Fallen Angels

[RandyPNW]

No need to be sorry. I understand your position better now.

When, in your view, do you think Satan was cast down to earth? Just getting a cohesive whole of your position in my mind.

Got it. Thank you

I was asking myself the same question: Rev 12 talks about Satan being cast down to the earth. When is that?

To be honest, I don't know. It is mentioned just prior to referring to the reign of Antichrist. But it just may be a term indicating that Satan has lost some of his heavenly status by investing his future in earthly developments. By endowing Antichrist with his power he was faced by God's angels, who forced him to live with the consequences of Antichrist's coming judgment.

Again, I never have really known the answer to this one. But thanks for asking--makes me think.

 

[Paul4JC]

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

Without studying Second Temple literature you cannot understand this subject.

As in the Nephilim: Giants of the Bible thread you choose to ignore this and what early church fathers taught based on Second Temple literature as do the books of 2 Peter and Jude. Church history does not start in the 3rd century, neither does theology. [Reminds me of people who remove the flood and Babel event from history. Deleted history is not history no matter what people want to believe] Then you want to cherry-pick certain traditions of thought and embrace the same. Then tie it all with some intellectual bow.

So this does not allow for proper discussion.

God bless you.

 

[RandyPNW]

Without studying Second Temple literature you cannot understand this subject.

As in the Nephilim: Giants of the Bible thread you choose to ignore this and what early church fathers taught based on Second Temple literature as do the books of 2 Peter and Jude. Church history does not start in the 3rd century, neither does theology. [Reminds me of people who remove the flood and Babel event from history. Deleted history is not history no matter what people want to believe] Then you want to cherry-pick certain traditions of thought and embrace the same. Then tie it all with some intellectual bow.

So this does not allow for proper discussion.

God bless you.

I'm also aware of the early views regarding the book of Enoch, the Nephilim, angels mixing with women, etc. An early date for some of this is no more compelling than a late date for it if it is founded on mistaken beliefs--not even if it is dignified by writings that people wish to preserve for whatever reason. And early Church Fathers were as susceptible to error as anybody else in the Christian world.

The Bible may give some attention to books like "Enoch" but that doesn't mean they are giving support to the literature as inspired or Scripture. Some accounts contained in that book may have some legitimacy--I build my beliefs on Scripture alone when it comes to history and doctrine. For all I know, the book of Enoch may have contained parts that came from other more reliable sources. We would have to know what parts are inspired, and what parts are legends, traditions, or myths.

 

[zippy2006]

And early Church Fathers were as susceptible to error as anybody else in the Christian world.

Is this true, though? Will those who were living near the time when a text was written understand the text better than those who were not living near that time? I think the answer is obvious, and this does not even touch on the matter of traditio. So to say that the early Fathers are as susceptible to error as any other Christian seems plainly false.

 

[Paleouss]

Without studying Second Temple literature you cannot understand this subject.

I would agree that without bringing Second Temple literature (the silent period) into my duscussions it makes it more difficult for those that espouse the book of Enoch to persuade me. I have found, not accusing you of this, that many of the angel view jump immediately to the book of Enoch when debating the topic of Genesis 6:1-4 and the topic of evil spirits. It is my view, you don't have to hold it if you don't want too, that the subject must be relatively firm from scripture first before confirming it outside the Bible. Outside literature is fine to study, I have studied some.

As in the Nephilim: Giants of the Bible thread you choose to ignore this and what early church fathers taught based on Second Temple literature as do the books of 2 Peter and Jude.

Well, if by "ignore" you mean I stated that one would need to present from the Bible, first, to convince me before ever jumping to the Book of Enoch, then yes, I asked to ignore it.

I do acknowledge your assertion of the early church fathers. And as I said in the other thread, I would research your assertion that the angel view was the "only view". I can't debate something I have not researched, so I grant your "zinger" if that is what you are looking for.

Church history does not start in the 3rd century, neither does theology.

I think, if you really looked at everything I wrote, you would see that my theology is not a 3rd century regurgitation. I attempt to do a proper exegisis of the scripture. I would go as far as to say that my view of Genesis 6:1-4 is the only view that uses the book of Genesis as context for my view. All others jump outside the Bible or to other books of the Bible. I go to other books of the Bible also. But the bulk of my view lies within the exegisis of Genesis 3:15, Genesis chpt 4, 5, & 6.

One example of what I have previously written not being a regurgitation, I think, is my exegisis of "thy seed" and "her seed" (Gen 3:15) and NOT Seth line and Cain line (although Seth and Cain fall into one of those two spiritually familial groups). So accusing me of simply taking a 3rd century view over a earlier view is a false and unfair accusation, IMO.

[Reminds me of people who remove the flood and Babel event from history. Deleted history is not history no matter what people want to believe] Then you want to cherry-pick certain traditions of thought and embrace the same. Then tie it all with some intellectual bow.

This is just gaslighting. It does nothing but try and attempt to discredit and mock the apponant. You try and paint my position as obersered, uninformed, blind and not Biblical (like people who remove the flood and Babel). You were much more gracious in the other thread.

Peace be to you Paul4JC
May God do a fruitful work through you

 

[Paleouss]

I was asking myself the same question: Rev 12 talks about Satan being cast down to the earth. When is that?

Good morning Randy. Hope your morning is off to a blessed one.

I oringinally thought that the fall of Satan was narrowed down. That being sometime from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 3 (serpant in the garden of Eden). But I have found that some hold that the original fall of Satan was as late as the ministry of Jesus. For me, regarding Satan's fall, I find these verses (below) dificult to reconcile with a late fall of Satan.

In 1 John 3:8, it says, "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." This part "from the beginning" seems important. The first point, if the devil sinned from the beginning then he was fallen before the coming of Jesus. One might consider what this "beginning" means. That is, is it from Satan's beginning or mankind's beginning or some other beginning. I would fall on the side of man's beginning. Which would place Satan in the garden with Adam and Eve with Satan as already fallen or the deception of Adam and Eve as the fall.

However, some hold that the serpent in Genesis 3 is not Satan. But if that is the case then what "beginning" does 1 John 3:8 refer too and what does Revelation 12:9 refer to when stating the "serpent of old"? Which at first blush appears to be referring to Satan as that "serpent" known and written about in "old" times. These old times, when written, was before Jesus. When in old times was there a serpent written about? Possibly Genesis chapter 3.

This "from the beginning" is also supported in John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning...". Clearly the author is asserting, in these two verses (1John 3:8, John 8:44), that Satan was fallen early in the mankind story, i.e. from the beginning. And what does it mean he was a murderer? Who is he accused of murdering, from the beginning?

We could take this further and explore this "of your father the devil" statement found in both these verses (1John 3:8, John 8:44). In 1John 3:10-12, it establishes a dichotomy of two types of "children". There are the "children of God" (1John 3:10 a) and the "children of the devil" (1John 3:10 b). Then it goes on to give an example for each of these spiritually familial groups. First, it gives an example for the familial children of the devil group, "Cain" (1John 3:12) Then it gives an example for the familial children of God group, "his brother" (Abel). All this is referring to Genesis chapter 4. It would seem apparent that the devil was already the "god of this world" (2Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2, John 12:31, John 16:11) all the way back to Genesis chapter 4. And possibly took on this title as soon as Adam sinned (Gen 3:6). Although I realize you might not hold this position.

So if Satan is fallen all the way back to the garden of Eden or before, then this world is a fallen world. That is important, IMO, because fallen angels, possibly the evil spirits, can be reasonably seen in this world because it (the world) is fallen and Satan is the god of this world ((2Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2, John 12:31, John 16:11).

 

[Paleouss]

Matt 12 and Rev 12 appear to show that to be the lead/head of demons is to be the leader of fallen angels.

Rev 12 "Satan and his angels"
Matt 12 "satan the ruler of demons"

demons are fallen angels.

Satan himself - "the devil"

Good morning Bob

I am trying to reason out what you wrote. This is new to me, which is good.

I presume the foundation of what you are saying comes from (Rev 12:9). That is, the Bible gives us an account of what was thrown down from heaven to the earth. Those beings are, (1a) Satan, and (1b) "his angels" (Rev 12:9) with him. Then, after giving us an account of what foriegn entities we might expect to see in this fallen world. We are told that Satan is the "ruler of demons" (Matt 12:24). Since we are given an account of the foriegn entities thrown down (Rev 12:9), then it would be reasonable to equate "fallen angels" with "demons". Since demons are foriegn entities in this world and we are told which foriegn intities we might expect to see (Satan and his angels).

I wanted to edit this post and add something, another verse that might suggest demons, spirits, and fallen angels are synonymous. (Matt 8:16 NKJV) "When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick,". Here in Matt 8:16, demons and spirits seem to be the same thing.

I also gave a verse earlier in another post, Hebrews 1:13-14, that identifies angels as "ministering spirits" (Heb 1:14). This, IMO, cleary suggests that angels can also be identified as spirits. So evil/fallen angels, it would seem, could be identified with evil spirits.


Peace be with you

 

[RandyPNW]

Good morning Randy. Hope your morning is off to a blessed one.

It's a typical one, thank you. Coffee is off to the right. Staring at a box!

I oringinally thought that the fall of Satan was narrowed down. That being sometime from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 3 (serpant in the garden of Eden). But I have found that some hold that the original fall of Satan was as late as the ministry of Jesus. For me, regarding Satan's fall, I find these verses (below) dificult to reconcile with a late fall of Satan.

In 1 John 3:8, it says, "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." This part "from the beginning" seems important. The first point, if the devil sinned from the beginning then he was fallen before the coming of Jesus. One might consider what this "beginning" means. That is, is it from Satan's beginning or mankind's beginning or some other beginning. I would fall on the side of man's beginning. Which would place Satan in the garden with Adam and Eve with Satan as already fallen or the deception of Adam and Eve as the fall.

Logical conclusion! Yes, the "beginning" would be a reference either to the beginning of Creation or to the story contained early in Genesis, the Fall of Man. It could actually infer both.

However, some hold that the serpent in Genesis 3 is not Satan. But if that is the case then what "beginning" does 1 John 3:8 refer too and what does Revelation 12:9 refer to when stating the "serpent of old"? Which at first blush appears to be referring to Satan as that "serpent" known and written about in "old" times. These old times, when written, was before Jesus. When in old times was there a serpent written about? Possibly Genesis chapter 3.

No, you're right. Satan is the Serpent (or whatever he was).

This "from the beginning" is also supported in John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning...". Clearly the author is asserting, in these two verses (1John 3:8, John 8:44), that Satan was fallen early in the mankind story, i.e. from the beginning. And what does it mean he was a murderer? Who is he accused of murdering, from the beginning?

Good point. Is this saying that Satan murdered mankind? Or, is it saying he inspired Cain's murder of his brother? Probably both. Primarily, he tricked Adam and Even into committing a crime punishable by death. That was a "murder" play.

We could take this further and explore this "of your father the devil" statement found in both these verses (1John 3:8, John 8:44). In 1John 3:10-12, it establishes a dichotomy of two types of "children". There are the "children of God" (1John 3:10 a) and the "children of the devil" (1John 3:10 b). Then it goes on to give an example for each of these spiritually familial groups. First, it gives an example for the familial children of the devil group, "Cain" (1John 3:12) Then it gives an example for the familial children of God group, "his brother" (Abel). All this is referring to Genesis chapter 4. It would seem apparent that the devil was already the "god of this world" (2Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2, John 12:31, John 16:11) all the way back to Genesis chapter 4. And possibly took on this title as soon as Adam sinned (Gen 3:6). Although I realize you might not hold this position.

To me, the "god of this world" is a reference to the history of the world trending towards Satanic rebellion against God's word. That is the way the world has chosen to go since the Fall of Man. That makes Satan the world's "god," in that it follows his rebellion against God.

But I think the "children of the Devil" group indicates something much deeper than just a "trend" in the world towards rebellion. It actually infers *commitment* to Satanic rebellion. Cain *committed* to rebellion to the point of murder. It was not so much that murder is unforgivable than it was Cain's statement of intent to commit to a rebellion against God's word. This is far beyond what Adam and Eve did, inasmuch as one sinned against God and the other was a commitment to rebel against God forever.

"Children of the Devil," therefore, are for me a position of eternal commitment to rebel against God's Word. All sin can be forgiven men, with the exception that those who eternally commit to sin will never be forgiven.

On the other hand, "children of God" are those who eternally commit to a petition for redemption. They will never be lost. They will always be forgiven. And they will always choose to repent because they have committed to that.

So if Satan is fallen all the way back to the garden of Eden or before, then this world is a fallen world. That is important, IMO, because fallen angels, possibly the evil spirits, can be reasonably seen in this world because it (the world) is fallen and Satan is the god of this world ((2Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2, John 12:31, John 16:11).

Yes, but my point is that Satan and his fallen angels are "trespassers." This world was created for men--not for angels. Men were given dominion--not angels.

But God allowed Satan's sins to continue until mankind itself can be judged. The earth is the place God committed Satan to for judgment. That's why I think the angels of God defeat him, in time, and cast him down. He is being judged here by his interference with human orders. We are told to establish God's image and he is corrupting and perverting God's image by trespassing in human society.

 

[RandyPNW]

Is this true, though? Will those who were living near the time when a text was written understand the text better than those who were not living near that time? I think the answer is obvious, and this does not even touch on the matter of traditio. So to say that the early Fathers are as susceptible to error as any other Christian seems plainly false.

That's trouble. It's like saying anybody is sinless and immune to sin. Were the Apostles susceptible to sin? Of course. The biblical account shows Peter, James, and John all fumbling around as young men, probably in their 20s, trying to grasp Jesus' teachings at a young age.

But Jesus determined to spend at least 3.5 years with his future apostles, ensuring that some things they will properly transmit to others in history. This didn't at all mean they stopped being sin-affected, nor did it mean that they couldn't mispronounce or mis-spell something. On the contrary, these problems are negligible next to the importance of getting out "truth," which does *not* have to come from perfect vessels. I can tell you the truth on religion without being perfect!

I can see the early Church Fathers picking up on some problems early in the Trinitarian conversations, some speaking the truth about the Deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ without using perfect arguments. They may even include some questionable beliefs, as Origin and others did. Perhaps they were just speculating?

But I don't believe the early Theologians got all of their eschatology right either. How is that possible when some were Chiliasts and others were Amillennialists? And the arguments over Novationism shows a complete breakdown in good Christians relations, right?

Normally I would give you a hearty "Amen" to your point about the value of early statements on what the Apostles believed and what sound biblical theology consists of. But to say they were immune from error in transmitting poor tradition is another argument entirely, as I see it!

This is the whole reason I argue against the argument that Ecclesiastical Tradition should be static and a matter of pure succession. All human processes are susceptible to error. And the history of the Church argues strongly for the need to reform, and sometimes, if necessary, to tear the thing down and completely rebuild. This was the whole story of ancient Israel!

 

[Paul4JC]

This is just gaslighting. It does nothing but try and attempt to discredit and mock the apponant. You try and paint my position as obersered, uninformed, blind and not Biblical (like people who remove the flood and Babel). You were much more gracious in the other thread.

Sorry, you take it that way, that's not my intention. However, you made a rule.

within the Bible only please

I'm just pointing out the danger of making 'truth' what is favorable to one's preferences. You cannot remove from the table sources that are not in the Bible especially when the Bible itself points to the same sources. There are dozens of threads here that elevate Science even above the word of God, what do you do with them? Remove Science and only go by creation based on the Bible? Yet, popular Christianity removes Biblical 3-tier cosmology and embraces Science. Also for example, why is the word Tartarus in the Bible? Alluring to Greek Mythology. Yet Bible translators use the word Hell! That's not rightly dividing the word of God 2Ti 2:15. Neither is when one ignores sources the word of God is pointing to. We don't start at the 3rd-century interpretations as our only source. The canon varies. Versions include Apocrypha, while the Ethiopian Bible contains 1 Enoch. You also have Septuagint which was much used by New Testament authors.

What I'm also trying to say is Bible study is not just about academic and intellectual assent. Truth is sought and caught more than it is taught. [Mat 16:17 NIV] 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Be blessed in your gifting.

 

[Paleouss]

Sorry, you take it that way, that's not my intention

I think that is the way anyone would take it. Some just ignore it and others get gaslighted and become equally as rude back. I think, hope, I did neither. To me, proper etiquette between Christians in a debate has some boundaries of decorum. Although I realize this site has many that follow no such bounderies, including many that I would perceive as Christians. One of those boundaries, IMO, is not demeaning anothers position and painting it as unbiblical, nonesense, deleting history, or cherry picking. I truely believe everyone in this site can make that gaslighting claim against any other person that "refuses" to take their position. Everyone has preferences and prefered interpretations.

As an example of proper Christian decorum, in my estimation, is my conversation with RandyPNW. Granted, we both believe that evil spirits are fallen angels. However, his beliefs do not match up completly with mine. He responds in a very humble and gratious way regarding those differences. Which is further evidenced by his responses to others that do not agree with him.

I will say that regarding this topic of fallen angels and evil spirits, I have been accused (in various threads) of being no prophet, lacking spiritual interpretation, deleting history similar to removing the flood from the Bible...and much more. All these turns/tactics that take the debate toward discrediting the opponent has no value toward truth. At least in my estimation. It does not attempt to seek truth nor further it.

I'm just pointing out the danger of making 'truth' what is favorable to one's preferences.

And my point is that I could say that you are guilty of the same, which gets me nowhere in the search for truth. You prefer your preferences about your 'truth' as well. When speaking about fallen angels and evil spirits you prefer to lean on the book of Enoch. If you noticed, I have never ridiculed you for this belief. In fact, I have written in some posts that the angel view is one of three legitimate views. Just not one I hold.

You cannot remove from the table sources that are not in the Bible especially when the Bible itself points to the same sources.

If you mean remove it from others discussing it, I have no such power. Nor do I desire to do so. I have also addressed these verses that you say, points toward other sources, in the other thread (in which you were a part). You attempt to paint my position as ignoring them. Which is blatantly false.

If by "remove it" you mean that I ask those that would like to convince me to not jump directly to sources outside the Bible...I see no problem with this request. If the Bible is not your 'ground zero' then this is a major difference between the two of us. In fact, I see big red flags when someone suggests I shouldn't consider the Bible as my primary, Spirit inspired, source. I am very familar with the book of Enoch, btw. Like I said in the other thread, I have close friends that hold the angel view. I hear about it frequently.

Most at this cite just claim that the Bible is not a book about 'evil spirits and demons' and just stop trying to convince me, I'd rather them try and give an argument from the Bible, but that is fine if they think they cannot. Others ridicule me for asking them to not go outside of the Bible first when trying to convince me that the angel view is correct. The problem that I see in all these responses is that those people have not developed a firm foundation within the Bible to argue their point before going outside the Bible. I have heard, not in this site however, pretty good arguments for the angel view while staying within the confines of the Biblical text. If someone would make such good arguments within the biblical text as I have heard before, they might find that some of my theology is closer to theirs then they think.

The rest of your post would seem to divert a great deal from this thread. I find your appeal to authority against the similarites I have with 3rd-century interpertations interesting. You clearly think it is a winner. Although I have never claimed 3rd-century interpertations superior, nor claimed 1st-2nd century interpertation is inferior. This strawman that you have built would seem to avoid a proper presentation and argument from the Biblical text about the topic of this thread.

May God do a fruitful work through you

 

[Paleouss]

That's trouble. It's like saying anybody is sinless and immune to sin. Were the Apostles susceptible to sin? Of course. The biblical account shows Peter, James, and John all fumbling around as young men, probably in their 20s, trying to grasp Jesus' teachings at a young age.

But Jesus determined to spend at least 3.5 years with his future apostles, ensuring that some things they will properly transmit to others in history. This didn't at all mean they stopped being sinless, nor did it mean that they couldn't mispronounce or mis-spell something. On the contrary, these problems are negligible next to the importance of getting out "truth," which does *not* have to come from perfect vessels. I can tell you the truth on religion without being perfect!

I can see the early Church Fathers picking up on some problems early in the Trinitarian conversations, some speaking the truth about the Deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ without using perfect arguments. They may even include some questionable beliefs, as Origin and others did. Perhaps they were just speculating?

But I don't believe the early Theologians got all of their eschatology right either. How is that possible when some were Chiliasts and others were Amillennialists? And the arguments over Novationism shows a complete breakdown in good Christians relations, right?

Normally I would give you a hearty "Amen" to your point about the value of early statements on what the Apostles believed and what sound biblical theology consists of. But to say they were immune from error in transmitting poor tradition is another argument entirely, as I see it!

This is the whole reason I argue against the argument that Ecclesiastical Tradition should be static and a matter of pure succession. All human processes are susceptible to error. And the history of the Church argues strongly for the need to reform, and sometimes, if necessary, to tear the thing down and completely rebuild. This was the whole story of ancient Israel!

I think this is well said.

Peace be to you.

 

[RandyPNW]

I think this is well said.

Peace be to you.

Thank you, I said things with the typical communication mistakes that I have to proof-read or fail to proof-read every time! But we can get it right, if we persevere!

 

[zippy2006]

But to say they were immune from error in transmitting poor tradition is another argument entirely, as I see it!

But no one was talking about immunity. We were talking about susceptibility to error. When I say that the early Christians are less susceptible to error this does not mean they are immune to error. To be less susceptible is not to be immune, and in this lies your error.

Again, this is a false statement, and it has nothing to do with immunity:

And early Church Fathers were as susceptible to error as anybody else in the Christian world.

 

[Paul4JC]

I think that is the way anyone would take it. Some just ignore it and others get gaslighted and become equally as rude back. I think, hope, I did neither. To me, proper etiquette between Christians in a debate has some boundaries of decorum. Although I realize this site has many that follow no such bounderies, including many that I would perceive as Christians. One of those boundaries, IMO, is not demeaning anothers position and painting it as unbiblical, nonesense, deleting history, or cherry picking. I truely believe everyone in this site can make that gaslighting claim against any other person that "refuses" to take their position. Everyone has preferences and prefered interpretations.

As an example of proper Christian decorum, in my estimation, is my conversation with RandyPNW. Granted, we both believe that evil spirits are fallen angels. However, his beliefs do not match up completly with mine. He responds in a very humble and gratious way regarding those differences. Which is further evidenced by his responses to others that do not agree with him.

I will say that regarding this topic of fallen angels and evil spirits, I have been accused (in various threads) of being no prophet, lacking spiritual interpretation, deleting history similar to removing the flood from the Bible...and much more. All these turns/tactics that take the debate toward discrediting the opponent has no value toward truth. At least in my estimation. It does not attempt to seek truth nor further it.


And my point is that I could say that you are guilty of the same, which gets me nowhere in the search for truth. You prefer your preferences about your 'truth' as well. When speaking about fallen angels and evil spirits you prefer to lean on the book of Enoch. If you noticed, I have never ridiculed you for this belief. In fact, I have written in some posts that the angel view is one of three legitimate views. Just not one I hold.


If you mean remove it from others discussing it, I have no such power. Nor do I desire to do so. I have also addressed these verses that you say, points toward other sources, in the other thread (in which you were a part). You attempt to paint my position as ignoring them. Which is blatantly false.

If by "remove it" you mean that I ask those that would like to convince me to not jump directly to sources outside the Bible...I see no problem with this request. If the Bible is not your 'ground zero' then this is a major difference between the two of us. In fact, I see big red flags when someone suggests I shouldn't consider the Bible as my primary, Spirit inspired, source. I am very familar with the book of Enoch, btw. Like I said in the other thread, I have close friends that hold the angel view. I hear about it frequently.

Most at this cite just claim that the Bible is not a book about 'evil spirits and demons' and just stop trying to convince me, I'd rather them try and give an argument from the Bible, but that is fine if they think they cannot. Others ridicule me for asking them to not go outside of the Bible first when trying to convince me that the angel view is correct. The problem that I see in all these responses is that those people have not developed a firm foundation within the Bible to argue their point before going outside the Bible. I have heard, not in this site however, pretty good arguments for the angel view while staying within the confines of the Biblical text. If someone would make such good arguments within the biblical text as I have heard before, they might find that some of my theology is closer to theirs then they think.

The rest of your post would seem to divert a great deal from this thread. I find your appeal to authority against the similarites I have with 3rd-century interpertations interesting. You clearly think it is a winner. Although I have never claimed 3rd-century interpertations superior, nor claimed 1st-2nd century interpertation is inferior. This strawman that you have built would seem to avoid a proper presentation and argument from the Biblical text about the topic of this thread.

May God do a fruitful work through you

Scripture says forgive one another Col 3:13 yet you bring up the same matters again. When you use the term strawman, you don't think that's demeaning? We all come from different backgrounds, etc. Not trying to attack you or look superior. If there is a mote still in my eye, hopefully, I will get it out soon. Intentionally or unintentionally we all step on each others toes.

Where are you getting the "two views" from specifically?

Has Rephaim been brought up in this thread?

God give you success.

 

[Paul4JC]

Just random thoughts...

[Mar 5:9-12 NIV] 9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. 11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them."

Why did they want to go to the pigs?

Do (fallen) angels get disembodied or do they always appear in some bodily form?

Do angels appear plural as one or do they appear individually?

Is a"fallen angel" the unclean spirit in this verse below?

[Mat 12:43 ESV] 43 "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest but finds none.

Was it an angel tormenting King Saul?

[1Sa 16:14 NIV] Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

 

[Paul4JC]

I'm also aware of the early views regarding the book of Enoch, the Nephilim, angels mixing with women, etc. An early date for some of this is no more compelling than a late date for it if it is founded on mistaken beliefs--not even if it is dignified by writings that people wish to preserve for whatever reason. And early Church Fathers were as susceptible to error as anybody else in the Christian world.

The Bible may give some attention to books like "Enoch" but that doesn't mean they are giving support to the literature as inspired or Scripture. Some accounts contained in that book may have some legitimacy--I build my beliefs on Scripture alone when it comes to history and doctrine. For all I know, the book of Enoch may have contained parts that came from other more reliable sources. We would have to know what parts are inspired, and what parts are legends, traditions, or myths.

Were only early church fathers susceptible to error and everyone at Nicene was correct, as well as the so-called "reformers.?" Some of the early church fathers were disciples of the apostles. "The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves." Who were the early church fathers?

Most of the anti-Nicene fathers recognized the book of 1 Enoch as reliable.

Jde 1:14 Jude say's "Enoch prophesied." Peter says [2Pe 1:20-21 NIV] Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Enoch only prophesied one verse? So Scripture is prophesy, but 1 Enoch is not?

God could not have had Enoch write the book of 1 Enoch? That's not possible? That his great grandson Noah could preserve it on the ark, that's not possible either? God is not able to communicate from the anti-diluvian age to us? This is implied by Jubiless (2BC) Jubiless 4:18a. “And he (Enoch) was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, 19b he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations”.

 

[Paul4JC]

FYI. This is the passage from which view (2) comes from.

The Oracle

1 Enoch 14:24 Until now I had been on my face, prostrate and trembling. And the Lord called me with his mouth and said to me, “Come here, Enoch, and hear my word(s).” 25/ And one of the holy ones came to me and raised me up and stood me (on my feet) and brought me up to the door. But I had my face bowed down. 15:1 But he answered and said to me—and I heard his voice— “Fear not, Enoch, righteous man and scribe of truth; come here, and hear my voice. 2 Go and say to the watchers of heaven, who sent you to petition in their behalf, ‘You should petition in behalf of humans, and not humans in behalf of you. 3 Why have you forsaken the high heaven, the eternal sanctuary; and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; and taken for yourselves wives, and done as the sons of earth; and begotten for yourselves sons, giants? 4 You were holy ones and spirits, living forever. With the blood of women you have defiled yourselves, and with the blood of flesh you have begotten, and with the blood of men you have lusted, and you have done as they do— flesh and blood, who die and perish. 5 Therefore I gave them women, that they might cast seed into them, and thus beget children by them, that nothing fail them on the earth. 6 But you originally existed as spirits, living forever, and not dying for all the generations of eternity; 7 therefore I did not make women among you.’ The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; 8 But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh— they will call them evil spirits on the earth, for their dwelling will be on the earth. 9 The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits, for from humans[49] they came into being, and from the holy watchers was the origin of their creation. Evil spirits they will be on the earth, and evil spirits they will be called. 10 The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; but the spirits begotten on the earth, on the earth is their dwelling.[50] 11 And the spirits of the giants <lead astray>, do violence, make desolate, and attack and wrestle and hurl upon the earth and <cause illnesses>. They eat nothing, but abstain from food and are thirsty and smite. 12/ These spirits (will) rise up against the sons of men and against the women, for they have come forth from them. 16:1 From the day of the slaughter and destruction and death of the giants, from the soul of whose flesh the spirits are proceeding, they are making desolate without (incurring) judgment. Thus they will make desolate until the day of the consummation of the great judgment, when the great age will be consummated. It will be consummated all at once. 2 And now (say) to the watchers who sent you to petition in their behalf, who formerly were in heaven, 3 ‘You were in heaven, and no mystery was revealed to you; but a stolen mystery you learned; and this you made known to the women in your hardness of heart; and through this mystery the women and men are multiplying evils on the earth.’ 4 Say to them, ‘You will have no peace.’”

Nickelsburg, George W.E.; VanderKam, James C.. 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (pp. 36-38).

 

[RandyPNW]

Were only early church fathers susceptible to error and everyone at Nicene was correct, as well as the so-called "reformers.?" Some of the early church fathers were disciples of the apostles. "The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves." Who were the early church fathers?

I use the term flexibly. Technically, we can refer to the Early Church Fathers as the ante-Nicene Fathers. But when I use the term, I'm referring to them all, because they are all early in history. You will notice that I did not refer to them as "ante-Nicene Fathers."

Most of the anti-Nicene fathers recognized the book of 1 Enoch as reliable.

Again, the Early Church Fathers were "early" in history. They were, of course, as susceptible to error as later Church leaders in history. We could go down a long laundry list of mistakes both Catholic and Protestant leaders have made doctrinally. But I'm assuming you know this?

I don't personally know how much the ante-Nicene Fathers believed in Enoch. Clearly, some of them relied on *some* of it--they did not, as far as I know, rely on Enoch *as Scripture,* right?

Jde 1:14 Jude say's "Enoch prophesied." Peter says [2Pe 1:20-21 NIV] Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Enoch only prophesied one verse? So Scripture is prophesy, but 1 Enoch is not?

God could not have had Enoch write the book of 1 Enoch? That's not possible? That his great grandson Noah could preserve it on the ark, that's not possible either? God is not able to communicate from the anti-diluvian age to us? This is implied by Jubiless (2BC) Jubiless 4:18a. “And he (Enoch) was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, 19b he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations”.

Please don't use yellow--it hurts my eyes.
The Church, for the most part, did not accept the Book of Enoch as Scripture, period. Neither should you argue it as completely inspired of God.

The part that is quoted in actual Scripture I do accept. Mentioning Enoch does not validate the entire book, but only the point that is being made in the quotation.

 

[RandyPNW]

But no one was talking about immunity. We were talking about susceptibility to error. When I say that the early Christians are less susceptible to error this does not mean they are immune to error. To be less susceptible is not to be immune, and in this lies your error.

Again, this is a false statement, and it has nothing to do with immunity:

I beg to differ. To be "less susceptible to error" means one is nearly "immune" to the temptation to err. Are we talking "completely unrelated" or "somewhat related?" It gets silly at some point to even make these barely relevant distinctions.

I will say it again. Early Christians were as susceptible as any generation of Christians to error.