Talk:Demon/Archive 2

Questionable Reference to DSM IV
This citation is not actually of the DSM IV, but rather a news article which makes a passing reference to the DSM IV, with no immediately apparent attribution. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the assertion using this reference is accurately portraying the article's meaning, or intent. The source material says this:

"It is hardly novel for ideologues to press alleged demonic phenomena into service, beginning in the late Middle Ages and reaching a climax in the witchcraft trials of the 17th century that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents. The trials and executions at Salem, Mass., in 1692 still provide an instructive case in point. Dr. Peck seems oblivious, on the other hand, to the persuasive role played by suggestion and especially hypnosis in inducing dissociative states. In his enthusiasm to enter the lists as an exorcist, he too easily dismisses dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) as a simpler explanation and more easily treated condition. Far from being discredited, moreover, it is still listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association."

In this context, the article seems to be suggesting that it is the theory of "dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder)" that is listed within the DSM IV of the APA--not Dr. Peck's studies on the subject, much less his theories on the psychology of demonic possession. As a result, I think the citation as used in the Wikipedia article is misusing/misinterpreting the source material's assertion.

But even then, since the source material is itself a business news article (not a peer-reviewed psychology/psychiatry journal), and only makes a passing, unsourced reference to the DSM IV, it seems like a questionable citation no matter which way you interpret it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkamouflage (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is from (and probably copyvio) National Catholic Reporter / 										April 29, 2005. Having said that, it isn't referring to Peck but as you say, disassociative identity disorder, and I've removed it. In fact it's a criticism of him, and we could use it for that but give the source as the NCR. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Demons in literature
While all demons are fictional, this article concentrates on religious or folkloric concepts. I've added a section where we can list explicitly fictional descriptions. Monado (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming that all demons are fictional is an unfounded assertion. Unless you can prove that demons do not exist, it would be nice of you to show respect for the many contributors to this page who do believe in them. Dontreader (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Err...
This article is turning into a disaster. Is anyone (any of the regular editors who have this in their watchlist) planning to do anything about this? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

scope
The article should probably restrict itself to demons in Judeo-Christian (or "Abrahamic", including Islam and Western occultism) tradition and delegate "demons" in other cultures (East Asia, South Asia, Shamanism, Sub-Saharan Africa, Americas, etc.) to disambiguation. What we need to expand upon and figure out how to present are the coverage of psychoanalytic aspects and comparative mythology. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been no support for splitting the article. However, developing the article in the manner indicated by Dbachmann seems feasible, and if the article is developed in such a way that there is a distinct section on Judeo-Christian and/or Shamanism, etc, which grows too large for the parent, then it can be split out per WP:Summary style.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "a demon is a spiritual entity that may be conjured and controlled." should have a citation. Where in Judeo-Christian theology or any other philosophy is this mentioned?Chryslerfan (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nephilim as the origin of demons
Before the Flood

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

After the Flood

Numbers 13:33 "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

It is my understanding that the early Christians believed that what we think of as demons are not fallen angels but are actually descendants of fallen angels, before and after the flood. According to those beliefs when Goliath the giant died his spirit would have no where to go.

After reading the above scriptures it would seem that Goliath the giant was not quite man and not quite fallen angel. So the contention is that those who were descendants of Anak would not have a place in Abraham's bosom or hell. So they would be force to wander the earth until the day of judgment.

Looking from that perspective makes the behavior of demons in the new testament much more logical. Carnal spirits in search of a human host, then in turn looking to seek out sinful pleasures.

I'm not sure if their is source material for these ideas but it would be interesting to find out where they come from. I am fairly certain that this is an old idea that dates back to early church. I do know that there are some pastors that believe it but I'm not really interested in the new stuff. If some one could have some old source material on it i would love to look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.s.mcintyre (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at our guidelines restricting original research, identifying reliable source, and writing in a neutral fashion. The connection between demons and Nephilim is one idea among many, but also requires specific secondary sources to attest to this being a historical idea.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Right That was the point of discussions. I hope that someone may be able to make that connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.s.mcintyre (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

NoDance3600 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Dance3600 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice fiends
"A demon, daemon or fiend, is a supernatural, often malevolent being...."

I don't think "fiend" is ever used in a sense which isn't malevolent. It shouldn't appear in the subject of this sentence, this way. 172.56.27.39 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs more qualifications
There are a few very bold and ultimately unsupportable statements that imply the existence of demons and gods. As this article is being revised please be clear what book, religion, or organization is professing a particular belief. Even where you think a section title makes it clear all the statements thereunder are "according to something...", qualify each statement for clarity.

I see these qualifications in other articles and they really help the quality of the article. Bold and unqualified assertions implying the existence of supernatural entities reflect poorly on the quality of any article and make it easy to dismiss the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.95.186 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a shame you didn't indicate which statements you were referring to. It's practically inconceivable to discuss a subject sensibly, but in a thoroughly subjunctive mood, as if it must be maintained at all times that it were a thoroughly speculative concept. How much doubt can you insist upon? 208.54.85.146 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

File:The Army of Super Creatures.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * What? Are you telling me that if I make a drawing and say you can use it, you still can't, because my grant of permission isn't good enough -- I have to "freely-license" it or something? That's going too far. 172.56.27.19 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not going too far, you just have no idea now copyright works. "Freely licensed" work is work that the artist has given legal permission to use.  Your complaint is nonsensical and honestly a waste of space on this page.  Wikipedia can't use stuff that's copyrighted or could be copyrighted (barring some rather restrictive fair use stuff), and "freely licensed" means that the artist has given permission.  Please also note that this is not a general discussion forum -- if what you have to say doesn't concern article improvement, please do not post it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Demon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021925/https://medievalstudies.ceu.hu/courses/20102011/magic-science-religion-the-development-of-the-western-esoteric-traditions to http://medievalstudies.ceu.hu/courses/20102011/magic-science-religion-the-development-of-the-western-esoteric-traditions
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228051312/http://richardwoodsop.net/site/Bio.php to http://richardwoodsop.net/site/Bio.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Demon (also see devil)
Devil, is france, de ville (from the village). Demon, is france, de mon  (from man).

Devil is usually female, demon, well, usually male.

A girl went to the city to take the farms produce to market.

All asked, from wence did that come? And the reply: de ville (from the village).

After many a trip, months later, she placed the farms produce in the village market, the trip having become a tad too ardeous, her belly clearly showing.

All asked, from wence did that come? And the reply: de mon (from man).

Clearly, this is real, there being quite a few france speakers in the middle east to acknowledge the defacto. A bit of reality ladies and gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use original research, especially when it's just plain wrong. See the etymology sections for Devil, devil, Demon and demon for why.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Difference between devils and demons
Somewhere in the writings ofRuth Manning Sanders, it says that the difference between a demon and a devil is that you can kill the former but not the latter. Should this be mentioned in this article?81.140.1.129 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be her opinion on the matter, or her definition of how she used those words, not an academic consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219102002/http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/12/13/betty/index.html to http://www.salon.com/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050330091329/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-79 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-79

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

suggesting re-structure of article
Since this article focus on Demon in western-Christian usage, I think we should focus on the Christian demon and the development of its concept. For example we have a Judaism section, that says, Judaism mainly does not believe in demons, and after that it lists jewish sources, there the (christian) idea of demons developed from. The idea that Shedim, Seirim, Asuras, Jinn and so on are demons, depends on the Christian influenced western language. Shedim and Jinn are not necessarily evil and Sirim probably like Shedim pagan deities. Jinn may apply to demons in the ancient greek meaning (daimonion) but we want to distinguish between the Christian demon (an evil spirit, that can possess human and rebels against Gods order) and the intermediary demon from ancient greek, that also applies to shedim, jinn and hindu-concept of spirits.

My suggestion is, that we center on Chrisstian demons, with a development section, beginning with the second temple period, there jewish shedim, became evil entities, by persian dualism influences. Then go further and make a section of early christianity, further a medieval age section, with folklore, exorcism rituals and so on. Maybe we can make a "Modern"-section for psychological re-interpretation of demons.

A Judaism-section, distinguished from after second temple period, to explain the attitute towards demons in Judaism (with Rambam and so on) and Kabbalah. We could also make a "Demons in other cultures"-section there we mention entities, from Islam and Hinduism, what are often reffered as demons today, but are not actually demons and developed independnd of its Christian meaning. (the word "demon", that derived from greek, did not mingle with eastern language, we do not find any trace of the words Daimonion or Shedim in Islam, Hinduism Buddhism..., but at least we find "Shayateen" in Islam, that was also used by Jewish for "accuser angels")

If noone oppose this idea I would like to start with the Judaism section, then I find the time. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Christian concept: Christian demonology. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * we also have a Demonology article, but also a demon article. I guess demon and demonology are two different things, but yes, they may overlap if we now explain the development of "demon". But that is the focus on the word "demon" in this article instead? "Evil spirits"? "Intermediary spirits"? "non-angelic spirits"? non-spiritual "physical" demons? I am not sure, thats why I ask. A definition on demon is a bit vargue.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

uhh
The Girl or Women she looks like naked or something can somone ask to me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkiepiemlp24 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? 2.28.151.167 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018
Please remove below the heavenly planes from the lead sentence However, in Ancient Near Eastern religions as well as in the Abrahamic traditions, including ancient and medieval Christian demonology, a demon is considered a harmful spiritual entity, below the heavenly planes[3] which may cause demonic possession, calling for an exorcism. (This phrasing is actually cited, but on review the source doesn't say anything to support it.) The concept of planes used here is not one that exists in ancient Near Eastern religions, Abrahamic religions, or ancient or medieval Christian demonology; it's an invention of 19th-century occultism and a contemporary fantasy cliche. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Christian Demonology
Several things are left out here that should be considered to add... Modern Christianity believes that christians have power over Demons and over all the work of the Enemy (satan who used to be Lucifer). Revelations 12:11 Revelation 12:11-13 King James Version (KJV)

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Modern Christians say to demons and adversity we have power over you by the blood of JESUS because they believe that "the Lamb"  refers to Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acts10.36truth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede image
Do we really need that shadow behind the lede image of Pazuzu? It looks cheap, like something made in PowerPoint. ~ HAL  333  23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ImproveIment for Christian section?
The Christian section is (almost) all about the term "demon" and how it is used but lacks information about that a demon is and how the idea of a demon developed in Christianity. This needs improvment.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Second Temple Period
Hello, I think the sections about Intertestamental Texts take too much space and it seems they are often a summary of the writings. Shouldn't much of this be removed or at least trimmed down a bit?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions?
Hello, I would also like to ask what others think about not dividing into Abrahamic religions, since each have pretty different understanding of demons? For example Islam has Arabian and Persian influences, Christianity also much of Neo-Platonic and Greek inclunces, both Orthodox Judaism and Islam lack. It makes the article less easy to overview, when so many sections are submerged into a great Abrahamic section which encompass most of the article anyway. And demons do not really appear in other religions, Iranian religions an exception, since many religions, especially Asian ones do not sahre the division into good and evil.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

rearranging the order of the sections?
Greetings, Thinking about the strcuture of the article, and doing research about this matter, it seems to me that "demons" (distinct from Daemons/Daimons as the header asserts) are mainly a Christian concept. Mostly teachings affected by Christianity, such as Wicca, European folklore, or Western occultism, clearly have demons. Exceptions are Iranian demons, who in turn paved the way for Christian demons in the first place, but simultaneously pushing Islam to the direction of malevolent demons/devils (albeit some traditions dispute the existence of pure demons). However, there are usually no demons within religions, not influenced by Iranian religions. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia rather speaks about, what could be interpreted as "demons", rather than explicitly referring to clearly demonic entities. Other sections speak about not having demons at all: "According to Rosemary Ellen Guiley, "Demons are not courted or worshipped in contemporary Wicca and Paganism. The existence of negative energies is acknowledged." Depicting the Asuras as necessarily antagonistic spirits, also seems hasty: "In post-Vedic Hindu scriptures, pious, highly enlightened Asuras, such as Prahlada and Vibhishana, are not uncommon. The Asura are not fundamentally against the gods, nor do they tempt humans to fall." By this, even the article itself makes clear, the term "demon" is not really applicable. Forcing most religious systems into "good vs evil" or "angels vs demons", is rather a mistake, done by several (too Eurcentric) Western scholars in the past. Trying to establish a universal evolution of "demonic beliefs" "failed" (according to Franz Winter), but as far as I know, most anthropologists today reject the idea of a chronologically and gradual demon-belief. Thus I would recommand we abandon the "universal approach" for demons in this article entirely, and look forward to move the Hindu. and Pagan sections to their corresponging articles. We should however, keep the Judaism section and I would also keep the Egypt/Mesopotamian-section, but as a sub-section for "demons in other religions" or "forrunners", instead of giving these sections the same weight as the Christianity section. For such a big change, I would like to discuss the opinnions of my fellow Wikipedians.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Demons are not courted or worshipped in contemporary Wicca and Paganism" I do not see how that helps your argument as the sentence reflects Modern Paganism's stance on the matter. Modern pagans may or may not believe in the existence of demons, but they generally do not worship them. Remember that most modern humans either do not believe that demons exist or consider them malevolent. Few would consider making them subjects of worship. Dimadick (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "pious, highly enlightened Asuras" This reminds of the term "noble demon" in modern fiction. Used to describe villains who follow their own honor code, who have their share of heroic or redeeming traits, and who are not excessively cruel. Basically depicted as exceptions to the rule. It also reminds me of Chiron the "wisest and justest of all the centaurs". Basically he was the only centaur from Greek mythology who was depicted as the epitome of wisdom and virtue, while most centaurs were depicted as malevolent raiders and would-be rapists. Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "a sub-section for "demons in other religions" or "forrunners" " No objection. But the Egyptian concept of "demons" as personifications for "mental illness, death and plagues" seems to be connected to beliefs about malevolent gods, spirits, or monsters in other religious traditions. Basically the fears of humanity given form as supernatural entities. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * *I am not against the Wicca-Demons per se, rather I wonder if this should be a section in their own, rather than a sub-section for (for example) a general "folkloric section. Demons turning "good" is an interesting trope, did not know about that. I am not sure, if this is meant by equating Asuras with 'demons'. Nevertheless, many sources seem to refer to Asuras as demons, I will do more research about them, before any major changes. The Greek Demons in turn are rather Daimons, I am not sure if this example serves as an analogy. But in Islam, there is a demon (grandson of Satan), who becomes a believer. Such exceptions indeed exist, but it seems, there is more about Asura than an exception. It seems many demonic traits apply to the deities (daeva) as well. Regarding the sub-section "forerunners" I will also investigate further, how literature categorizes them. Thanks for your input, I will consider your points. My main focus currently is another article, so any major changes may take time.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Demons are not supernatural.
I had changed "supernatural" to "preternatural," which is more accurate for demons. It was changed back, but I do not think it is right. "Supernatural" applies only to God and the things God does. Demons are natural creatures, albeit not animal and not having physical bodies. They are not properly classed as supernatural beings given a proper definition of supernatural. I recognize that common usage has bastardized the term, but that does not excuse an encyclopedic entry reinforcing this common error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.108.72 (talk • contribs)
 * What is preternatural does operate by some unknown but natural law: but no scientist has proof of the existence of demons. Their existence has to be demonstrated for them to be accepted as natural creatures.  Though the distinction you make would be correct in a strictly theological article, this article is not purely theological.  While preternatural would be the correct theological jargon, it is not the common parlance, which is what this encyclopedia uses when it does not damage the meaning (see WP:JARGON).  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

so it must be proven for it to not be supernatural? Does that mean bigfoot must be labeled as a supernatural creature? Supernatural doesn't just mean unproven. 204.12.166.197 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that supernatural and unproven were the same thing, try actually reading what I said.  There is no evidence that demons exist, much less as natural creatures.  Most of the texts concerned with demons speak of them as unnatural (either supernatural or preternatural), but that is a different matter from the fact that there is no scientific evidence of their existence. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Demon is a supernatural being used as argument to explain a paranormal behavior. Hxyp (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This statement is preposterous: "Supernatural" applies only to God and the things God does.

"Divine" refers to The Divinity, but "supernatural" is a vastly broader category. Consider, if you will, the heavenly host, or the powers of Hell. Are they divine? Are they supernatural? You might consider the latter "subnatural", but "supernatural" in common parlance is used to refer to just about anything that is extraordinary in a way. Whatever is paranormal can be considered supernatural, not just above nature, but outside of nature. I wouldn't call demons supernatural, but I don't argue against doing so. It makes sense to consider them thus. 172.56.26.0 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Demons are by their very nature supernatural. Oxford Languages defines supernatural, as an adj, as "...attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Seeing as demons are outside the realm of scientific understanding and therefore are exactly that which supernatural defines. Preternatural, on the other hand, is that which is "beyond what is normal or natural". In other words, inside the boundaries of general scientific understanding but outside the general dynamics of that which science explains. Ergo, demons are supernatural, not preternatural as the latter is of this earth, the former is not. PaqqMann (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bias and errors in article.
"Large portions of the Jewish demonology, a key influence on Christianity and Islam, originated from a later form of Zoroastrianism, and were transferred to Judaism during the Persian era.[1]"

This statement is problematic and biased. Judaism didn't exist in the Persian era and there is no direct evidence of a transfer from Zoroastrianism. There is also no direct evidence of Jewish demonology having a key influence on Christianity or Islam. What exactly are the Jewish writings that the author is referring to? This is the similarity=derivation assumption.

"In Christianity, morally ambivalent daimons were replaced by demons, forces of evil only striving for corruption.[5] Such demons are not the Greek intermediary spirits, but hostile entities, already known in Iranian beliefs.[6]"

This is another biased statement. The Greek New Testament borrowed Greek words, often that had already been in use at the time because of the Septuagint. They didn't replace anything. Iranians beliefs? The author acts as if something was stolen. The article seems to get back on track recognizing that the word probably came from the Septuagint. Where they not allowed to use that word because the pagan conception was different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.139.101 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is another problematic statement "Temptation is reserved for the devil only. Unlike spirits in pagan beliefs, demons are not intermediary spirits whom must be sacrificed for appeasement of a deity. Possession also shows no trace of positivity contrary to some pagan depictions of spirit possession."
 * There are at least two places in the New Testament that describe demons as being worshipped. Further there is a woman described in Acts with a demonic spirit that gives fortunes This is poor research and seems to want to create a straw man. 216.193.139.101 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How does this "create a strawman"? Does anyone want to win an arguement? No. So how can strawman fallacies be made? Doesn't make sense to me. Also, how does the statement that New Testamental demons, contrarily to pagan spirits, are not something to worship? The statement, that they aren't intermediary spirits (like the Greek daimon) which need to be worshipped, is true. Some people might still worship them, but unlike pagan beliefs, the Bible doesn't assert that it is something beneficial. Or am I mistaken at that point? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the statement that Zorastrianism influenced Judaism biased? It might be problematic, in case there is no evidence of Zorastrian influence on Judaism. based on the ground that Judaism didn't existed, I tend to agree. What we call Judaism today, usually refers to Rabbinic Judaism. Nevertheless, the religion of the Hebrews is also called "Judaism" often and entailed in Jewish Studies. This is probably also the reason why "Second Temple texts" is a sub-header of the Judaism section. Influence, at least when it comes up to demons, is evident, for example, on Asmodeus/Ashma Daeva. In Judaism a shed, appearing in the Book of Tobit, and a daeva in Persian lore. As far as I am aware, most scholars assume Persian influence. Otherwise, opponents of the "influence theory" need to explain, why Hebrews suddenly developed a concept of "demons" int their religion, when before, there haven't been any (there have been shedim and se'erim, more or less "foreign gods", rather than malevolent spirits). Do you have a source from a researcher who raises genuine objection ont he theory of Persian influence? I don't get the second point of objection. How is this accusing someone of stealing? In Greek mythology, there are not demons, only "daimons" who are morally ambivalent. Jewish evaluated them as "evil" in the sense of "foreign gods", pretty much in line with the non-Persian understanding of demons. In the Bible, they are entirely evil. This is a concept, the concept of a demon/inherently evil spirit. This concept existed in Iranian beliefs, doesn't mean it is stolen. But maybe, we can remove this last part, because of course it might be a New Testament's writers own concept of demons. Although, for a Wikipedia entry, it should be all about the same concept. So, are the concepts equal? If yes, Iran had it before. If no, when it is something new and we might sought to write this article about Christian demons alone, since no other religion has Christian/Biblical demons except Christianity (not even Judaism). I also don't see any trouble with calling the evil spirits "daimon". But when the term "daimon" was positivly connoted and the "daimons" of the New Testament are "evil spirits", there obviously was a change in meaning of the term right? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Backwards
A demon is a protective spirit. It seems the meaning here is completely backwards. Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you any source for that claim? I know from several research that the Daimon were sometimes a protective spirit, but the demon is't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Serious revision of the opening summary
The opening summary was a mess. I have re-arranged it quite a bit, moving sentences and paragraphs around to create a more orderly and chronologically correct sequence. I think we now have a much stronger foundation for future edits. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I propose that the content of Devil be merged into this article. The content of the Devil is similar to that of Demons. 210.181.111.231 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being similar isn't reason for merging. A devil is more specific than just demons which can be anything from powerful god-like beings to small annoyances.★Trekker (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are enough significant differences between the two concepts to justify two seperate articles. The Devil is not always classed among the demons; for the early Christians, for instance, Satan was technically an angel, while demons were the ghosts of the Nephilim. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even lesser devils are not necessarily equal to demons, and not all beliefs acknowledging demons have devils (like Egypt for example).'--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while there may be some overlap, the two terms generally have different usages - Epinoia (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reasoning seems patently obvious to most involved. Zhomron (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose.  I've revised the summary, pointing out that demons and devils are not the same thing, and that demons may or may not also be believed to be devils. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Word Meaning
Hi,

I think that before greek mentioning in Hebrew language Demon is related to "Red One" which is related to Esaw. I think this meaning is used very often for describing the red "devil" with horse legs and horns. The red one is transliterated "HaAdmon" A different interpunctuation can then really fast lead to "demon" based on the missing vocals in bold hebrew. Since I didnt find this meaning in the whole article I found it necessary to mention here for further notice.

130.75.183.229 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Monday 20.01.2014


 * Helps 2A02:C7C:2D3B:1F00:BD42:83D8:2AAA:5A7 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)