Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ezekiel 28:18 to me means the ' ashes of destruction '. 'Fire' being symbolic of destruction. As the fires of Gehenna ( garbage pit outside of Jerusalem ) was used to bring things to ashes, never to exist again.
Can you show the Hebrew word "epher", which translated "ashes" in the verse in quesion being used to mean something other than literal ashes? If not, then your response is just supposition that depends upon things being something other than what the Scriptures say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4
And as Hebrews 2:14 B lets us know that Jesus will ' destroy ' Satan.
ALL the wicked ( Satan is wicked ) will be ' destroyed forever ' as per Psalm 92:7
Actually that verse is about Christ destroying that which has the power of death which is said to be "the devil" in the KJV. It doesn't say "the devil" is a fallen angel. The Greek word translated "the devil" is "diabolos" and simply means "slanderer" or "false accuser" which it has been translated.
Jesus Christ told us that "false witness (accusing)" came from within a man or from his heart or flesh (Mat 15:17-19). That would make the flesh a "diabolos." Paul said that which brought him into the captivity to the "law of sin" making his flesh a "body of death (Rom 7:23)". Paul also tells us that death entered by sin passing death to all men (Rom 5:12). He says death is the result of sin (Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 15:56). James agrees with Paul (Jam 1:15). Nowhere in any of those verses will you find a fallen angel.
Taking the verse you gave we can see that it agrees with Paul and James:
Hebrews 2:14 14*¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
The lead in of the verse is about flesh and blood, which Christ took part of. That would align perfectly with the above verses I gave indicating the law of sin in the flesh brings death. This is why Christ's first temptation is clearly a temptation of the flesh which was hunger. His whole temptation was of the flesh. Since it is sin that causes death, then Christ's overcoming defeated that which had the power of death e.g., "the law of sin." The idea that "the devil" is a fallen angel is extra-Biblical.
You're repeating the same arguments that I told you I wasn't going to take the time to individually address, but that collectively, your arguments simply disregard the text which plainly states that Jesus was led out to the desert to be tempted by the devil. The same text has Jesus carrying on a conversation with the devil ---with Satan. Thus Satan is depicted as a real entity. Your attempts at argumentation do nothing to change what the text plainly states.
I am simply showing why I believe what I believe. You can "choose" not to respond to them under a blanket statement without evidence if you wish. I'm not posting here for your benefit, but for mine and perhaps others who wish to see another understanding of what "satan" is.
Yes the Scripture is clear that Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by "the devil (Mat 4:1)." I have never denied that. What I deny is that verse says "the devil" is a fallen angel. The first temptation is definitely one of the flesh which is hunger. The flesh is said by Jesus to be a "false accuser (Mat 15:19).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I've already addressed the fact that since Satan is said in Revelation 12:7-9 to have angels under his command, just as the archangel Michael is said to have angels that are under his command, then Satan is an angelic being -- actually a Cherub if Ezekiel 28:11 and following is indeed the entity to whom the king of Tyre is being compared as I believe, as well as do some scholars. He rebelled against God. He fell. He is a fallen angel.
You're assuming things that are not supported in those Scriptures. You are saying the "satan" in Rev 12 must be an angel because Michael the archangel had angels thus the "satan" of Rev 12 having angels must be an angel since you think Michael is an angel.
The Greek word translated "angel" is aggelos and the English word "angel" is transliterated rather than translated. "Aggelos" can be and has been translated "messenger in 7 verses in the KJV NT, nearly 100 times in Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint and is defined as "a messenger."
Michael is not an angel in the sense of created beings in heaven. He is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. The term "archangel" simply means "the chief messenger." Christ is called the "angel of the Lord" (Ex. 3:2), "the angel of God" (Ex. 14:19), the "angel of His presence" (Isa. 63:9), the "messenger of the covenant" (Mal. 3:1), "angel" (Ex. 23:20), "Mine angel" (Ex. 23:23), and "His angel" (Dan. 3:28).
The "angel of the Lord" visited Gideon (Judges 6:11-22) and is called "Lord" in verse 14. The "angel of the Lord" is the author of a "covenant (Judges 2:1). When the "angel of the Lord" appeared to Manoah and his wife, Manoah called Him God (Judges 13:20-22). When Jacob wrestled the angel all night he said he had seen God face to face (Gen 32:24-30; Hosea 12:4).
There are many other proofs that Christ is "an angel" or "a messenger" of God. However, just one more should suffice. We're told that Christ has the voice of the archangel (1 Thes 4:16). Therefore Christ is the chief messenger of God or, if you will an archangel. Therefore just the word "angel" does not necessarily mean a spiritual being. In fact there can only be one "chief messenger" and that One is Christ. This means a "fallen angel" cannot be an archangel.
While you may provide "scholars" that believe as you do about Eze 28, I can provide them that do not believe. What does that prove? That "scholars" don't agree just because they are "scholars." In fact when I provided you a "scholar's" support for what I believe, you pooh-poohed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Your last paragraph is utterly ridiculous since it is the Biblical text which states that Satan is a fallen angel. You don't get that from any one specific verse but from what is said of him throughout the Bible.
I don't mind if you think what I said is "utterly ridiculous." It's your prerogative to do so. That, however doesn't prove anything. It's just your opinion. I stand by what I said. I still believe your belief in a fallen angel is not supported anywhere in Scripture and is only seen that way when you already have a preconceived belief that the English words "Satan" and "devil" refer to such a creature. Any such Scripture read without that preconceived belief will render the "fallen angel" theory null and void.
To say you can't give specific Scriptural proof of a "fallen angel" and then support it by saying it's in the overall context of the Bible comes across as an admission you have no proof. I say the overall context of the Bible says there is no "fallen angel" and I can give many specifics to support that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
One thing I'll address from your post is that you are attempting to take the reference to the temple symbolically when the text clearly states in Matthew 4:5 that the devil took Jesus into the holy city (Jerusalem) and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple. That is literalistic language --not symbolic.
You're attempting to make words like "tempter", "devil" and "satan" be a "fallen angel" when the text doesn't support that. You expect us to believe that Jesus was tempted to worship a "fallen angel" in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world when He, God in the flesh knew He was the only one who had that power. You expect us to believe it was a temptation to Christ to be dared to jump off a building. You expect us to believe Christ's being hungry and desiring to eat after fasting is a temptation from a "fallen angel" instead of His flesh.
You say those terms have to apply literally, but can you prove that? Of course not! Remember this temptation was to take place in the "wilderness (Mat 4:1)." Yet you would have us to believe that this temptation took place in Jerusalem and on top of a mountain. You would have us believe that the mountain is so high one could see all kingdoms on the planet. You would have us believe that Jesus went into Jerusalem and climbed onto the highest part of the temple just to be dared to jump off in view of anyone in the area and it isn't recorded that it caused a commotion in the public.
We're told that the temptation was for the full forty days (Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2). These temptations came within the forty days. He was tempted all forty days according to Scripture. It is likely Christ had to fight all of the temptations many times within that span. Can you imagine people seeing him on top of a building several times and looking as if He might jump? Or Him climbing the closest high mountain which is Mt. Hermon and Him walking there, climbing to the top, back down and back to the wilderness? Especially when Mt. Hermon is about 119 miles from Jerusalem. Simply not possible!
Either Christ was meditating on these things or the Bible is incorrect in saying the temptations took place in the wilderness. What you say happened can't be literal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, you are attempting to explain away the fact that in the overall Biblical context, Satan is portrayed as a rebellious fallen angel who is the enemy of God and of man.
Or could it be you're using the vague phrase "overall Biblical context" because you can't prove such a creature exists by simply citing Bible passages without taking for granted certain words mean "fallen angel." I say the overall context of the Bible is the Way of God vs the way of man and I can give many, many Scriptures to support that belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And lastly, Biblical scholars are vastly more qualified then you are to interpret the Biblical passages.
While that may be true, it doesn't make them correct simply because some people consider them "scholars." I gave you testimony from the Biblical "scholar" Adam Clarke and you dismissed it. I can give you many views of "scholars" that will disagree with other "scholars" including the ones you use. But will you accept their witness? I don't think so!
Information in the Bible is not given all in one place. You must pay attention to all that is said in various places in the Bible.
I quite agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
In Ezekiel 28:11 and following, once again, the person to whom the king of Tyre is being compared cannot be a human being because the language doesn't fit. No man was ever a Cherub. The scene is set in the Garden of Eden. Adam was not internally filled with violence. Nor was Adam cast to the ground before kings. Fire was not brought out from the midst of Adam. The being to whom the king of Tyre is being compared to Adam but to someone else. And that someone else was a Cherub being. I've already pointed you to Ezekiel chapters one and ten where Cherubim are described.
I am familiar with the vision of Ezekiel in chapter 10. I do not think these cherubs were actual creatures, but a vision of symbolic creatures God caused him to see (Eze 1:10). But that's a discussion for another time. Just taking Eze 28 we find that the being referred to as a "cherub" was the King of Tyrus:
Ezekiel 28:12-14 12 SON OF MAN, TAKE UP A LAMENTATION UPON THE KING OF TYRUS, AND SAY UNTO HIM, Thus saith the Lord GOD; THOU sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 THOU hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 THOU art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: THOU wast upon the holy mountain of God; THOU hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Regardless of things you don't think could be true the fact remains God is addressing the King of Tyrus. There is no change in the above passage that would indicate God began addressing anyone else.
According to the Bible "scholar" Dr. Thomas Constable commenting on this says:
"... the human king was cherub-like in that God had allowed him to reign, and he exercised a guarding function over his city-state."
The Bible "scholar" Matthew Henry also believes the human king is the cherub:
"He looked like an incarnate angel (Ezekiel 28:14): Thou art the anointed cherub that covers or protects that is, he looked upon himself as a guardian angel to his people, so bright, so strong, so faithful, appointed to this office and qualified for it. Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power and, when they are such, God will own them. Their advancement was from him: I have set thee so. "
I can show other "scholars" that believe the king is the cherub. However, I don't think it will matter to you.
As for "Eden" or the precious stones mentioned, why does this have to be the same place as Adam was given in Gen 2? Do you think that maybe the term "Eden" is a word that describes God's Kingdom where ever it's found (Rev 22:14)?:
Ezekiel 36:33-35 33*¶ Thus says the Lord GOD: When I purify you from all your crimes, I will repeople the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt; 34 the desolate land shall be tilled, which was formerly a wasteland exposed to the gaze of every passer-by. 35 "This desolate land has been made into a garden of Eden," they shall say. "The cities that were in ruins, laid waste, and destroyed are now repeopled and fortified."
The precious stones are symbolic of the value God places on His Law (Rev 21:11, 18-21).
The word means "delight." In fact the Septuagint calls this same "place" the "garden of Delight":
LXE Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the >>>garden of Delight<<<, to cultivate and keep it.
And the Law of God brings "delight" (Psalms 1:2; 40:8; 119:70, 77, 92, 174; Rom 7:22). And where ever God's Law prevails is Eden. Remember the Tree of Life (TL) in Eden? Well, the TL is accessible to all who keep God's Law (Rev 22:14). The result or fruit of righteousness is the TL (Pro 11:30). And God's Law is righteousness (Psalms 119:172).
And how is the king of Tyrus described at his beginning? He was full of wisdom and perfect (Ezek 28:12). Perfection and wisdom are attributes of a Law-keeper (1Kings 8:61; Deut 4:5-6). And when did this end for this king? When he committed iniquity or sinned (Ezek 28:15-16). It was only then that this flesh and blood king was cast out of "heaven" or God's Kingdom (Eph 2:6) and removed from his rule (Ezek 28:7-8). The same thing happened to Adam when he sinned. He, too, was removed from ruling in God's Kingdom. Notice another similarity between these two flesh and blood kings. Adam partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) which is the way of man and death (Gen 2:17). In other words it's sin.
When Adam was removed from the Garden, God said this:
(Gen 3:22 KJV) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"
What is being said is Adam has now chosen the way of man by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (TKGE) He had become his own god by deciding for himself what's good and evil and God said he would force (take) the mixing of the TKGE with the Tree of Life and "live forever." This is why Adam was removed from the Garden (Gen 3:23). He had become his own god. And that's what the king of Tyrus had done (Ezek 28:2).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Though Satan was cast out of heaven, he still has access to it. He won't be permanently cast out until the middle of the Tribulation as per Revelation chapter 12.
Again this is supposition. There is nothing to say that "satan" is a fallen angel or that casting out of "satan" in Revelation, whatever you deem that to be was only partial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The issue at hand is whether or not Satan is a fallen angel. Not about the timing of events in Revelation. It's time consuming enough addressing that issue without bringing in other issues.
I agree it is time consuming. Sometimes getting to the truth takes much effort. I think the time of the fall of the "satan" of Revelation is very important in the sense you are saying a fallen angel called "satan" was already cast out in Adam's day and yet this "satan" is being cast to the ground in the first century A.D.
I had said:
Quote:
Why isn't the Revelation "serpent" equated to the tribe of Dan, which is also called a "serpent (Gen 49:17)?" Where in Genesis do we find the "serpent" defined as "a dragon", "satan", "devil", "having ten horns", "a tail" and "having seven heads with seven crowns on them?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Because the tribe of Dan was not in heaven warring with Michael and his angels. The reference is to the serpent in Genesis who caused the fall of man according to the text.
But you're assuming things you can't prove. You're assuming the "serpent" in Gen 3 is a "fallen angel" when nothing in the context even hints at that. It's the superimposing of an extra-Biblical belief onto the Bible. The fact that Dan is called a serpent shows the word "serpent" is not synonymous with a "fallen angel."
I had said:
Quote:
I don't think there's an angel fallen or not that fits that description in the Bible. I would say symbolism like "mountains", "kings" and "crowns" would indicate governments of men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You're taking symbolic language as if it's literal. Satan doesn't literally have a tail or ten horns or seven heads.
Figuratively or literally, I don't think you can show a fallen angel being thus described.
I had said:
Quote:
I agree that a literal being can be a "satan" just as Christ called Peter "satan (Mat 16:23)", but I don't think you can show one place where an angel fell from heaven and was named "satan" or "The Devil." Ezek 28 does not do that regardless of what "scholars" say. That is addressed to the King of Tyre and no one else. Superimposing another creature into that scenario is just wishful thinking IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
'Satan' and 'devil' are titles, not the name or names of this Cherub being.
I don't understand your point here. Please elaborate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And quite frankly, you simply are not qualified to dismiss out of hand what scholars say about the matter.
Even if they're wrong? What about the "scholars" that disagree with the "scholars" that agree with you?
I had said:
Quote:
Where does this creature get his power if ALL power is given to Christ (Mat 28:18)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of context. The fact that Jesus is said to have bee given all authority has nothing to do with whatever abilities angelic beings have.
I think I grasp the idea of "context" pretty good. However, I don't think I'm out of context here. If Christ has all power, strength and authority then a "fallen angel" could do nothing unless Christ gave him the power and allowed it regardless of his ability. But the question is, if God has all the power why would He let a "fallen angel" steal His glory?
To see who it is that causes evil to God's people, one need only read Lamentations the 2nd chapter and that one will find: the Lord covers His people with a cloud in His anger and casts from heaven to earth The glory of His people (v.1); The Lord swallows up and does not spare the habitations of His people and in His wrath He throws their strongholds down to the ground and He profanes the kingdom and its princes (v.2); He cuts off all the strength of His people and sets His right hand like an ADVERSARY to them and slays all that is pleasant to the eye in His people's land (v.3); He becomes an ADVERSARY to His people and pours out His wrath on them like fire. (v.4); the Lord becomes an ENEMY to His people and swallows them up and their palaces and destroys their strongholds and increases their sorrow (v.5); He violently treats His tabernacle and destroys His appointed meeting place and causes to be forgotten His Commandments to His people and despises their leaders, both king and priest (v.6); The Lord rejects His altar, and abandons His sanctuary and delivers into the hand of the enemy the walls of His people's palaces (v.7); The LORD will not restrain His hand from destroying His people, (v.8); He destroys His people's security and causes her rulers to rule as the heathen and removes His Law from His people and rejects their preachers (v.9).
If, as the Bible says, the flesh or heart is more deceitful than anything else and can't be known (Jer 17:9)), what need does God have for a fallen spiritual being? Especially when you consider that God becomes the enemy of His people when they rebel against Him.
God will send strong delusion to those who want to believe a lie (2 Thes 2:10-11). For those that delight in going their way in lieu of God's, God said He would choose delusions for them (Isa 66:3). God sends lying spirits to deceive those who stray from His ways and He deceives their prophets (1 Kings 22:20-23; Ezek 14:9). God blinds eyes and closes minds (Isa 6:8-10). He puts evil spirits in people (1 Sam 16:14-16: Judges 9:23). He creates evil (Isa 45:7). He says He is the cause of evil in the city (Amos 3:6). He causes people to think, act like, and live with beasts for years (Dan 4:24-25).
Events that many would accredit to "demons", such as hands writing on walls causing such fear that people's knees knock together and causing donkey's to talk (Num 22:28) are actually from God (Dan 5:5-6, 18-27). All power is from God (Mat 28:18). God becomes an enemy to His people if they do not obey Him (Lam 2:5). God became a "satan" to David. Read 2 Sam 24:1 in conjunction with 1 Chron 21:1. If God becomes a "satan" to His people, who needs a "fallen angel" to be a "satan?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Satan is the one who gives power to the antichrist....
Where does this creature get the power to give away? Where does is this "satan" identified as a fallen angel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No, you do not have to take for granted that there was an angel that fell from God's grace because as already stated and shown, the greater context of the Bible shows Satan to be a fallen angel.
If there is any evidence of a fallen angel in the Bible you should be able to show it. There is no such evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Hebrews 1:14 refers to the obedient angels. It does not refer to the fallen angels who rebelled against God,
The verse doesn't distinguish between angels. It said "ALL angels." There is nothing to distinguish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
some of whom are according to Peter and Jude cast into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). This is a reference to the event in Genesis 6:4 when the sons of God (angelic beings) disobeyed God and took human wives for themselves. The book of 1 Enoch which while not canonical, is second period Jewish literature which interprets Genesis 6:4 and states that two hundred angels were involved in this affair. The descended from heaven to the summit of Mount Hermon and made a pact to take human wives. It was 1 Enoch which informed both Peter and Jude who again stated that these angels were confined to Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6).
I will respond to this under separate cover.
I had said:
Quote:
If "Satan" is spirit, how can he devoured by fire and become ashes (Eze 28:18)? I can find no place in the Bible that equates "cherubim" with being spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You're ignoring the fact here that the Bible uses descriptive and symbolic language.
Can you show one Scripture that shows "ashes" to mean anything other than literal ashes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, Cherubim are described in Ezekiel chapters one and ten. They are heavenly beings and therefore 'spirit beings.'
Paul said those flesh and blood people in his day who were salvaged by the blood of Christ were heavenly beings(Eph 2:6). I don't think that makes them "angels."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I'm the one who pointed out that Cherubim were represented on the ark of the covenant. They are angelic beings of higher rank than bottom rung angels. And again, the king of Tyre was not a Cherub. Nor was the king of Tyre ever in the Garden of Eden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You don't have very good reasoning skills and seem unable to distinguish between when something is to be understood literally and when something is to be understood symbolically. Once again, go to Ezekiel and read the descriptions of Cherubim in chapters one and ten. God is not a Cherub. Nor is He a Seraph which is yet another class of angelic being.
I suppose you could be correct in that I don't have very good reasoning skills. However I must wonder by what authority do you make such a conjecture. When I see a statement e.g., " Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him..." without ever redirecting the conversation to or about another being I have enough reasoning skills to realize that it is the King of Tyrus that is being spoken of and to. I don't have to "reason" around clearly worded passages in order to hold onto a fictitious creature known by the moniker "Satan."
I have enough reasoning skills to know that when someone goes without food or fasts and that one becomes hungry, the temptation to feed oneself comes from the flesh and not a fictitious "fallen angel."
I have enough reasoning skills to know that being dared to jump off high places or succumbing to a bribe of getting something from someone that has no power to give that something isn't a temptation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The Cherub who rebelled against God and became known as Satan and the devil came was created along with all the other angelic beings sometime before the creation of the world. He was not created evil. He rebelled at some point.
Yes I know the drill. Trust me! I was born and raised in a church that taught this un-Biblical belief. However once I decided to actually study this subject I quickly saw how I and my family were hoodwinked into believing a doctrine that is more in line with Dante's Inferno than what is actually said in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I already addressed this. The reference to Satan being a murderer from the beginning doesn't refer to the beginning of his existence, but to the fact that he caused the fall of man.
Again, you just make up things that are not said. John 8:44 mentions nothing about the fall of man. Look up the definition of the Greek word translated "beginning" in that verse. Strong shows the word means "that by which anything begins to be, the origin," It's talking about the origin of this "devil." And it contradicts the perfection of the creature spoken of in Ezek 28. The verse literally says this "devil" is the father of the Jews to whom Christ was talking even though they claimed God as their Father (v. 41). Do you think these Jews were worshipping a fallen angel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
This is very time consuming and I don't intend to spend more time on it. I've already sufficiently shown that the Biblical text presents an angelic being who rebelled against God, and thus fell, and is known by his titles 'Satan' and 'the devil' among other descriptive titles. You don't believe that an angelic being known as Satan exists. You have a lot of company. But the Bible says that he does exist and that is the belief of mainstream Biblical Christianity based on the Biblical text. But believe what you will.
As I said, I am not posting for your benefit. Don't respond if you don't want to. I do this for myself. Yes it takes time to really discuss something of this nature in depth, but I find the effort more than worth it. I do believe you have shown what you say have shown, but only for yourself because I see nothing of the sort. Yes it is a belief of mainstream Christianity, but that fact alone doesn't support the belief. Remember Christ warned His followers that many would come and deceive many (Mat 24:11). The "fallen angel" hypothesis is merely one deception. IMHO it just gives excuse to blame ones shortcomings on something other than oneself.
some [fallen angels] of whom are according to Peter and Jude cast into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). This is a reference to the event in Genesis 6:4 when the sons of God (angelic beings) disobeyed God and took human wives for themselves. The book of 1 Enoch which while not canonical, is second period Jewish literature which interprets Genesis 6:4 and states that two hundred angels were involved in this affair. The descended from heaven to the summit of Mount Hermon and made a pact to take human wives. It was 1 Enoch which informed both Peter and Jude who again stated that these angels were confined to Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6).
Both Jude and Peter precede their comments, you gave, above with a warning of false teachers coming into the "ekklesia" and deceiving the people (Jude 4; 2 Pet 2: 1-3). They both quote from the Book of Enoch (Jude 6; 2 Pet 2:4). Both are speaking of false teachers who slander heavenly beings (Jude 9-10; 2 Pet 2:10-11).
Both claim these false teachers who are pushing the teaching of the book of Enoch don't know what they are talking about (2 Pet 2:12; Jude 10). Both say these liars will be destroyed of their own evil
doing (2 Pet 2:13; Jude 10). Both use OT people e.g., "Balaam" to liken these liars to (1 Pet 2:14-16; Jude 11). Both use descriptions for false teachers within the BE to use their own medicine against
them (2 Pet 2:17; Jude 12-15). Both say the word of God given through the prophets and apostles is sufficient and therefore this outside source is not needed (2 Peter 3:1-2; Jude 1:17).
So Jude and Peter are showing the apostasy of teaching such things as wayward angels since angels cannot sin because ALL of them are "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be
heirs of salvation (Heb 1:14). Since ALL of the angels do this that doesn't leave room for any sinning angels. Notice Jude warns against false teachers before and after saying this (Jude 4, 18-19). So
rather than validating the teaching of fallen angels, both Jude and Peter are condemning such teachings.
The BE is divided into five books:
1 - The Book of watchers (ch 1-36): a third century or early second century BC text on the Last judgment and the reason why God will judge harshly.
2 - The Book of similitudes (ch 37-71): a text from the first century AD, dealing with aspects of the Last judgment.
3 - The Astronomical book (ch 72-82): a treatise from the third century BC on meteorology, astronomy and the calendar.
4 - The Book of dream visions (ch 83-90): two visions that were composed during the Maccabaean revolt (165-160 BC).
5 - The Epistle of Enoch (ch 91-108): warnings, blessings and an apocalypse, composed in the early second century BC.
So you can see Enoch really had no personal input into the making of this book since he had been dead for eons prior to the very earliest section of it.
If you truly believe the BE is trustworthy why is it only mentioned in two chapters and then when speaking of false teachers? Where, in the Bible do we find an angel named "Raphael" who is over all the
diseases and all the wounds of the children of men? Where, in the Bible do we find an angel named Phaneul who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life?
Of course we don't find anything near that in the Bible, but we do find that in the BE (Enoch 40:9).
Where was the "Son of man" named in the Bible? The BE says he was named in heaven indicating he had a beginning (Enoch 48:1-3). But the "Son of man" said He was the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8).
Who, in the Bible led astray all the sons of God, and brought them down to the earth, and led them astray through the daughters of men? The BE says it was an angel named "Jeqon (Enoch 69:4-5)."
Who, in the Bible imparted to the holy sons of God evil counsel, and led them astray so that they defiled their bodies with the daughters of men? The BE says it was an angel named "Asbeel (Enoch 69:5-6)."
Who, in the Bible showed the children of men all the blows of death, and led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men, the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons of death to the children of men? The BE says it was an angel named Gadreel (Enoch 69:6-8).
Who, in the Bible taught men evil, wisdom and how to sin via pen and ink? The BE says it was an angel named Phenemue (Enoch 69:8-11).
Where in the Bible do we find the offspring from the mating of angels and "human" women to be 300 cubits (450 ft.) tall? We find it in the BE in Enoch 7:12-15.
These are just a few of the false teachings in the BE. Do you really want to use this book to support the Bible?
You're repeating the same arguments that I told you I wasn't going to take the time to individually address, but that collectively, your arguments simply disregard the text which plainly states that Jesus was led out to the desert to be tempted by the devil. The same text has Jesus carrying on a conversation with the devil ---with Satan. Thus Satan is depicted as a real entity. Your attempts at argumentation do nothing to change what the text plainly states.
I am simply showing why I believe what I believe. You can "choose" not to respond to them under a blanket statement without evidence if you wish. I'm not posting here for your benefit, but for mine and perhaps others who wish to see another understanding of what "satan" is.
Yes the Scripture is clear that Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by "the devil (Mat 4:1)." I have never denied that. What I deny is that verse says "the devil" is a fallen angel. The first temptation is definitely one of the flesh which is hunger. The flesh is said by Jesus to be a "false accuser (Mat 15:19).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I've already addressed the fact that since Satan is said in Revelation 12:7-9 to have angels under his command, just as the archangel Michael is said to have angels that are under his command, then Satan is an angelic being -- actually a Cherub if Ezekiel 28:11 and following is indeed the entity to whom the king of Tyre is being compared as I believe, as well as do some scholars. He rebelled against God. He fell. He is a fallen angel.
You're assuming things that are not supported in those Scriptures. You are saying the "satan" in Rev 12 must be an angel because Michael the archangel had angels thus the "satan" of Rev 12 having angels must be an angel since you think Michael is an angel.
The Greek word translated "angel" is aggelos and the English word "angel" is transliterated rather than translated. "Aggelos" can be and has been translated "messenger in 7 verses in the KJV NT, nearly 100 times in Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint and is defined as "a messenger."
Michael is not an angel in the sense of created beings in heaven. He is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. The term "archangel" simply means "the chief messenger." Christ is called the "angel of the Lord" (Ex. 3:2), "the angel of God" (Ex. 14:19), the "angel of His presence" (Isa. 63:9), the "messenger of the covenant" (Mal. 3:1), "angel" (Ex. 23:20), "Mine angel" (Ex. 23:23), and "His angel" (Dan. 3:28).
The "angel of the Lord" visited Gideon (Judges 6:11-22) and is called "Lord" in verse 14. The "angel of the Lord" is the author of a "covenant (Judges 2:1). When the "angel of the Lord" appeared to Manoah and his wife, Manoah called Him God (Judges 13:20-22). When Jacob wrestled the angel all night he said he had seen God face to face (Gen 32:24-30; Hosea 12:4).
There are many other proofs that Christ is "an angel" or "a messenger" of God. However, just one more should suffice. We're told that Christ has the voice of the archangel (1 Thes 4:16). Therefore Christ is the chief messenger of God or, if you will an archangel. Therefore just the word "angel" does not necessarily mean a spiritual being. In fact there can only be one "chief messenger" and that One is Christ. This means a "fallen angel" cannot be an archangel.
While you may provide "scholars" that believe as you do about Eze 28, I can provide them that do not believe. What does that prove? That "scholars" don't agree just because they are "scholars." In fact when I provided you a "scholar's" support for what I believe, you pooh-poohed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Your last paragraph is utterly ridiculous since it is the Biblical text which states that Satan is a fallen angel. You don't get that from any one specific verse but from what is said of him throughout the Bible.
I don't mind if you think what I said is "utterly ridiculous." It's your prerogative to do so. That, however doesn't prove anything. It's just your opinion. I stand by what I said. I still believe your belief in a fallen angel is not supported anywhere in Scripture and is only seen that way when you already have a preconceived belief that the English words "Satan" and "devil" refer to such a creature. Any such Scripture read without that preconceived belief will render the "fallen angel" theory null and void.
To say you can't give specific Scriptural proof of a "fallen angel" and then support it by saying it's in the overall context of the Bible comes across as an admission you have no proof. I say the overall context of the Bible says there is no "fallen angel" and I can give many specifics to support that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
One thing I'll address from your post is that you are attempting to take the reference to the temple symbolically when the text clearly states in Matthew 4:5 that the devil took Jesus into the holy city (Jerusalem) and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple. That is literalistic language --not symbolic.
You're attempting to make words like "tempter", "devil" and "satan" be a "fallen angel" when the text doesn't support that. You expect us to believe that Jesus was tempted to worship a "fallen angel" in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world when He, God in the flesh knew He was the only one who had that power. You expect us to believe it was a temptation to Christ to be dared to jump off a building. You expect us to believe Christ's being hungry and desiring to eat after fasting is a temptation from a "fallen angel" instead of His flesh.
You say those terms have to apply literally, but can you prove that? Of course not! Remember this temptation was to take place in the "wilderness (Mat 4:1)." Yet you would have us to believe that this temptation took place in Jerusalem and on top of a mountain. You would have us believe that the mountain is so high one could see all kingdoms on the planet. You would have us believe that Jesus went into Jerusalem and climbed onto the highest part of the temple just to be dared to jump off in view of anyone in the area and it isn't recorded that it caused a commotion in the public.
We're told that the temptation was for the full forty days (Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2). These temptations came within the forty days. He was tempted all forty days according to Scripture. It is likely Christ had to fight all of the temptations many times within that span. Can you imagine people seeing him on top of a building several times and looking as if He might jump? Or Him climbing the closest high mountain which is Mt. Hermon and Him walking there, climbing to the top, back down and back to the wilderness? Especially when Mt. Hermon is about 119 miles from Jerusalem. Simply not possible!
Either Christ was meditating on these things or the Bible is incorrect in saying the temptations took place in the wilderness. What you say happened can't be literal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, you are attempting to explain away the fact that in the overall Biblical context, Satan is portrayed as a rebellious fallen angel who is the enemy of God and of man.
Or could it be you're using the vague phrase "overall Biblical context" because you can't prove such a creature exists by simply citing Bible passages without taking for granted certain words mean "fallen angel." I say the overall context of the Bible is the Way of God vs the way of man and I can give many, many Scriptures to support that belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And lastly, Biblical scholars are vastly more qualified then you are to interpret the Biblical passages.
While that may be true, it doesn't make them correct simply because some people consider them "scholars." I gave you testimony from the Biblical "scholar" Adam Clarke and you dismissed it. I can give you many views of "scholars" that will disagree with other "scholars" including the ones you use. But will you accept their witness? I don't think so!
I am familiar with the vision of Ezekiel in chapter 10. I do not think these cherubs were actual creatures, but a vision of symbolic creatures God caused him to see (Eze 1:10). But that's a discussion for another time. Just taking Eze 28 we find that the being referred to as a "cherub" was the King of Tyrus:
Ezekiel 28:12-14 12 SON OF MAN, TAKE UP A LAMENTATION UPON THE KING OF TYRUS, AND SAY UNTO HIM, Thus saith the Lord GOD; THOU sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 THOU hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 THOU art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: THOU wast upon the holy mountain of God; THOU hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Regardless of things you don't think could be true the fact remains God is addressing the King of Tyrus. There is no change in the above passage that would indicate God began addressing anyone else.
According to the Bible "scholar" Dr. Thomas Constable commenting on this says:
"... the human king was cherub-like in that God had allowed him to reign, and he exercised a guarding function over his city-state."
The Bible "scholar" Matthew Henry also believes the human king is the cherub:
"He looked like an incarnate angel (Ezekiel 28:14): Thou art the anointed cherub that covers or protects that is, he looked upon himself as a guardian angel to his people, so bright, so strong, so faithful, appointed to this office and qualified for it. Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power and, when they are such, God will own them. Their advancement was from him: I have set thee so. "
I can show other "scholars" that believe the king is the cherub. However, I don't think it will matter to you.
As for "Eden" or the precious stones mentioned, why does this have to be the same place as Adam was given in Gen 2? Do you think that maybe the term "Eden" is a word that describes God's Kingdom where ever it's found (Rev 22:14)?:
Ezekiel 36:33-35 33*¶ Thus says the Lord GOD: When I purify you from all your crimes, I will repeople the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt; 34 the desolate land shall be tilled, which was formerly a wasteland exposed to the gaze of every passer-by. 35 "This desolate land has been made into a garden of Eden," they shall say. "The cities that were in ruins, laid waste, and destroyed are now repeopled and fortified."
The precious stones are symbolic of the value God places on His Law (Rev 21:11, 18-21).
The word means "delight." In fact the Septuagint calls this same "place" the "garden of Delight":
LXE Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the >>>garden of Delight<<<, to cultivate and keep it.
And the Law of God brings "delight" (Psalms 1:2; 40:8; 119:70, 77, 92, 174; Rom 7:22). And where ever God's Law prevails is Eden. Remember the Tree of Life (TL) in Eden? Well, the TL is accessible to all who keep God's Law (Rev 22:14). The result or fruit of righteousness is the TL (Pro 11:30). And God's Law is righteousness (Psalms 119:172).
And how is the king of Tyrus described at his beginning? He was full of wisdom and perfect (Ezek 28:12). Perfection and wisdom are attributes of a Law-keeper (1Kings 8:61; Deut 4:5-6). And when did this end for this king? When he committed iniquity or sinned (Ezek 28:15-16). It was only then that this flesh and blood king was cast out of "heaven" or God's Kingdom (Eph 2:6) and removed from his rule (Ezek 28:7-8). The same thing happened to Adam when he sinned. He, too, was removed from ruling in God's Kingdom. Notice another similarity between these two flesh and blood kings. Adam partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) which is the way of man and death (Gen 2:17). In other words it's sin.
When Adam was removed from the Garden, God said this:
(Gen 3:22 KJV) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"
What is being said is Adam has now chosen the way of man by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (TKGE) He had become his own god by deciding for himself what's good and evil and God said he would force (take) the mixing of the TKGE with the Tree of Life and "live forever." This is why Adam was removed from the Garden (Gen 3:23). He had become his own god. And that's what the king of Tyrus had done (Ezek 28:2).
Again this is supposition. There is nothing to say that "satan" is a fallen angel or that casting out of "satan" in Revelation, whatever you deem that to be was only partial.
I agree it is time consuming. Sometimes getting to the truth takes much effort. I think the time of the fall of the "satan" of Revelation is very important in the sense you are saying a fallen angel called "satan" was already cast out in Adam's day and yet this "satan" is being cast to the ground in the first century A.D.
I had said:
But you're assuming things you can't prove. You're assuming the "serpent" in Gen 3 is a "fallen angel" when nothing in the context even hints at that. It's the superimposing of an extra-Biblical belief onto the Bible. The fact that Dan is called a serpent shows the word "serpent" is not synonymous with a "fallen angel."
I had said:
Figuratively or literally, I don't think you can show a fallen angel being thus described.
I had said:
I don't understand your point here. Please elaborate!
Even if they're wrong? What about the "scholars" that disagree with the "scholars" that agree with you?
I had said:
I think I grasp the idea of "context" pretty good. However, I don't think I'm out of context here. If Christ has all power, strength and authority then a "fallen angel" could do nothing unless Christ gave him the power and allowed it regardless of his ability. But the question is, if God has all the power why would He let a "fallen angel" steal His glory?
To see who it is that causes evil to God's people, one need only read Lamentations the 2nd chapter and that one will find: the Lord covers His people with a cloud in His anger and casts from heaven to earth The glory of His people (v.1); The Lord swallows up and does not spare the habitations of His people and in His wrath He throws their strongholds down to the ground and He profanes the kingdom and its princes (v.2); He cuts off all the strength of His people and sets His right hand like an ADVERSARY to them and slays all that is pleasant to the eye in His people's land (v.3); He becomes an ADVERSARY to His people and pours out His wrath on them like fire. (v.4); the Lord becomes an ENEMY to His people and swallows them up and their palaces and destroys their strongholds and increases their sorrow (v.5); He violently treats His tabernacle and destroys His appointed meeting place and causes to be forgotten His Commandments to His people and despises their leaders, both king and priest (v.6); The Lord rejects His altar, and abandons His sanctuary and delivers into the hand of the enemy the walls of His people's palaces (v.7); The LORD will not restrain His hand from destroying His people, (v.8); He destroys His people's security and causes her rulers to rule as the heathen and removes His Law from His people and rejects their preachers (v.9).
If, as the Bible says, the flesh or heart is more deceitful than anything else and can't be known (Jer 17:9)), what need does God have for a fallen spiritual being? Especially when you consider that God becomes the enemy of His people when they rebel against Him.
God will send strong delusion to those who want to believe a lie (2 Thes 2:10-11). For those that delight in going their way in lieu of God's, God said He would choose delusions for them (Isa 66:3). God sends lying spirits to deceive those who stray from His ways and He deceives their prophets (1 Kings 22:20-23; Ezek 14:9). God blinds eyes and closes minds (Isa 6:8-10). He puts evil spirits in people (1 Sam 16:14-16: Judges 9:23). He creates evil (Isa 45:7). He says He is the cause of evil in the city (Amos 3:6). He causes people to think, act like, and live with beasts for years (Dan 4:24-25).
Events that many would accredit to "demons", such as hands writing on walls causing such fear that people's knees knock together and causing donkey's to talk (Num 22:28) are actually from God (Dan 5:5-6, 18-27). All power is from God (Mat 28:18). God becomes an enemy to His people if they do not obey Him (Lam 2:5). God became a "satan" to David. Read 2 Sam 24:1 in conjunction with 1 Chron 21:1. If God becomes a "satan" to His people, who needs a "fallen angel" to be a "satan?"
Where does this creature get the power to give away? Where does is this "satan" identified as a fallen angel?
If there is any evidence of a fallen angel in the Bible you should be able to show it. There is no such evidence.
The verse doesn't distinguish between angels. It said "ALL angels." There is nothing to distinguish.
I will respond to this under separate cover.
I had said:
Can you show one Scripture that shows "ashes" to mean anything other than literal ashes?
Paul said those flesh and blood people in his day who were salvaged by the blood of Christ were heavenly beings(Eph 2:6). I don't think that makes them "angels."
I suppose you could be correct in that I don't have very good reasoning skills. However I must wonder by what authority do you make such a conjecture. When I see a statement e.g., " Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him..." without ever redirecting the conversation to or about another being I have enough reasoning skills to realize that it is the King of Tyrus that is being spoken of and to. I don't have to "reason" around clearly worded passages in order to hold onto a fictitious creature known by the moniker "Satan."
I have enough reasoning skills to know that when someone goes without food or fasts and that one becomes hungry, the temptation to feed oneself comes from the flesh and not a fictitious "fallen angel."
I have enough reasoning skills to know that being dared to jump off high places or succumbing to a bribe of getting something from someone that has no power to give that something isn't a temptation.
Yes I know the drill. Trust me! I was born and raised in a church that taught this un-Biblical belief. However once I decided to actually study this subject I quickly saw how I and my family were hoodwinked into believing a doctrine that is more in line with Dante's Inferno than what is actually said in the Bible.
Again, you just make up things that are not said. John 8:44 mentions nothing about the fall of man. Look up the definition of the Greek word translated "beginning" in that verse. Strong shows the word means "that by which anything begins to be, the origin," It's talking about the origin of this "devil." And it contradicts the perfection of the creature spoken of in Ezek 28. The verse literally says this "devil" is the father of the Jews to whom Christ was talking even though they claimed God as their Father (v. 41). Do you think these Jews were worshipping a fallen angel?
As I said, I am not posting for your benefit. Don't respond if you don't want to. I do this for myself. Yes it takes time to really discuss something of this nature in depth, but I find the effort more than worth it. I do believe you have shown what you say have shown, but only for yourself because I see nothing of the sort. Yes it is a belief of mainstream Christianity, but that fact alone doesn't support the belief. Remember Christ warned His followers that many would come and deceive many (Mat 24:11). The "fallen angel" hypothesis is merely one deception. IMHO it just gives excuse to blame ones shortcomings on something other than oneself.
As I said, you have poor reasoning skills and can't properly interpret what you read. And since I have already been over all of this with you I'll not take any further time with it.
Last edited by Michael Way; 12-18-2018 at 08:44 AM..
As I said, you have poor reasoning skills and can't properly interpret what you read. And since I have already been over all of this with you I'll not take any further time with it.
That "sounds" as good an excuse as any. I truly enjoyed the exchange. TYVM!
Adversity is a principle that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness within the human nature. And the Hebrew term for Satan merely describes an adversarial role (an adversary). Whereas, an accuser (slanderer, devil) is known for his unrighteous disposition. However, the principalities and powers of unholy (human) messengers, had inculcated the doctrines of demons, devils and Satan in the early views of men; falsely fostering and prospering them. Truth becomes known, when deception falls away (that of self-induced blindness). Christ denounced these doctrines and traditions of men within the Spirit of truth, as the ego driven desires are within men, resist them.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their mind set on what their nature desires, but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their mind set on what the Spirit wants: Along came the tempter; the lust of the eyes (understanding of the mind), lust of the flesh (a heart of emotion) and the pride of life (the desires of the will). Thus, while the first Adam conceded to all that is in the world (that which extends deep down from the surface - yet, it is visible through distinctive traits or characteristics common to all humanity); the second Adam stood his ground against the natural disposition of the soul, and the temperament within that of other men.
I am willing to send you a flashlight, So, you won't stumble anymore in the darkness that has consumed you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I'm not the one stumbling. When Jesus spoke to Satan during His temptations in the desert He was speaking to an actual supernatural entity. And when He cast out demons from a person, He was casting out actual entities as the text plainly states. Again, you simply refuse to believe what the Biblical writers wrote because of your anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
You should take a closer look at what it is you profess to believe, instead of shaking the bush and screaming wolf. He was speaking with the hierarchy of the temple or if you prefer, the chief Priests who were his adversary. You might also want to study the various aspects of what it is to have mental health issues, where you hear a multitude of voices, including your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I was very clearly referring to Jesus' temptations in the desert where He was tempted by Satan.
To deny the possibility of supernatural entities and supernatural realms of existence is just as arrogant as denying the possibility of life on other planets. The supernatural realm of existence is just as real as the realm of existence in which we live. Again, you can't get past your anti-supernaturalistic pre-suppositions and must imagine that those who believe in the supernatural and accept the Biblical revelation of such of having mental health issues and voices in their head.
I do not deny the existence of a God or life on other planets for that matter, only the creation of this second god of Christianism called Satan and the fictitious underworld that you call Hell.
I do not deny the existence of a God or life on other planets for that matter, only the creation of this second god of Christianism called Satan and the fictitious underworld that you call Hell.
Satan is not a second god of Christianity in the sense of being equal but opposite of Yahweh. Satan is a created being. A Cherub who rebelled against God and who will ultimately be confined to the lake of fire along with the other angelic beings who rebelled, and with those members of the human race who refused God's offer of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Nor is the 'underworld' fictitious. You simply refuse to believe the Biblical revelation of its existence. As with other aspects of the spiritual realm, the existence of 'hell' as it were, can only be known from revelation. You refuse to accept the Biblical revelation of Hades and the lake of fire but you have no way of proving your assertion that they don't exist. You simply deny their existence because you don't want to believe that they exist.
And you are so bothered by the prospect of their existence that every time the subject comes up you feel compelled to make empty comments and denials that have no substance. I have neither the time or the patience to keep going back and forth with someone who can't even make an informed argument for his views. And with that, we're done here.
As I said, you have poor reasoning skills and can't properly interpret what you read. And since I have already been over all of this with you I'll not take any further time with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Satan is not a second god of Christianity in the sense of being equal but opposite of Yahweh. Satan is a created being. A Cherub who rebelled against God and who will ultimately be confined to the lake of fire along with the other angelic beings who rebelled, and with those members of the human race who refused God's offer of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Nor is the 'underworld' fictitious. You simply refuse to believe the Biblical revelation of its existence. As with other aspects of the spiritual realm, the existence of 'hell' as it were, can only be known from revelation. You refuse to accept the Biblical revelation of Hades and the lake of fire but you have no way of proving your assertion that they don't exist. You simply deny their existence because you don't want to believe that they exist.
And you are so bothered by the prospect of their existence that every time the subject comes up you feel compelled to make empty comments and denials that have no substance. I have neither the time or the patience to keep going back and forth with someone who can't even make an informed argument for his views. And with that, we're done here.
On the contrary, it is you who have poor reasoning and comprehension skills, as you have taken superstition and fables to be a form of revelation. And, You follow those who would lead men astray with their ideologies of fearmongering, like that of your false eternal torment and damnation theologies. The thing that bothers you the most is that you are unable to convince others through that of peer pressure. So, your typical response is "we are done here." When in reality, you haven't proven anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
