Web Link - UK ghost sightings on the rise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7631387/Ghost-sightings-highest-in-25-years.html

Supposedly there has been an increase in activity in the UK....

Not sure how big of a Twinkie that would be though, Egon...

The Thomistic Goodness of Hierarchy

Interesting tidbit from Aquinas: In ST I, q.109, a.1 [http://newadvent.org/summa/1109.htm] he interacts with the question of ordered hierarchy among the demons as with the angels. This is considered a point of dispute, as indicated by the first objection that because hierarchy is inherently good, then evil beings would not exist in such a state. Also objection 2 is raised that hierarchy is part of the holy ordering of things, and so does not exist in evil.

Aquinas’ answer to the question and to these objections does not repudiate the underlying idea: that hierarchy is a reflection of the good and holy. His main response involves both a distinction in ordering by grace and by nature as well as seeing evil as the privation of the good. So although the demons are evil their hierarchy is a reflection of the holy state from which they fell and what good is left in their nature [as nature can only be corrupted, it cannot be pure evil because then it would cease to exist!]

Along with this the next article interacts with precedence among the demonic. Again assuming precedence to be holy, and in fact part of the virtue of justice! As demons lack justice they must all be equal in authority. (moderns must let that assertion sink in!) Demons, he argues, exist in an order by virtue of God’s justice and not their own.

What is interesting is the main point he is interacting with that is in direct repudiation of what would seem to be the modern assumption. The Medieval Christian saw hierarchy, order and structure where inherently good. So good in fact it caused problems for seeing the demonic in a hierarchy!

It seems most of the modern world goes the opposite way. It assumes that hierarchy must be evil, and so although it may fully expect the demonic (if it believes in such a thing) to be in order and probably are more troubled by an order and hierarchy in heaven among the angels and saints. It also seems must of the modern western world views not precedence as justice, but equality of authority.

An implication of Thomistic thought here is that a perfect world is also a perfectly ordered and hierarchical world. Contra Luther government is not just a necessary evil but would exist even had there been no sin. The attempt to escape authority is a reflection of pride. The self-ruled and self-made man who will make his own decisions and govern himself the way he alone sees fit of the modern western mythos would have by earlier Christians been considered demonic.

This shows the radical shift from the Christian scholastic period to modern ideals. I wonder if we didn’t loose something along the way…

Demonological Taxonomy in St. Justin Martyr

Justin’s demonology consists of three types of demons, each under the rule of Satan: fallen angels, souls of the Nephilim, and souls of the wicked dead. He views fallen angels as having sinned though lust of human women giving both to the Nephilim, angel/human offspring whom God destroyed in the flood of Genesis. The souls of these Nephilim, however, continue to torment humanity along with their rebel angel fathers. Lastly, some demons are the souls of other wicked humans who remain on earth after death and seek to possess the bodies of those still alive.

Under the metaphysical framework of substantive angelology, [1] Justin is able to explain Genesis 6:1-4, reflecting similarity to such pseudopigraphal writings as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. As an explanation for the fall of the angels, Justin works from Genesis 6 where the “sons of God” took wives from among “daughters of men”, and in turn the Nephilim were born, which the LXX renders “giants”. Pseudopigraphal literature would interpret the “Sons of God” as angels, and so propose the Nephilim as human-angel offspring. (e.g. 1 Enoch 6-7) Later Christian thought after Justin would repudiate this theory, but for Justin it forms a vital part of his theology and provides, for him, a solid explanation for evil and demon possession (see St. Augustine, City of God 15.25).

It is within the issue of theodicy that Justin presents his most comprehensive account of the fall of the angles and their offspring. Returning to 2 Apology 5, Justin begins with the objection of his enemies that “if we confess God as our helper, we should not…be oppressed and persecuted”. His answer to this objection is the free will of the angels who fell and both became demons and gave birth to demons. The angels “transgressed” the order given them over creation due to human women. Their offspring, Justin asserts, are “demons.” It is these demons along with the fallen angels, elsewhere also labeled as demons (1 Apol. 23, 54, Dlg. 76), which become the gods of the poets and lead men away from the logos, which is Christ.

The most interesting of Justin’s categories is found in 1 Apol. 18, and closely coincides with the Nephilim. In an effort to prove the reality of an after life, Justin argues from pagan magical practices and necromancy for the consciousness of human souls after death. “Let these persuade you” he says “that even after death souls are still conscious”. In addition, he puts forward evidence from pagan oracles, equating them with demoniacs, saying that the “spirits of the dead” possesses them. The beings described are not the same as the Nephilim, but are certainly real spirits of dead humans. To see the spirits here as Nephilim instead of humans would invalidate his argument, as he specifically desires to demonstrate human sensation after death in context of divine judgment.

Souls of the dead as a demonic category are not overly surprising considering the Greco-Roman background of Justin. A daimo,nion (daimonion) in the cultural milieu was certainly not a fallen angel, and typically was not even evil. Daimo,nioa (daimonioa) were supernatural entities which occupied a middle ground between humans and gods, these could vary in source, but were commonly spirits of dead humans.[2] The LXX would later adopt this term to apply to a host of passages concerning false gods and evil spirits, obscuring a more robust Old Testament demonology.[3] Justin Martyr in the same vein uses the term for false gods, which he sees as fallen angels, yet also keeping the Greco-Roman definition to apply to at least some cases of possession. There is no indication Justin sees this as the either the normal result or death or the normal cause of possession. At most can be said is that Justin asserts the reality of human souls possessing other humans, without regard to frequency. These wicked souls occupy the final rung of Justin’s demonic categories.

[1] I'll comment about this on a latter post

[2] In essay by Peter Bolt in Anthony N.S. Lane, ed. The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm (Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press and Baker Book House, 1996), 75-102. Bolt presents several examples such as souls of the dead. He overstates his case that daimo,nioa (daimonioa) must mean dead human spirits in the New Testament, as he fails to take into account sufficiently the appropriation of the word in Jewish contexts, but does provide strong evidence for this being the case in the larger culture.

[3] See for example Deut 32:17 and Isa 34:14, compare MT to LXX.

Small rant on the "Legion" movie

I don't want to have a rant blog so this will be short:

Concerning the "Legion" movie...

If the archangel Michael rebelled against God he would become a demon, and thus would be evil.

If God decided humanity needed to be wiped out [and this is important folks] then he would have the right to do so and would not be evil.

The universe is centered on God, not humanity.

Remember, Satan fell because he desired equality with God and freedom from his control, not because he did bad things to people. It is God's perspective that matters, not what we humans think is best for us.

God is king, not president...that is all...

Edit: [2/20/2010] I realize the issues of theodicy are complex, and that human suffering is an issue [even to God]. His answer was the Cross. My point is that human beings are sinful and evil [we are responsible for much of our own suffering] and it is not our place to decide what God should do about us. Also, God has the right to judge, which is something that makes the righteous rejoice and the wicked flee, see Pslam 68:1-6.

Not so much! (Ark update)

Looks like it was a case of bad transaltion. Oh, well. Whatever they have, even if it dates from a latter post-Roman era would have been interetnig to see.

See here:

http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/6067

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/Cronaca/?id=3.0.3445266776

Ark of the Covenant to be revealed?

See the news article here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132067

The Ethiopians are planning on revealing what they claim to be the Ark of the Covenant supposedly held in the Church of Mary Zion in Axum. Now it may be an old replica, or even a reliquary of some sort, even if not the genuine object.

I'm not sure how they plan on dating it [they aren't going to let a piece of it get broken off for carbon dating I'll bet].

Even if it is not legitimate it might be an interesting replica. If it does date from the time when Jews may have fled to Ethiopia, then there is a good possibly it is an exact replica made by people who saw the original.

This would be most interesting to see how they represent the Cherubim. We in the modern world tend to use human figurines. Yet, the Cherubim where not unknown in the ancient near east [such as the Arslan Tash Cherub that dates to 8th-9th century BC], and acted as guardian spirits to sacred spaces and thrones of the king. These are similar roles as played in the Old Testament as guardians of Eden (Gen 3:24) and God's throne (Ezek 1:1-28; 10:1-22). A Cherub was always represented as a composite creature, and never completely human in form. Normally they had a human face/head, but then animal bodies, such as a lion body and snake tail. Or even the lower half of a bull. In one case however, in connection with the vision in Ezekiel, the Cherubim may have animal heads such as that of eagles, but with a human body.

Conversely, it may be possible to help date the object based on said representations. A “Cherub” in the modern post-renaissance sense or as seen in some Christian iconography would suggest a latter date as a reinterpretation of the Ark. However if the Ark’s Cherubim fit the pattern found in the Ancient Near East, then it [although certainly not proof of being the genuine Ark] does show it as coming out of the same time period and cultural region of the original.

Further Reading:

Ark of the Covenant: [not claiming veracity or anything, these are just what I am most aware of]

"The Sign and the Seal" by Graham Hancock

"In Search of the Lost Ark of the Covenant" by Cornuke and Halbrook

"Lost Temple Treasures" by Randall Price

"Mysteries Of The Bible: Essays by the Biblical Archeology Society" ed by Molly Meinhardt

Cherubim:

Van Der Torn, Becking, and Van Der Horst “Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible” p. 190

Othmar Keel “Symbolism of the Biblical World” p.142

Elie Borowski, “Cherubim: God's Throne?,” Biblical Archeology Review 1995, p.37.

New Book

"Dreams, Visions, and Spiritual Authority in Merovingian Gaul" by Isabel Moreira.

Found it at half-price books [I need to just stop prentending I won't buy something "this time"]

It sounds intereting, i'll post some comments when I'm done. [And when I get to it, as i'm reading a book on the sacraments]