Fallen Angels

[Paleouss]

I thought I would open up a thread in the proper place for the various views of the fallen angels, Nephilim, evil spirits, etc. My particular inquiry to start this thread is...

The existance of "evil spirits" can be sourced in the Bible (Luke 7:21, 8:2; Acts 19:12-13; Matt 12:27 and possibly 1Sam 16,18,19, but this can be disputed).

It is my understanding that there are two views.
(1) Evil spirits are fallen angels.
(2) Evil spirits are the disimbodied spirits of the Nephilim (the product of fallen angel and human women procreation).

If there is another view, I would like to hear it. Also, If you hold to one of the two options above (or one I haven't heard), what verses (within the Bible only please) do you use to establish this position? That is, the position of, evil spirits are....

Peace be to you

 

[RandyPNW]

I thought I would open up a thread in the proper place for the various views of the fallen angels, Nephilim, evil spirits, etc. My particular inquiry to start this thread is...

The existance of "evil spirits" can be sourced in the Bible (Luke 7:21, 8:2; Acts 19:12-13; Matt 12:27 and possibly 1Sam 16,18,19, but this can be disputed).

It is my understanding that there are two views.
(1) Evil spirits are fallen angels.
(2) Evil spirits are the disimbodied spirits of the Nephilim (the product of fallen angel and human women procreation).

If there is another view, I would like to hear it. Also, If you hold to one of the two options above (or one I haven't heard), what verses (within the Bible only please) do you use to establish this position? That is, the position of, evil spirits are....

Peace be to you

It's a great question, and although I admit ignorance on the subject, I have my pet views. I tend to view "angels" as the term for all creatures similar to us who exist out there in the universe.

Angels apparently were given the ability to rebel against God's word, and apparently that choice is eternal when made. It's like being given one choice to begin with, to determine your eternal future.

Satan and his fellow rebels chose to exist outside of God's paradisical Kingdom. Good angels chose to continue living in God's Kingdom, in submission to Him.

People are similar to angels and yet were given more than one choice. The 1st choice, however, was governed by manipulation and duress. And so, we are given grace for a 2nd chance.

The spirits cast out of people are a certain kind of fallen angel. They are trespassers, living within people in order to manipulate the earth apart from God's will. People were given the earth, and thus, fallen spirits possessing people are trespassers.

God is not immediately judging them, awaiting the course of human redemption. Since people have allowed the interference of evil angels, God will not judge them unless people are first given the chance to repent. Otherwise, both angels and men will be immediately judged.

I don't believe the Nephilim are angels or demi-gods. I think they are the product of people of faith mixing with rebellious people, creating proud and aggressive peoples.

 

[zippy2006]

I have been enjoying the "Lord of Spirits" podcast, given by two Orthodox priests, Fr. Stephen De Young and Fr. Andrew Steven Damick. I believe De Young takes view #2 with respect to the evil spirits of the New Testament.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Your second one where demons are disembodied spirits of the Nephilim, is my belief.

 

[RileyG]

I believe demons are fallen angels. I'm not sure about the Nephilim, though.

 

[BobRyan]

It is my understanding that there are two views.
(1) Evil spirits are fallen angels.

That is the right one.

(2) Evil spirits are the disimbodied spirits of the Nephilim (the product of fallen angel and human women procreation).

That is not from the Bible.

No Bible text says that evil spirits are spirits of dead Nephilim.

But we do have evidence that Nephilim are simply humans -- normal humans that lived before the flood but lived for a long time and were about 2 times taller than humans today

 

[trophy33]

No Bible text says that evil spirits are spirits of dead Nephilim.

And no Bible text says that evil spirits are fallen angels. Both is just an interpretation.

 

[trophy33]

If there is another view, I would like to hear it.

A personification of our own evil inclinations or of a sickness (be it physical or mental).

Like spirits or gods were also used as a personification of the natural phenomena people did not understand.

 

[zippy2006]

Like spirits or gods were also used as a personification of the natural phenomena people did not understand.

No they weren't. You think that ancient people were ignorant and had a false (scientific) theory, but it is indisputable that ancient people were not "using spirits or gods as a personification of natural phenomena." In verses like Ephesians 6:12 Paul is not waxing poetic or metaphoric.

 

[trophy33]

it is indisputable that ancient people were not "using spirits or gods as a personification of natural phenomena.

Of course they were, all around the world. Some less developed populations do it even today, still.

 

[zippy2006]

Of course they were, all around the world. Some less developed populations do it even today, still.

1. One cannot use X as a personification of a natural phenomenon while simultaneously believing that X exists as a personal entity.
2. In Ephesians 6:12 and elsewhere we see that St. Paul believed that personal, spiritual entities exist (powers and principalities, spiritual hosts of wickedness, etc.).
3. Therefore, St. Paul was not using the spiritual entities as a personification of natural phenomena.

If you had gone up to St. Paul when he visited Ephesus and said, "So you were using 'spiritual hosts of wickedness' as a personification of impersonal realities?," he would have replied, "No, I was not personifying impersonal realities. Spiritual hosts of wickedness truly exist in a non-metaphorical way."

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Biblical scholar who claims that Paul didn't actually believe in demons, and was just engaging in metaphorical personification in his letters.

 

[RileyG]

And no Bible text says that evil spirits are fallen angels. Both is just an interpretation.

What about Revelation 12? I admit it uses a lot of symbolic language. No where in genesis does it say the serpent was Satan either.

 

[zippy2006]

What about Revelation 12? I admit it uses a lot of symbolic language. No where in genesis does it say the serpent was Satan either.

This is a little bit confusing, but the OP is using "evil spirits" in a technical sense to denote the spirits that we see in the New Testament, generally when Jesus is performing exorcisms. So when Revelation 12 speaks of the "dragon and his angels" who fought St. Michael and his angels, these are fallen angels. The OP was trying to spark a conversation by asking whether the "evil spirits" of the NT gospels are in fact fallen angels, such as those in Revelation 12. There are different theories about this.

Or in other words, a fallen angel is a spirit that is evil, but the "evil spirits" of the NT gospels may or may not be fallen angels. The theory which says they are not fallen angels holds that they are less powerful demons.

 

[RileyG]

This is a little bit confusing, but the OP is using "evil spirits" in a technical sense to denote the spirits that we see in the New Testament, generally when Jesus is performing exorcisms. So when Revelation 12 speaks of the "dragon and his angels" who fought St. Michael and his angels, these are fallen angels. The OP was trying to spark a conversation by asking whether the "evil spirits" of the NT gospels are in fact fallen angels, such as those in Revelation 12. There are different theories about this.

Or in other words, a fallen angel is a spirit that is evil, but the "evil spirits" of the NT gospels may or may not be fallen angels. The theory which says they are not fallen angels holds that they are demons which are less powerful than angels.

Thanks for the response!

 

[trophy33]

What about Revelation 12? I admit it uses a lot of symbolic language. No where in genesis does it say the serpent was Satan either.

The OP question seems to be about evil spirits in the specific context of various sickness (Luke 7:21, 8:2; Acts 19:12-13; Matt 12:27). One of the verses even literally says "being healed of the evil spirits".

 

[trophy33]

One cannot use X as a personification of a natural phenomenon while simultaneously believing that X exists as a personal entity.

People can both believe there is a god and in the same time believe he is behind a natural phenomena like a sea storm or a thunder.

For example Greeks had personifications for psychological realities like of anger, conflict and war - Ares. Or for love - Eros, for wisdom (Pallas Athena) etc.
In the same time many of these gods were actually worshiped as real entities.

And if you visit basically any less developed culture in the world, they believe in various spirits making them sick or personifying mountains, forests, rivers etc.

 

[zippy2006]

1. One cannot use X as a personification of a natural phenomenon while simultaneously believing that X exists as a personal entity.

Of course one can. I can both believe there is a God and ascribe to him phenomena I do not yet understand.

(Edited: ) Of course one can. For example, people can both believe there is a God and believe He is behind a natural phenomena like a sea storm.

To say that God caused a sea storm is not to engage in any form of personification. It is merely to identify a cause.

You're conflating personification with the belief that a person did something. Personification involves using language metaphorically. There is nothing metaphorical about the claim that God caused a storm. When I say that God caused a storm or Patrick Mahomes caused a Superbowl victory, I am not engaged in any personification whatsoever.

I don't know if you are being serious, but this will likely be my last post to you in this thread.

 

[trophy33]

You're conflating personification with the belief in an existing person. Personification involves using language metaphorically.

If you need another example, then Mars - both a god and a personification of war, for Romans.

I don't know if you are being serious, but this will likely be my last post to you in this thread.

I will welcome it, it seems you just want to argue about a well-known thing. So if this will not be your last post to me in this thread, I will likely ignore any other one.

 

[zippy2006]

I will welcome it, it seems you just want to argue about a well-known thing.

Edit: Apologies - I may not be appreciating how genuinely difficult it is for modern materialistic people to understand the ancient view of reality.

Modern materialistic people say, "Spiritual beings don't exist, therefore ancient peoples must have been mistakenly ascribing personal qualities to natural phenomena. They 'personified' the sea storm in thinking it was Poseidon's anger, taking a natural storm and imbuing it with personal, spiritual significance."

The fact of the matter is that ancient peoples simply thought that a sea storm signified that the god of the sea was angry. This is not personification. Personification is a naturalistic concept, implying that what is non-personal is imbued with artificially personal qualities. For the ancient sailor the sea storm is not elevated--metaphorically or otherwise--from a non-personal reality to a personal spiritual reality. It is inherently and by its very nature a personal spiritual reality.

This modern view involves psychologizing, and it is identical to the way that atheists view Christians. The atheist may say that the Christian is merely personifying the influence of a benevolent God in the events that occur in their life, but this is psychologizing condescension, not an attempt to understand the Christian's actual beliefs. @myst33's claims about ancient "personification" are the same as this atheist psychologizing.

 

[trophy33]

It is ironic that someone who adopts such a dismissive and arrogant attitude towards ancient peoples doesn't even understand the basic rudiments of the human language.

My goodness.