Exactly what it says on the (dramatic) title.

We always hear about Biblically accurate angels: the burning wheels with tons of eyes, the strange looking creatures that sound like they come from the anime “Evangelion”, the cherubim with 4 faces, but I had a thought while watching The Exorcist: Believer (it was…not good for anyone wondering. At all. The disrespect Regan’s mom had towards Merrin and Karras after they died saving her daughter was baffling to listen to, especially…but i digress) a couple of days ago, specifically, if that’s how the demonically possessed are said to more or less act in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, or if they’re they completely different to what we see in movies and games. I’m guessing it’s more than likely the second one, right, but I’m curious about the details like the signs someone’s possessed, the demon’s endgoal, and what they look like, basically everything you can gimme to sate this curiosity or to send me on a rabbit hole, if you’d be so kind?

  • mighty_alfredo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Off the top of my head, the Bible really says surprisingly little about demons, and various translations will say even less (depending on if the translator thinks an evil spirit=demon or not). Generally, the possessed act either mentally or physically ill, or they get scared of Jesus. Beelzebub is the prince of demons, but that’s about all we know from accepted scripture. Most “Christian” demonology stems from writings that didn’t make the final cut for the Bible, mythology borrowed from other cultures/religion, bored/crazy monks in a position to write things down, and particularly influential works that never claimed to be anything but fiction (namely Dante’s Inferno).

    • MrBubbles96@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      So our picks are either what the translator’s interpretation of a demon was or from outside sources that may or may not be entirely canonical (if at all) to the bible? Huh…i imagined the church would have wanted the faithful to know the enemy a bit more. Wonder why they were hardly mentioned (I mean zero disrespect by this by the way. I may not be Christian, but i respect the faith).

      Interesting regardless, and answers why some link possession and mental illness together in media (and i assume IRL)

      • mighty_alfredo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        Due to the nature of how translation works, interpretation will always be inherent to it, especially when we can’t ask the original author for clarification. As for the church wanting the faithful to know more about demons, you could argue that is why they borrowed so much demonology from other sources. As for why it wasn’t included in the Bible itself, any answer will have to be heavily seasoned with speculation. It is important to remember, however, that the New Testament was not intended as a “how to get to heaven” or “how to avoid hell” guide. It was intended as telling the story of why you get to go to heaven in the first place (the Gospels) and letters discussing how to live faithfully. Plus Revelation.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        i imagined the church would have wanted the faithful to know the enemy a bit more

        By their logic sin is inherent in man. The enemy was never demons.

        • CALIGVLA@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Sin is inherent in humans after Eden, but Satan is always depicted as a tempter trying to stray the faithful away from the good path towards their basest desires (sin), in fact some denominations believe the snake in Eden to be Satan in disguise, which would make him directly responsible for sin as a whole.

          • roguetrick@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yes but also a subordinate to an omniscient and omnipotent god. He’s a tempter and tester of Job. The ultimate responsibility is in the human themselves to meet the test and they are the ones who fail. The sin was not eating the apple of knowledge as much as deciding to disobey god to eat it. That’s the “free will” and the original sin that is inherent in humans, and the real enemy. The serpent didn’t so much create it as tempt it. I am not a christian, though. I actually believe a god that acts like that is evil.

            Gnostics are a bit more interesting, because they view the serpent as a Prometheus figure that shepherded humans to free will while the God that was disobeyed was an evil god.