How did demons get so evil?

[Clare73]

Jesus treated the demons as something evil. Would Jesus destroy anything/anyone that had even the slightest possibility/ability to reform? Jesus healed all manner of disease and infirmity. If there was the slightest possibility of demons etc. willing to be healed/changed of their own free will, the Jesus I know would have moved heaven and earth to redeem them.

Matthew 8:30-32
(30) And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
(31) So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.​

(32) And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

None of the demons chose to repent. They chose destruction over repentance.
Of course, "torment" is not necessarily "eternal" but in Matt 25:46 it definitely is.

Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:[kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal.​

The Greek word "kolasis" translated "punishment" in this vs. occurs one other time in

the N.T. , I jn 4:18.

1 John 4:18 - There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment[kolasis]. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

He that fears (has kolasis/torment) is not made perfect. The "torment" is NOT corrective as some folks argue.
According to Jesus "aionios" the Greek word correctly translated "eternal" does in the fact mean "eternal."
“aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated 'world' only 5 times in the N.T.
“ainios” is translated eternal 42 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated everlasting 25 times in the N.T.
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary or mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In the following verses aionios is defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or descriptive phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “aionios” never means eternity/eternal because it sometimes refer to something which is not eternal.
However, “aionios” is never defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as it is defined/described as "eternal" in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines “aionios” as “eternal.”

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos]​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternity.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios [eternal] meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

And there goes the denial of hell as eternal torment or "everlasting punishment" of Matthew 25:46.

 

[The Liturgist]

You wrote many philosophical ideas and connections between dots you personally find in it,

There’s a word for what @Mark Quayle is doing and its called “exegesis,” and as @pescador and many other members can attest, it is correct form of Scriptural interpretation (reading verses in the context of the rest of Scripture, rather than in isolation, according to certain principles of hermeneutics, which you mistakenly call “philosophical ideas” but really, we are very far in this thread from the kind of advanced theological discourse where philosophical concepts are invoked*), as opposed to reading verses in isolation, which is called eisegesis and is universally derided by theologians of all denominations and backgrounds as a fallacious and misleading technique.

*as a rule of thumb a theological conversation doesn’t really enter into philosophical territory unless philosophical constructs like teleology, ontology, anthropomorphology, metaphysics and dialectical methods start to become important and relevant to the conversation at hand, and in this conversation, we aren’t even close to needing to invoke Maimonides, Averroes, Philo, Aristotle, Plato or even simple Socrates, let alone Hegel or Kant or Descartes or someone more recent like Ballard or Derrida or Rawls.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have to preface their username with @ , their entire username, with spaces and so on. So to mention me in a thread, which alerts me, you would put in @The Liturgist and to mention you I would put in @Mark Quayle . For users with tricky usernames like my friend @MarkRohfrietsch who for the life of me I can never remember how to spell his last name correctly, despite being ethnically German (and Swedish) myself, I just type @markr and the forum has an autocomplete feature that will prompt me with the rest of his username, and show me his avatar; this can also present a list of users with similar names which allows me to select the one I want and confirm I am mentioning the right user.

If you look at the BB code you can also confirm the USER ID number which is inserted in USER tags when you use the @ character. For example, you are no. 410020 and I am no. 424341

Thanks. I'll try. @The Liturgist

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is offtopic, but you are engaging in eisegesis, and reading 2 Timothy out of context (at the time it was written, “Scripture” consisted of the Old Testament only), you’re reading the Apocalypse out of context because of its frequent but not universal placement at the end of those Biblical manuscripts that have it, ignoring that the Assyrian Church of the East, which was the largest in the world, stretching from Syria to Mongolia and Tibet and from Yemen to Sri Lanka, until Tamerlane in the 12th century killed all of its faithful outside of Mesopotamia and India, regards it as deuterocanonical, and furthermore your quote from John if anything reinforces the role of Holy Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit. And nothing you have said refutes 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 11:2. And you also ignored the fact that John 1:1-17 establishes The Word of God as referring to Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

Thus it is clear and evident why all of the major Protestant denominations ascribe at least a secondary role to tradition, and likewise the Orthodox position of viewing Holy Scripture as the center of Tradition is justified.

But again, this whole discussion is irrelevant because @Mark Quayle and I have, using scripture alone, refuted the arguments against demons being anything other than diabolical enemies of God, and in citing Holy Tradition I am merely adding more fuel to the fire so to speak, for the benefit of the majority of Christians who believe in it.

Thus I am unwilling to debate the role of Tradition further in this thread, but if you feel so compelled, perhaps open another thread in a suitable forum, but as it is your argument in this thread has not contributed, in my opinion, to the actual discussion of the thread, because, I mean, if you reject tradition, fine, I don’t have a problem with that as your faith is your faith, but at least in that case please “do us a solid” as the British like to say and provide scripture in support of one side or the other of the relevant argument, which in this case is about whether or not demons are enemies of God, and why they are so evil. And I would in fact appreciate a scriptural contribution from you on that point! Especially if you agree with our conclusions and can think of additional verses in support of our exegesis we might be missing (since one is not usually asked to defend the doctrine that demons are evil).

While I agree there's something to the notion of the authority of the church, I find that anything "The Church" (which is hardly the same thing as the elect) comes up with, it MUST be governed by Scripture, not just 'guided', BUT, one can hardly discard the verse out of hand, by eisegesis or otherwise:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

I Timothy 3:15

Let the church bear this sobering responsibility with care...

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Sorn
@TedT
@myst33
@Clare73

This is offtopic, but you are engaging in eisegesis, and reading 2 Timothy out of context (at the time it was written, “Scripture” consisted of the Old Testament only), you’re reading the Apocalypse out of context because of its frequent but not universal placement at the end of those Biblical manuscripts that have it, ignoring that the Assyrian Church of the East, which was the largest in the world, stretching from Syria to Mongolia and Tibet and from Yemen to Sri Lanka, until Tamerlane in the 12th century killed all of its faithful outside of Mesopotamia and India, regards it as deuterocanonical, and furthermore your quote from John if anything reinforces the role of Holy Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit. And nothing you have said refutes 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 11:2. And you also ignored the fact that John 1:1-17 establishes The Word of God as referring to Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

Thus it is clear and evident why all of the major Protestant denominations ascribe at least a secondary role to tradition, and likewise the Orthodox position of viewing Holy Scripture as the center of Tradition is justified.

But again, this whole discussion is irrelevant because @Mark Quayle and I have, using scripture alone, refuted the arguments against demons being anything other than diabolical enemies of God, and in citing Holy Tradition I am merely adding more fuel to the fire so to speak, for the benefit of the majority of Christians who believe in it.

Thus I am unwilling to debate the role of Tradition further in this thread, but if you feel so compelled, perhaps open another thread in a suitable forum, but as it is your argument in this thread has not contributed, in my opinion, to the actual discussion of the thread, because, I mean, if you reject tradition, fine, I don’t have a problem with that as your faith is your faith, but at least in that case please “do us a solid” as the British like to say and provide scripture in support of one side or the other of the relevant argument, which in this case is about whether or not demons are enemies of God, and why they are so evil. And I would in fact appreciate a scriptural contribution from you on that point! Especially if you agree with our conclusions and can think of additional verses in support of our exegesis we might be missing (since one is not usually asked to defend the doctrine that demons are evil).

Something about this whole debate makes me think that some here have a small view of sin. They don't seem to realize what a horror it is -- in a certain sense, it is the only thing that is capable of actually opposing God. Thus also, they don't see the degree to which God hates it.

All of us fall short, and God knew we would, and even designed all things for it to happen, but the notion that something could actually hurt God Almighty, THE CREATOR, First Cause, is at the CORE of our redemption, it fills the Gospel of Christ with meaning beyond our ken, and to make it sound small is to take lightly Christ's sacrifice. It is bad enough to sin at all, but to deny even a little of the depth of God's grace by including such a view into one's doctrine must not be overlooked or gone unanswered (to say it nicely).

The smallest sin deserves infinite retribution by the one who has been wronged infinitely above all others: Jesus Christ. Vengeance is his, and he will repay, precisely and thoroughly.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, you conclusion is wrong. Hate is an active emotion, one can not hate without being aware of it. Whether such a person wants to acknowledge it or not is a different matter but hate is an active emotion

I'd like to see you ask Christ about that, when our lives are reviewed at the judgement.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks. I'll try. @The Liturgist

Success!

 

[The Liturgist]

While I agree there's something to the notion of the authority of the church, I find that anything "The Church" (which is hardly the same thing as the elect) comes up with, it MUST be governed by Scripture, not just 'guided', BUT, one can hardly discard the verse out of hand, by eisegesis or otherwise:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

I Timothy 3:15

Let the church bear this sobering responsibility with care...

I agree, and am sending you a PM on this, and also CCing my other friend named Mark

 

[Mark Quayle]

There’s a word for what @Mark Quayle is doing and its called “exegesis,” and as @pescador and many other members can attest, it is correct form of Scriptural interpretation (reading verses in the context of the rest of Scripture, rather than in isolation, according to certain principles of hermeneutics, which you mistakenly call “philosophical ideas” but really, we are very far in this thread from the kind of advanced theological discourse where philosophical concepts are invoked*), as opposed to reading verses in isolation, which is called eisegesis and is universally derided by theologians of all denominations and backgrounds as a fallacious and misleading technique.

*as a rule of thumb a theological conversation doesn’t really enter into philosophical territory unless philosophical constructs like teleology, ontology, anthropomorphology, metaphysics and dialectical methods start to become important and relevant to the conversation at hand, and in this conversation, we aren’t even close to needing to invoke Maimonides, Averroes, Philo, Aristotle, Plato or even simple Socrates, let alone Hegel or Kant or Descartes or someone more recent like Ballard or Derrida or Rawls.

Thank you for your kind words. In our current circumstances, i.e. this format, it becomes necessary to give the short answer, since there is hardly the room/time to write (nor the will of the opposition to read) the long exegesis. This can be taken for eisegesis by those who write long posts, with long sequences of logic that in spite of their scholarly rigor still depend on a grand false presupposition. I'll leave it at that.

 

[friend of]

Premise 1 The flesh is enmity to God
Premise 2 We are in the flesh
Conclusion We are at enmity toward God.

 

[The Liturgist]

@Mark Quayle I tried to PM a reply to one of your posts I wish to discuss with you and another member, because I agreed with it and it touches on an issue that has been troubling me, but is not topical to this thread, but it looks like you need to adjust your settings so I can do so.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I have heard that too, but the story was also obviously at a minimum sensationalized to a great extent, and I did not like the ending. There is no way a demon would give up control of a child to possess a priest and then kill the new host. They are known in the literature of the church to work together, and there are plenty of other demons working on possessing clergy of weak faith, who fall into what the Russian Orthodox call Prelest (spiritual delusion). Given that the younger priest in that film was so weak in his faith, he would have been a prime target. Also, Max von Sydow’s character I doubt would have been felled by a demon-induced heart attack; I have never heard of a pious priest succumbing to a demonic attack, although Fr. Lazarus el Antony, a Coptic Orthodox hermit who lives near the Cave of St. Anthony, in the hills above St. Anthony’s Monastery in Egypt, and celebrates the Divine Liturgy there nightly, once saw a demonic apparition and, forgetting to pray, allowed himself to be startled, falling down a rock face and seriously injured himself.



Well I would avoid spiritualists like the plague because the other things they do, like Tarot, and so on, are also pathways to spiritual delusion, demonic deception, and possession (demons are the real source any actual clairvoyants among them are likely getting their information from). All of these practices, including the Ouija Board and forms of divination, even reading ones horoscope, can be dangerous. I myself had an extremely dark experience after being convinced by a girlfriend in my impassioned youth to read about the meanings of the astrological signs. So all of that stuff is toxic. If I owned a newspaper, I would refuse to print horoscopes, but alas journalistic integrity seems to have always been an oxymoron in more cases than one could regard with any measure of equanymity.



That’s interesting - I hadn’t heard that, but it seems possible. I don’t really trust much of what former Mafiosos have to say one way or the other as a rule of thumb.



Indeed, this is true. It also results in automatic excommunication, like procuring an abortion, or breaking the seal of the confessional, and absolution for it is reserved to the Pope (who does not of course deal with it personally; the Apostolic Penitentiary, which is also in charge of matters such as indulgences, absolves penitents in that case, with the confessor corresponding with them about the particulars of the case using a psuedonym to refer to the penitent, so as to preserve the confessional seal from the risks inherent in correspondence, although in the modern age, I regard this as itself inadequate and feel that these cases should be delegated to diocesan bishops, who would be responsible for them in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.



Indeed, Baptism is an exorcism. I believe the traditional liturgy among other things requiring holy water, requires the exorcism and blessing of “these creatures of water and salt” and the priest then would make the sign of the cross in salt in the font.

Our right retains the exorcism: "Depart thou evil spirits and make room for the Holy Spirit".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you for your kind words. In our current circumstances, i.e. this format, it becomes necessary to give the short answer, since there is hardly the room/time to write (nor the will of the opposition to read) the long exegesis. This can be taken for eisegesis by those who write long posts, with long sequences of logic that in spite of their scholarly rigor still depend on a grand false presupposition. I'll leave it at that.

I tried inviting as well. Neither @The Liturgist nor I bight all that hard. LOL.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle I tried to PM a reply to one of your posts I wish to discuss with you and another member, because I agreed with it and it touches on an issue that has been troubling me, but is not topical to this thread, but it looks like you need to adjust your settings so I can do so.

I will do so— as Victor Borge would say, "fifthwith" — if I can figure out how, that is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle I tried to PM a reply to one of your posts I wish to discuss with you and another member, because I agreed with it and it touches on an issue that has been troubling me, but is not topical to this thread, but it looks like you need to adjust your settings so I can do so.

I only checked a box called something like "who can post messages to your profile page", which was already set at "members", (I think it was), which box had been unchecked. Hopefully that was the problem. If not, let me know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I tried inviting as well. Neither @The Liturgist nor I bight all that hard. LOL.

Try it now. Not sure I fixed the issue, but... Let me know.

 

[trophy33]

Oh mine, I have 15 (if I counted it right) unanswered posts reacting to mine...

So I will just summarize my point: There are some traditions or presuppositions which everybody just repeat without questioning or verifying them.

The origin of demons or their image is one of them. Bible is quite silent about specifics, but tradition, art and culture built up many ideas on very few facts.

Maybe those ideas are right, maybe not. My challenge to everyone is to be constantly open minded and to be ready to accept that some doctrines are not certain and are just long time repeated opinions of others.
In various areas of life.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Try it now. Not sure I fixed the issue, but... Let me know.

Seems to have worked!

 

[Buzzard3]

I have heard that too, but the story was also obviously at a minimum sensationalized to a great extent, and I did not like the ending. There is no way a demon would give up control of a child to possess a priest and then kill the new host.

Yes, well, that movie was a bit silly in parts.

I read an eye-witness account of the actual exorcism that the movie was based on, and if memory serves, it involved a boy, not a girl. And the final stages of the exorcism took place in a Catholic seminary, not in a private home.

Interestingly, the real-life account mentioned that when a demon is finally exorcised, it leaves with a literal, audible "bang" - a very loud, sharp "crack!" that can be heard some distance away.

In the case of the abovementioed boy, the demon would pretend to leave, but it didn't fool the exorcists because they hadn't yet heard the "crack!" ... only when they finally heard that "crack!" did they know the exorcism had been successfully completed.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, well, that movie was a bit silly in parts.

I read an eye-witness account of the actual exorcism that the movie was based on, and if memory serves, it involved a boy, not a girl. And the final stages of the exorcism took place in a Catholic seminary, not in a private home.

Interestingly, the real-life account mentioned that when a demon is finally exorcised, it leaves with a literal, audible "bang" - a very loud, sharp "crack!" that can be heard some distance away.

In the case of the abovementioed boy, the demon would pretend to leave, but it didn't fool the exorcists because they hadn't yet heard the "crack!" ... only when they finally heard that "crack!" did they know the exorcism had been successfully completed.

I haven’t read any reports of cracking sounds on successful completion of demonic exorcisms in the Early Church Fathers and thus I would be extremely wary of it.

Fun fact: while the Eastern Orthodox do recognize the existence of Eucharistic miracles, and the conversion of a Muslim who received a crown of martyrdom resulted from seeing the true flesh and blood of our Lord, Orthodox priests are I have been reliably informed required to call the bishop in the event the Lamb (the leavened Host) takes on a fleshy appearance, to make sure they are not being deceived and nothing spiritually untoward is going on.

When I first heard that I immediately imagined the deacon hurriedly closing the Royal Doors and the Curtain while the priest walked to the East side of the Holy Table picked up a red telephone handset concealed thereon, wired to a private hotline to the cathedral and the bishop’s cell (most Orthodox bishops are monks) for use in such emergencies. Of course in reality such absurdities are the province of Mormons and heretical megachurches, but the image still amused me.