Canonical angels and demons?

Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Phanuel, Jerahmeel, Raguel, Sariel, these angels appear in many areas of Christian literature. Obviously the first two should be a no brainier since they appear in the NT and the accepted books of the OT, but what about the others who only appear in deuterocanon/apocrypha?

Also demons are Lucifer/Satan, Belial, Beelzebub, Azazel, Asmodeus, Semjaza. But aren't Belial and Beelzebub different names for Satan? As for the others, they all appear in deuterocanon/apocrypha with maybe the exception of Azazel who may or may not be what is being mentioned in Leviticus 16:8

So who are the canonical ones? Which ones actually exist and which ones are made up?

Attached: maxresdefault (3).jpg (1280x720, 188.72K)

It depends on what you mean on Canonical. The Book of Enoch (Enoch I, which is at least Canon for Ethiopian Christians and is quoted by Peter and Jude) names more Watchers/Fallen Angels who once were watchers/guardians of various nations, but sinned. And he calls their offspring the "bastard spirits".

The bastard spirits are Nephillim (and their secondary offpsring the Anakim and the Rephaim like those encountered by Joshua), They are the giants who terrorized the earth.

But if you go a step further, the Dead Sea Scrolls uses Enoch's own words "the bastard spirits" and uses it for demons. And it further says these demons are the spirits of these dead giants. In one Dead Sea Scrolls psalm, it states the demons are the “offspring of man and the seed of the holy ones.” Their disembodied spirits still live on as demons apparently.

But angels are still angels in nature, fallen or not.

Sounds jewish.

Of course. It's only to the Jews that God revealed himself at first. They were the breakaway civilization that served the Most High, while the rest were still subject to the effects of these Fallen Angels. God set them aside for himself, until an allotted time that he would eventually redeem all of humanity through his Son. "Go preach the Good News to all nations." But this didn't happen until he came. It was distinctly Jewish before.

The synagogue of satan isn't the OT religion. Their stance on angels is void.

This isn't the synagogue of Satan. This is pre-NT Judaism. Enoch's story originates in Genesis. The Nephillim are from Genesis. And as far as the Dead Sea Scrolls go in the few centuries before Christ, these were Jews who hated the Temple controllers and the Pharisees and would rather live in caves.

Enoch isn't canon.

Enoch I is canon for Coptic Christians. Yet it's still QUOTED in the New Testament by Peter and Jude….which all Christians believe.

Jude 1:14-15 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

^ This is from I Enoch 2:1-2

Enoch himself and the story of the fallen angels and Nephillim is in Genesis 6. I'm merely expanding the context. I think ancient Jews from multiple eras know what demons are that anything some random teacher in the 21st century will tell you.

Take it or leave it, I guess. The demons don't care what you know about their nature.

To reiterate what I said in the last thread we had about the Book of Enoch, Paul quotes several Greek philosophers and poets; that doesn't make their writings canon either.

I recall reading somewhere that Azazel was also another name for Satan, I think it was something Enoch-related.

It doesn't mean you chuck them into the bin, either. If apostles and early church fathers thought some source had merit, it doesn't hurt to study up on it. In this particular case, the source is a revelationary text, and there is no argument against it from those quarters. I'm going to take the word of people who knew Jesus and their immediate successors about what's important or not than some random on a Bohemian crochet website.

Also, if they thought Enoch (at least the first one) had merit, then they didn't seem to pile it under "synagogue of Satan" categories. Logically, either you're wrong about the text being evil to the faith, or the founding members of this religion messed up pretty early on. I'm inclined to think there was no error on the part of the older boffins.