Wrestling with my Demons

[GrahamB]

Best derailment evah!!!

Indeed!

I think the point of what he was trying to say was that thoughts and emotions are often the privilege of the rich. Now we're talking about foreskins?

[Andy_S]

Omar:

There is no good insurance against demons that I am aware of, but as a good Jewish boy, you will be pleased to note that there IS insurance for Jews against Roman Catholicism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBRiWcqM ... L&index=25

[Steve James]

Angels (apart from the literal meaning of "messengers") are beings that are between humans and the Supreme Being. They are separate creations that, depending on your theological perspective, can be "good" or "evil" or indifferent. Of the nine categories of angels, only the lowest three actually contact human beings, starting with the "guardian" angel that we are born we. I think that we tend to think of angels are helpful beings, sometimes like the little cherubs we see on Valentine's Day or the painted Renaissance angels. But, they have appeared (to humans) a frightening balls of light, etc. And, not to mention, they also comprise God's army.

For those who'd accept Hislop's position, demons are beings that are the product of illicit unions between rebellious angels and humans. Some stories say they were wiped out during the flood. I've read that they were sometimes used as explanations for the strange looking fossils that people found before they coined the term "dinosaur." (Though I don't recall exactly where, so I can't back that up offhand. It was probably Hislop, though.

A Muslim brother should comment here on the distinction between angels and "jinn" --as beings of air or fire. I would add that in those African traditions (that in the west we call Voodoo , the things that westerners usually see as gods are exactly the same as angels. Some (even most) can get angry, but few are considered "evil." Well, Haitian tradition does have families of these intermediary beings that are used specifically to do harm. Anyway, my original point stands. There are several instances in the Bible where God sends angels to warn of destruction and to destroy.

[Interloper]

Thus spake Omar the M'Lamed. But I'd imagined more of a Mel Brooks (as the 2,000-Year-Old Man) voice.

Didn't the reference to "Ha-Sahtan" (the Opposer/Adversary) first pop up in the story of Job? I thought it was about God having a discussion (with himself, really, since angels -- IIRC -- are supposed to represent the different individual qualities and characteristics of God, and thus are actually not not independent, free-willed discrete beings) about how to deal with Job. Apparently, all of the angels were kind of "yes-men" agreeing with one perspective, but one angel served as "Devil's Advocate," offering the opposite perspective. I think the line goes something like "... But, the opposer said..." (meaning, the one angel providing an opposing viewpoint). And from that, the Christians derived a fallen angel with a proper-noun name.

Demons were part of the oral folklore of Semitic peoples including the Jews, but AFAIK (Omar likely knows for certain) there is no such reference in the scriptures/Tanakh. Over time, wrestling with a divine being, whether literally or figuratively, might have switched over to something more universally experienced (since, in the written record, only Jacob had the hands-on experience ), namely, demons.

[old jewish man voice]So now I'm a scholar? meh....I should be so lucky...[/old jewish man voice]

It's not like I even know what a yeshivah looks like. I just like to read is all. I just did a little googling around because while I don't remember ever seeing any demon references in the Torah, I can't speak to the Talmud or even the Zohar which I have only read a tiny bit of. The Tanya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya ) certainly expresses nearly the same metaphor. I haven't read demon references but it says that God placed "the good impulse" and "the evil impulse" in us and they both wage ware on the city that is our heart. The evil impulse is said to be strong but never so strong that it can not be beaten. The greater the impulse to do evil, the greater the merit in overcoming it.

Considering that the Hassids are known today for their incredible scholarship and extreme orthodoxy, it's kind of ironic that Hassidisim was originally a populist movement with the central message being that passionate love of god and desire to be a good man was more important that scholarly knowledge and ability to carry out the letter of the law. They carried a message that one who had to fight to do right was bringing more heavenly glory into the world than for whom it came naturally. This is, incidentally, why man was placed above the angels in the hierarchy of creation and, according to some traditions, why Satan fell, he refused to bow down to man.

I found a couple of demon references online in the Talmud and supposedly in the Zohar but they do seem more implied than literal. Even Satan is considered to be an angel not a "demon" and his name is not a name at all but a title. In Jewish translations he is called "The Adversary". In the original Hebrew just as "Adam" is actually "The Adam", "Satan" also gets the definite article and is called "The Satan" indicating that he has a specific role. In that sense, I would say that the idea of inner demons has some biblical precedence. It's just not spelled out. It's there by implication like in the Jacob and the angel story.

At the end of the day, my opinion is that a demon is just a certain category of angel.

[Chris Fleming]

"Didn't the reference to "Ha-Sahtan" (the Opposer/Adversary) first pop up in the story of Job? I thought it was about God having a discussion (with himself, really, since angels -- IIRC -- are supposed to represent the different individual qualities and characteristics of God, and thus are actually not not independent, free-willed discrete beings) about how to deal with Job. Apparently, all of the angels were kind of "yes-men" agreeing with one perspective, but one angel served as "Devil's Advocate," offering the opposite perspective. I think the line goes something like "... But, the opposer said..." (meaning, the one angel providing an opposing viewpoint)."

Yes, I had a college teacher at one point who basically tried to say that Satan (the adversary, as you have correctly translated) was basically a good guy just doing his duty. No where do you get that extrapolation (except in one's own interpretation I guess) from looking at the rest of the Bible. Firstly, from looking at the book of Job, you get no sense that there was a situation of the angels saying yes to one thing and the opposer saying another. If anything, Satan appears there as in what looks to be as an uninvited guest. Later on in the book of Revelation, it shows that up to a certain point, Satan has still not lost his ability to dwell in the heavens and accuses man before God day and night. This is not a positive character just doing his duty.

In the Old Testament one can consider also Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28, especially verses 13-19.

My old college teacher also tried to say that Satan was merely the adversary of man, not the adversary of God (based on her extrapolations) and the idea only came about from the Christians. I can't remember which one, but there is a psalm which says something about how touching man, that is, injuring a man, is like touching God's eye, i.e., an offense, an injury to God (ever get poked in the eye?). Therefore, I have to say that these popular ideas and extrapolations of Jewish history and culture are baseless and founded only upon conjecture as to what is happening, and for some reason, ignore other parts of the Bible which speak otherwise.

Since these verses and instances show information about this, it is important to see that one cannot just go by one's extrapolations or the interpretations of supposed scholarly teachers but rather actually see what the Bible itself says about a certain matter--using the Bible to interpret the Bible, that is, looking at the whole picture rather than one piece.

[bailewen]

Thus spake Omar the M'Lamed. But I'd imagined more of a Mel Brooks (as the 2,000-Year-Old Man) voice.

You must have read my mind because I initially wrote the post [Mel Brooks Voice]....[/Mel Brooks Voice] and only after changed it back to "old Jewish man". . . .

More seriously though:

Later on in the book of Revelation, it shows that up to a certain point, Satan has still not lost his ability to dwell in the heavens and accuses man before God day and night. This is not a positive character just doing his duty.

That is a distinctly Christian take on him. Seeing as how I do not accept revelations as the word of God, it bears little on how I interpret the idea of "the Adversary". To whit:

Therefore, I have to say that these popular ideas and extrapolations of Jewish history and culture are baseless and founded only upon conjecture as to what is happening, and for some reason, ignore other parts of the Bible which speak otherwise.

Well we ignore those "other parts" because we do not accept Jesus Christ as our Lord or savior and therefore consider the writings of his followers ie The Gospels as little more than interesting philosophical treatise. That then leaves the prophets which we do consider to be divinely inspired but....and this is a big but....the writings of the prophets, such as Ezekial and Isaiah as you referenced, are deepmhasized. Prophecy and the books of the prophets are of little use compared to the presentation of the actual Law brought forth in the Pentateuch. Without the Christian interpretation of Satan and the a priori assumptions about what various things refer to in the books of Prophecy (like Rabbi Jesus), then much of your argument falls apart. Granted, I'm no Biblical scholar, but I can't find any reference to Satan whatsoever in the part of Ezekiel you referenced and even in Isaiah there is only a passing metaphorical reference and, again, one that only makes sense if you start from a Christian tradition. Ezekiel is prized more for the Kabalistic revelation is provides. It actually has very little that can help the average person to be a better person. I personally find it kind of cool because old man Ezekial actually performs a ressurection over a pile of bones centuries before Jesus pulled that stunt in a cave.

...one cannot just go by one's extrapolations or the interpretations of supposed scholarly teachers but rather actually see what the Bible itself says about a certain matter--using the Bible to interpret the Bible, that is, looking at the whole picture rather than one piece.

Well your just not going to get very far with a Jew by citing Revelations.

[Chris Fleming]

"Well your just not going to get very far with a Jew by citing Revelations."

That's all well and good Omar but I cited more than just Revelation. The other three books, Isaiah, Ezekiel (c'mon Omar, the King of Tyre wasn't in Eden and perfect from his creation or the anointed angel over the holy mountain of God) and Psalms--those were the other parts that for some reason, people ignore when they paint their picture of Satan just being another angel with a different function.

I've heard similar lines of thinking before from Jews--many that I've come across don't even read anything past the 5 books of Moses. Why? Who knows. Just another one of man's (not God's) teachings. Because they don't, and have all kinds of man made interpretations and extrapolations without reading the whole Bible, it's no wonder that the bigger picture is not seen.

[Doc Stier]

"Lucifer" by Rochelle Green
http://www.elfwood.com/~ellemelis

There are at least two specific references to demons in the Torah, and even to the personal character of a specific Evil One elsewhere in the Jewish Scriptures, all of which precede any such references in the Christian New Testament.

For example:

"They sacrificed to demons that were not gods..." Dt.32:17

"And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the demons after whom they have gone astray. This shall be the statute forever to them throughout their generations." Lev.17:7

"Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went astray with their own inventions." Ps.106:37-39

"How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? How are you cut down to the ground, who did weaken the nations? For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will dwell also upon the high mountains in the outer regions of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, and I will be like the Most High." Isa.12-14

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Job.1:6

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. And the Lord said to Satan, From whence have you come? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking on it."" Job.2:1-2

"Then he showed me Joshua the High Priest standing before the angels of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to harm him. And the angel of the Lord said to Satan, The Lord rebuke you, O Satan; even the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you. Is not this the firebrand plucked out of the fire?" Zech.3:1

Numerous other passages in the Jewish Scriptures strongly imply reference to an Evil One without specifically doing so by name.

[Steve James]

Hi Doc,

fwiw, the word 'demon" isn't negative (as you probably know) in (Biblical) Greek. A person can have good demons and bad in Greek. To the later interpreters (creators) of the word, it came to be associated with an 'evil' spirit. It'd be interesting to find out from the Hebrew scholars what the word is in the original: i.e., "non" Greek. As for the rest of the references, I'm not sure any of them say that Satan was/is a demon. If so, though, he/it is one of many. Perhaps, the demons referred to in your first quotes referred to those, but not specifically Satan, who I'm not sure is Lucifer at all. Though it probably didn't refer to gods like Mammon, Baal, etc. Needless to say, in the contemporary world, few people talk of "good" demons. Anyway, I'm sure that the meanings of the words to contemporary Christians (or others) are their own, based on their interpretation of the terms as they use them. I.e., it won't be accurate to say that any English translation is what was "meant" by the original writers.

[Chris Fleming]

Don't really see any "good" demons in the Bible. Would like to see references for that, and hopefully those having correct context if they are even there.

As for Lucifer, you are correct, as he is not a demon. The Bible makes a distinction between fallen angels and demons, with the latter speaking of beings who were once in physical bodies (now disembodied) but joined in with Satan's rebellion, all of this taking place in the pre-Adamic age. When these are referenced, these are usually mentioned in conjunction with idols (what is actually being worshiped behind the idol worship).

[Steve James]

Well, my point was that, in Greek, the word is more like "spirit", something inspired, or even "genius." There's nothing inherently evil meant or implied. When people argue about what "the Bible" says, then already they're talking about what the words mean in English. As for Lucifer, who is not sure to be Satan (which is a title, not a name, as Omar pointed out), it was (has been ) common for many Christians to regard all fallen angels as "demons" --implying they are "evil" spirits. For example, Lucifer, Azazel, Beliel and Baphomet are all referred to as "the Devil." Baphomet is the typical medieval representation of Satan that we often assume Satanists (and Masons) to worship.



At any rate, Angels, in most traditions of which I'm familiar, are always spiritual, incorporeal "beings" who can manifest physically but are not physical.

[Steve James]

Did some googling: this is the right image:

[bailewen]

"Well your just not going to get very far with a Jew by citing Revelations."

That's all well and good Omar but I cited more than just Revelation. The other three books, Isaiah, Ezekiel (c'mon Omar, the King of Tyre wasn't in Eden and perfect from his creation or the anointed angel over the holy mountain of God) and Psalms--those were the other parts that for some reason, people ignore when they paint their picture of Satan just being another angel with a different function.

And I did answer your citations to those other books but as Doc said:

Numerous other passages in the Jewish Scriptures strongly imply reference to an Evil One without specifically doing so by name.

The "evil one", in our tradition...in mine anyways...is simply the evil impulse that exists within all men. It is placed there that we may struggle with it and thereby grow from the struggle. It's part of that whole annoying free choice thing we were given. God is not as interested in people who are pre-programmed only to do good and to sing "Holy! Holy! Holy!" at him for all eternity. He has angels for that. To suggest that the Satan is not a creation of God and serving the purpose that God set down for it is to place limits on God's power.

I've heard similar lines of thinking before from Jews--many that I've come across don't even read anything past the 5 books of Moses. Why? Who knows. Just another one of man's (not God's) teachings. Because they don't, and have all kinds of man made interpretations and extrapolations without reading the whole Bible, it's no wonder that the bigger picture is not seen.

I personally think it has something to do with growing up in a tradition that encourages argumentation and skepticism more than blind faith. The first 5 books, especially Deuteronomy and Leviticus, are where we are taught how to live. That's where most all of the actual laws are. It's why traditional Jewish Torah study starts with Deuteronomy. We are more concerned with act than with faith. Better to be an agnostic who lives in righteousness than a devoutly religious man who walks in evil. Of course Atheism would be in violation of the very first commandment (of the big ten) but there's all sorts of room for agnostics...as long as they follow the rules and prohibitions.

The books of prophecy that you guy keep siting are studied seriously, if at all, generally only in the abstract, as allegory, as numerology or as mystical revelation. A literal or direct reading for those texts is generally given little significance. Look at a book like Ezekiel, it's clearly the rantings of a man in a state of divine ecstasy, not the sort of thing to take a superficial or literal reading of.

Hi Doc,

fwiw, the word 'demon" isn't negative (as you probably know) in (Biblical) Greek. A person can have good demons and bad in Greek. . .

In the scriptures that Doc cited, given a little time to decipher, I will try and figure out which words specifically are being translated as "demons". The Jewish understanding of "demons" is closer to the greek "daemon", the one in your computer that makes it do something. The only one's I know of in the oral tradition are the nefilim. Those were said to have been the offspring of human-angelic unions and were destroyed in the great flood.

[Doc Stier]

In the scriptures that Doc cited, given a little time to decipher, I will try and figure out which words specifically are being translated as "demons".

Allow me to save you the effort, as I have already researched these words long ago.

The scriptural quotes from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalm 106 given in my earlier post, and another passage from 2Chr.11:15 include two different ancient Hebrew words for "demon".

Both Leviticus and 2 Chronicles use the Hebrew word "saiyr" (saw-eer), which means "the hairy one", and by extension, as in these two passages, "a shaggy haired devil". This word is literally associated with a male goat kid originally, "the hairy one", and is used in the vast majority of Jewish scriptural passages where the word "goat" appears.

Both Deuteronomy and Psalm 1065 use the ancient Hebrew word "shed" (shade), which literally means "demon" (daemon) or malignant devil.

[Father_Jon]

As for Lucifer, you are correct, as he is not a demon. The Bible makes a distinction between fallen angels and demons, with the latter speaking of beings who were once in physical bodies (now disembodied) but joined in with Satan's rebellion, all of this taking place in the pre-Adamic age. When these are referenced, these are usually mentioned in conjunction with idols (what is actually being worshiped behind the idol worship).

Where? I'm not trashing your belief system, whatever denomination, but it is just not there between Genesis and Revelation. The redaction of angels and idols was AFAIK an attempt by apologists to provide an answer for the efficacy of pagan prayer in a monotheistic schema.

On a side note, the term bene elohim (Sons of God) gets applied to the nephilim as well as the other members of the celestial arena when The Adversary shows up to ask about Job. Seems as though there was some notion of fluidity in the existence of spirits.

@Steve re: Jinn- Isn't Iblis' main beef with Allah that since he is Jinn (fire) that it is debasing that he must bow to Adam (fire blown into clay)?