God's truth than the OT, as I've already shown from Scripture.

Entirely on the strength of your misread verses, you're trying to deny the record of the Gospels (and the personal experiences of many believers). You are the one with a faulty understanding, not everyone else.

Let me ask you something: Where in the New Testament does it show Jesus healing a mental condition or disease? Show me Scripture.

??? Do you know what a "red herring" is? What you wrote here is a great example of one.
 
You aren't listening. Neither Peter nor Jude wrote that all fallen angels - demons - are chained in darkness. You have inserted "all" into their words.

So, no, I don't think they are liars. I believe exactly what they've written and what other parts of Scripture give me cause to believe. Your addition to what they've written, however, I reject as the false stuff it is, for the reasons I've already explained.



Nope. I'm not the one adding "all" to what Peter and Jude wrote. See above.



But as I've pointed out, this isn't what Peter or Jude actually wrote and it isn't what other parts of Scripture support, either. Not all fallen angels are "locked up" as the Gospels clearly indicate.



Says who? The NT is a greater revelation of God's truth than the OT, as I've already shown from Scripture.

Entirely on the strength of your misread verses, you're trying to deny the record of the Gospels (and the personal experiences of many believers). You are the one with a faulty understanding, not everyone else.



??? Do you know what a "red herring" is? What you wrote here is a great example of one.
It says THE ANGELS THAT SINNED are cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
Surely the angels that DIDN'T sin are not cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
But the angels THAT SINNED.
 
It says THE ANGELS THAT SINNED are cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
Surely the angels that DIDN'T sin are not cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
But the angels THAT SINNED.

Again, you aren't listening. Neither Peter nor Jude wrote that ALL fallen angels are chained in darkness. And the record of the Gospels also prevent the idea that all fallen angels are so chained.

No one is saying that the angels that didn't sin, who didn't fall, were chained in darkness. Where did you get this idea from what I wrote? You will see such an assertion nowhere in my comments; you've just made it up and are now arguing against it as though I'd actually written such an absurd thing. Why?

I just don't understand what about all this is so difficult to grasp...
 
Again, you aren't listening. Neither Peter nor Jude wrote that ALL fallen angels are chained in darkness. And the record of the Gospels also prevent the idea that all fallen angels are so chained.

No one is saying that the angels that didn't sin, who didn't fall, were chained in darkness. Where did you get this idea from what I wrote? You will see such an assertion nowhere in my comments; you've just made it up and are now arguing against it as though I'd actually written such an absurd thing. Why?

I just don't understand what about all this is so difficult to grasp...
The words "the angels that sinned" is inclusive.
The angels that sinned are locked up. Every one that sinned, and this means all the angels that sinned. All of them. No one was exempt.
Why are you having such a hard time with this?
You're trying to ignore this truth by the Lord's two pillars and apostles Peter and James.
You want to hold on to your beliefs against this truth and no Christian should do this. It's dishonest and reflects on your character.
The Word of God informs our beliefs, and it tells us what to believe.
You, on the other hand, want to refuse to accept this word of truth in order to maintain your present belief about "devils" "demons" and "evil spirits" and that is totally dishonest. It disgusts me.
I prefer to interact with solid brethren not wishy-washy fakes.
 
Ad hominem is the last refuge of a failed argument.

And, again, neither Peter nor Jude wrote that all fallen angels were chained in darkness. The Gospel record also indicates that both the devil and his demons were operating in the world. Simply asserting an inclusive construction upon the words of Peter and Jude does not justify such a construction. I get you're invested in your error but this last response was getting a bit silly.
 
Poor Peter.
If only you had been there to save him from such delusions of myth and misinterpretation .

Unchecked Copy Box
1Pe 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,642.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top