This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Charismatic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance). Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article does not display a neutral point of view. Many religions do not believe in demons, nor is there any scientific evidence to back up their existence. The claim that things like homosexuality or atheism cause demonic possession is particularly spurious. 67.175.200.242 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which is why the article is called "Christian demonology." There is (or should be) a more general discussion of the subject in the main Demonology article, and "scientific evidence" is not at issue when discussing a religious tradition, see this discussion and the subsequent RfC. In the meantime, I've started work on sourcing this entry (sorry it's taken me about a year to get to it). ◄Zahakiel► 23:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's VERY important to distance this concept from anything found in the canonical Bible... which is to say.. it isn't found in the Bible, and is one of the many things attached to Christianity by human beings. (anonymous)

Actually, demons are mentioned in the Bible. See Lilith.

Also, Azazel. In addition, please sign your comments on any talk page with four tildes (~). 207.228.60.204 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would take a great deal of work to bring this babble up to high-school standards. --Wetman 07:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried to fix some of the grammar, and break the great rambling sentences into smaller and more coherent sections, however I do believe that if this page was deleted, it would be no great loss...Nic

There is certainly a lot of Christian demonology that could be mentioned. Particularly during the mediaeval era. For example, the following Grimoires were published in the middle ages by people who really believed that demons existed

• Malleus Maleficarum
• Lesser Key of Solomon
• Pseudomonarchia Daemonum

Then there is the Sexuality in Christian demonology and Deliverance ministry articles to consider - this article would effectively count as the parent of those ones, so really ought to touch upon their subject matters a bit.

The stuff at the following (historic) links needs to be considered as well - not all of it is junk (a lot of it is):

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Or we could try and merge this article and the salvagable material from the three links above, and brief summaries of Sexuality in Christian demonology and Deliverance ministry, into a section of the Demonology article. Clinkophonist 17:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I think that the entire page should be deleted and then started fresh, if thats possible. There will be no loss at all to anyone should this be done. I mean, this page is poisonous.Abhar Machnaimh (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I understand the matter of the articles' inconsistencies and its suspicious nature, I believe that, unlike what the others seem to ignore, that Christian Demonology is "still" an important part of the Wiki articles that deal with Christianity--no, to Christianity in general. This is why it's called "Christian" Demonology; that is what us Christians believe to be the truth (at least, most Christians do). It is "not" junk, like what the person above has stated. This being said, I do not in any way imply that this particular article--or the collection thereof--is not in need of some fine tuning; indeed, these articles need to be expounded (an example would be those in The Lesser Key of Solomon, concerning some of the stub articles on most of the demons listed), with all references properly noted, and as well as any other additional information that one may be able to add concerning the topic (origin of the subject, etc.). - Jan (Unregistered Wiki User)

I'll take a whack at seeing what can be done with this page after I've put a little more time in at the Demonology article. It looks like the first thing to be done here is to section the text of this entry into bite-sized portions, then see what information can be verified (and provide the sources), then start adding encyclopedic content where there are gaps. I'm certain this can turn into a decent article, but it will need a fair amount of effort. If anyone wants to start doing any of these things, go right ahead. ◄Zahakiel► 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm starting to re-order the data here to try and make it coherent. I am also providing proper sub-headings for the sections (some of which are going to be small for the moment). There seems to be a lot of O.R. so the next step will be to either attribute them or remove them and replace the information with verifiable data. In either case, rewording is a must. ◄Zahakiel► 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed Luke 13:16; -- it makes no mention of a demon. (Satan is not a demon).

Challenged causing disgraces and diseases for a citation on demons causing diseases. Teji 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed "The Greeks viewed demons as the spirits of wicked dead men (Heb 9:27)," because Heb 9:27 says "27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (www.niv.org) This citation is incorrect and insidious. Forgive my hasty removal. I would have put a fact tag, but this is a case of an obviously false reference. Furthermore, this view is a dangerous one and not in line with the teachings of Jesus. Teji 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree this article needs a complete rewrite. If you would allow it, I could do this. It wouldnt be an over night process, but I would do it in a timely manner. Again if it would be alright with you all. Shreveport Paranormal 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can get it in better shape, go for it! Aleta 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just make sure you don't remove information that is already cited and that new edits are up to wiki standards. It's nice to see a scholar on Wikipedia. May I ask for some references to recent publications? I'm a bit of a theology dilettante. Teji 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please clean it up, the state of these articles hurts the eyes. As it is, we have about a dozen broken articles about demonology hanging around under various titles. The material should be collected, arranged, filtered and referenced. Any chance you get around to this any time soon? dab (𒁳) 07:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. There are a few sections on Demons wandering around loose, and it would make sense to have them tied together where they can be found together. There are a lot of facts here, though I feel some are quite inaccurate(imo), they make for a good point of reference for further research..--Les317 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author indicates early in the article that "Christian demonology is mainly studied within the Roman Catholic Church," but fails to provide any citations to Catholic sources. There is also a heavy reliance on the book of Revelation, which most Catholic scholars consider to be metaphorical in nature and not a literal description of the end of the world, or of the nature of God, angels, and demons. I am not necessarily siding with Catholic demonology (of which I know little to nothing) but am interested in the inconsistency the author displays by stating this is the primary research body on the subject and then failing to use any material from that body in the construction of the article. I also have a problem with the use of inquisitional writings to describe demons and other beings, as inquisitors are not the most reliable historians on record; it was common practice during the Spanish and other inquisitions for the inquisitors to fabricate confessions in order to execute the politically or socially undesriable. These documents need to be taken not with a grain but with a 10-pound bag of salt, and interpreted with their historical and political context in mind.

Certainly in possessing the oldest of Christian theological documents, the Catholic Church would be a good place to start in researching this subject, and at the very least a citation to the Chatechism would be appropriate.

The author also seemed unduly interested in sexuality as an aspect of demons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon30303 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That article has been long overdue for cleanup and merge. Much of it was uncited or original synthesis, and has disappeared, but a few statements seem like they could possibly be useful if citations were found for them. They are:

• The trident or pitchfork is a symbol of the Devil, sometimes drawn with a line crossing the lower part of the handle to combine the inverted crucifix.
• Demons and especially the Devil have been believed to hate salt.
• Witch hunter Nicholas Remy cited Pythagoras as having mentioned black as the colour of evil, and thus the animals or other things sacrificed or offered to the Devil had to be black.
• In early Christian times, the three letters "FFF" were sometimes substituted for 666, F being the sixth letter of the Latin alphabet.
• The diabolical connotations of the inverted crucifix only appear late in history, and probably have the same origins as the diabolical connotations of the inverted pentagram.

Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 00:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IIRC, the Latter-Day Saint interpretation is that one third of all the souls who existed at the beginning joined Satan, while the other two thirds were or will be incarnated on Earth. That would make the minimum demon count equal to half the number of humans who have ever lived. I don't know what to cite for that or whether adding it would fit whatever guidelines apply, though. --DocumentN (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) didn't write the 17th century Lesser Key of Solomon, it was written by someone that would have claimed to be Christian. Weyer and Spina also claimed to be Christian. The LKoS, and the writings of Weyer and Spina were written under the assumption that Christianity is correct. Weyer, critical of the witchhunts and having titled his work the false heirarchy of demons, likely was dismissive of magic and wrote his work to expose witchcraft as a sham. Whether or not they are "real" Christians is not for the editors to question. Their work assumes a type of Christian worldview, and as such qualifies as Christian demonology. While their works are considered "occult" now, before the modern era questions such as "how many demons are there?" were seen as serious issues by some theologians. This was back when alchemy was considered science. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the first paragraph, "That's so Raven, it's the future I can see" is placed into the article. In the editable code, it does not show up. What's up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.54.141 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Albertus Magnus, aware of the many false beliefs and erroneous teachings on the subject, said of demonology, "A daemonibus docetur, de daemonibus docet, et ad daemones ducit" ("It is taught by the demons, it teaches about the demons, and it leads to the demons")."

This is actually mistaken. If you read the article, it saying that the author made a new quote based off the quote from Magnus. 73.73.127.102 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any citation for this claim that Gregory of Nyssa supported the concept of Cambions and Incubi? I have searched tirelessly for any evidence for this besides Wikipedia. I am beginning to believe this has simply been made up. If someone could provide this, it would be appreciated. Paranovafiles (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]