Fallen angels

[NickHassan]

Hi Sammo,
The 12 stars around the head of the woman represents the 12 tribes of Israel and this identifies her as representing Israel. You remeber in the story of Joseph he had a dream that had their eleven stars bowing down to his [ the 12th].[gen 37]

[NickHassan]

It is interesting to me that the creation of the angels is not clearly shown in Genesis. But Job 38.7 says “all the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy ” whe God founded the earth. So they had already been created at that stage. Any thoughts anyone?

[NickHassan]

Hi Sammo,
I Job Ch1-2 Satan was able to influence men to steal and destroy animals and people. He was able to cause severe environmental changes and cause illness what will he achieve when he and his angels are cast to earth and he realises that he has so little time[Rev 12.12].
Indeed “Woe to you earth and sea for the devil has come down on you.His fury knows no limits for he knows his time is short”
So we can expect huge environmental disasters, political upheavals and severe persecution. Perhaps his angels are the agents of the plagues and woes described in Revelation?

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,18:43)

We are not equal to angels in Jesus but greater than them as Hebrews 1 tells us.So also in Lk 20 it says we are LIKE TO angels in our new body but that does not include equality.

Even if that were so, how does that help your cause? I really hope my body in the kingdom isn't capable of sin…

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,18:43)

Satan asked God to put His hand on Job but God immediately gave the work to Satan to do. The fact that Satan was a rebel did not exclude him from access to God . So wishing evil on your friends causes problems for them. This sounds more like witchcraft than true faith? As you say there is lttle avbout Satan in the OT so how would Job be aware of his abilities. So the end of Job does not give credit to SDatan. So what. In comparison to God he is a mere tool.

I don't have anything to say to that really, I'd just be repeating myself.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,18:43)

You do not approach scripture to learn from it ,it seems but only use it to justify your beliefs. It would be wiser to respect it more.

Please, enough with the rhetoric!

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,17:57)

Your church seems to teach that salvation is by works.

That's not true. Why did you say that?

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,20:33)

The fall of Satan from heaven did not happen in the distant past. He has had access rights to heaven where he acted as the accuser of the brethren, as described in Job, but also to earth, where he had his kingdom, as he confirmed in Job. What happens in Revelation is that he and his angels are cast to earth ONLY with Satan losing those access rights. So the timing is concurrent with events in Revelation.

Do you realise that you disagree with t8 about this? He's saying that “the third part of the stars of heaven” are the 1/3 of angels that were cast out of heaven in Satan's adversity, or something like that, which definitely took place a long long time ago. You can't both be right!

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,20:33)

The constellation alignment is well shown in another site-The Watchman [Greg Killian]in the section on celstial events.

This disagrees with t8 too. The stars are supposed to be angels, aren't they?

My original question was:

Quote (me @ Sep. 29 2004,18:38)

Sure, the alignment you mentioned is very interesting, but is it what Revelation 12:1 describes? Why would an alignment of constellations be described as “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars”?

Surprise, surprise, the question still stands.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,20:33)

The symbolism changes [as is not unusual in the cryptic crossword like Revelation]when the dragon persecutes the woman to a description of Satan harrassing Israel who brings forth the Son of Man.

The symbolism changes mid-vision?

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,20:33)

The scarlet beast is not identified as symbolic of kings but the ten horns and 7 heads identify a place [Rome] and kings. The beast is identified as Satan [with v 8 compared to Ch 20.v 2-3] who comes to live in one of the kings and become the BEAST. This should not surprise us as it says he entered Judas at the last supper. Likewise he entered the serpent and brought a curse on serpents in Genesis.

(Emphasis mine) The bold bit is the leap in logic, lacking scriptual support. The dragon is Satan, and the dragon is Rome. Satan isn't literal.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,20:33)

The opinions of Job or the writers of Job do not compare with the authority of the word of God as you know.

Surely the opinion of the writers of Job is the authority of the word of God?

Sam

[Sammo]

Quote (Sammo @ Sep. 29 2004,20:55)

Yeah – you're right to say that stars sometimes represent angels. There's Revelation 1:20 too, which is quite clear.

Actually, on second thought, lots of people see the angels in Revelation 1:20 as human elders of the 7 ecclesias.

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,21:14)

The dragon is not literal. It is a symbol of Satan who is.

Yes, exactly! And isn't it overwhelmingly clear from Revelation 13 & 17 and Daniel 2 & 7 just what Satan here really represents?

It has nothing at all to do with an immortal evil being!

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi t8

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2004,21:21)

I will reply to your post later.

OK.

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2004,21:21)

But for now I still say that you are the one who has to prove that the Devil doesn't exist.

You don't think it's reasonable for me to expect you to back up your beliefs? You've made some pretty big claims about the devil that I don't think you can prove…

• You even agreed that there aren't any passages where the devil is called an angel.
• The 1/3 of angels that the devil took in his adversity seems to be entirely based on one reference in Revelation 12. However, I'm getting completely different stories from you and Nick about what this passage means.
• We've barely even started on whether the devil fell from heaven. Given that Revelation 12 is clearly talking about an event future to John, that Luke 10 happened in AD30ish and that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are basically just pretty lame, this (almost universally held) doctrine is not astoundingly convincing.
• And concerning whether Satan is the cause of all evil, suffering and adversity – I've clearly demonstrated exactly the opposite, but that's what you were going to get back to me on.

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2004,21:21)

If scripture speaks plainly of him as existing as a person, then you have to say why scripture is incorrect or that all instances of him being a person are only symbolic of an attribute.

I don't think scripture does speak of Satan as a literal person. I can't think of any occasion at all that he's described in physical terms, which is a big difference with angels.

I also believe that if Satan and the devil were translated as “the adversary” and “the slanderer”, the idea of an immortal fallen angel would never have arisen to the prominance that it has.

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2004,21:21)

So far you have ignored the language construction that includes articles before Devil or Satan and you ignore the context of verses that talk about a person. E.g. The Devil and HIS angels, Michael and HIS angels.

How much do you know about languages t8? (Genuine question.) My understanding was that “his” and “its” were pretty much interchangable in NT Greek, depending on the context.

Be that as it may, I'm saying that sometimes sin is personified as the devil – naturally he's going to be spoken of in 'person' terms. I just don't think that he literally exists.

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2004,21:21)

What about a brief post that convinces me that when the bible says THE Devil or THE Satan, that it is not talking about a person.

I'll start that now, and post it separately.

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi t8

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2004,21:21)

What about a brief post that convinces me that when the bible says THE Devil or THE Satan, that it is not talking about a person. Tell me why when the article is used with others, e.g. the Jesus, the God etc (meaning a person) that this should not apply to the Devil. Why is that particular one exempt? Seems strange.

This post will be about…

Passages Where “Satan” and “Devil” Cannot Mean a Fallen Angel

I'll stick to places where the definite article is used.

1 Chronicles 21

Compare 1 Chronicles 21…

Quote

1 ¶ And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

…with 2 Samuel 24:

Quote

1 ¶ And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Clearly, “Satan” in 1 Chronicles 21 is identified “the LORD” in 2 Samuel 24. This is because “satan” is not a proper noun, but just a word that means “adversary”.

This isn't an example of God using Satan as an agent, as Nick suggests. It specifically says that God actively moved David against Israel. If Satan is still acting as God's agent, then this makes an absolute mockery of the belief that Satan is at war with God.

Matthew 16

Quote

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

We've been here before – Jesus clearly calls Peter “Satan”. This is because “satan” is not a proper noun, but a word that means “adversary”.

Last time we were here, you and Nick said that Satan had possessed Peter, hence this rebuke. However, that's just not what the text says. It doesn't say “and Jesus said unto Satan, Get thee behind me Satan”; it says “and Jesus said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan”.

Also consider what Jesus says right afterwards – “thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men”:

• If he was speaking to the devil, then this was quite the pointless exercise in stating the obvious.
• If he was speaking to the devil, then Satan savours the things that be of men. Satan is an immortal fallen angel, right – what does he care what men savour?
• If he was speaking to the devil, then something like “Get out of Peter” would make much more sense.
• Rather, Peter was the one obstructing Jesus, and Peter was the one who savoured the things of men above the things of God, at that moment in time.

Hebrews 2

Quote

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;

Jesus destroyed the devil. Therefore this verse is clearly not talking about “Satan” – otherwise, who tempts us today?

A fallen angel doesn't have “the power of death” – sin does (Romans 6:23 etc). Jesus overcame sin through his death, making it possible for us to be saved.

Revelation 12

Already discussed at length. Clearly Satan is the dragon, which is identified as Rome from Revelation 13 & 17 and Daniel 2 & 7. “The Devil and Satan” in Revelation 12:9 is not talking about a literal fallen angel.

Summary

I've raised 4 passages where “the Satan”/”the Devil” are demonstrably not proper nouns for an immortal evil being. That's because he doesn't exist.

This is only one strand of the evidence against belief in a supernatural devil. Others include:

• A gaping lack of evidence about the claimed origins of the devil. The Bible does not speak of an angel that fell from heaven.
• Moreover, this would contradict the plain teaching of scripture that angels cannot sin (Luke 20:36, Romans 6:23 etc).
• The Bible says that “man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust” (James 1:14). A devil would be redundant.
• The Bible says that God is responsible for suffering in the world, as he is in control of all of the world's affairs. Despite first appearances, all suffering is for the good of those “that love God, who are the called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Again, a devil would be redundant.

God bless,
Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2004,23:02)

Hebrews 2 14 says in my bible.[NASB] “Since the the children share in flesh and blood He himself[Jesus] likewise also took part of the same so that through death He might RENDER POWERLESS HIM,WHO HAD THE POWER OF DEATH,THAT IS THE DEVIL..” A lot different to your version.

Honestly, I'm at a loss to see how you think this helps your case.

If Satan is “rendered powerless” today, then the question remains: who tempts us today?

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi nate,

Quote (nate @ Sep. 29 2004,23:53)

how is it that god's “very good” creation could lie?

Well, maybe it didn't

The bottom line is that the serpent is clearly part of God's creation, and that God's creation was “very good”.

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 30 2004,04:38)

You quote 2 cor 12 and the 'super apostles' as evidence of human opposition that excludes the work of Satan. But go back a few verses and you will see Paul talking about his thorn in the flesh ” an angel of Satan sent to beat me and keep me from getting proud”

Most agree that Paul's “thorn in the flesh” was a medical condition, and illness is one of symptoms of being subject to sin – hence the phrase “messenger of Satan”.

You'll also note that Paul says that the messenger of Satan was sent “lest I should be exalted above measure”. As with all suffering, Paul's thorn in the flesh was for his own good, and a reflection that God really loved Paul. Satan doesn't cause people suffering for their own good, does he?

Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 30 2004,04:46)

Also Sammo in the start of the discussion by Paul of those super apostles he said 11.3 ” My fear is that ,just as the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning , your thoughts may be corrupted and you may fall away from your sincere and complete devotion to Christ” and v14″ And little wonder. For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Irt comes as no wonder that his ministers disguise themselves as ministers of the justice of God.”

Well exactly – did Satan seduce Eve, or did a serpent? Paul says a serpent.

A serpent, not a fallen angel, was the tempter in the garden.

Sam

[NickHassan]

Hi Sammo ,
I would encourage the readers of your posts to click on your link to the Christadelpian church. Look for the summary of basic bible beliefs and you will see why you believe what you do.
All of your arguments are based on a man made church doctrine rather than the Word of God so discussing the detail is a waste of time and energy.The foundations of our faith are different.
Of course T8 and myself do not claim to be infallible but we are both struggling to distill truth from the source God gave us -The Word of God.

[NickHassan]

ps Sammo,
Lets put Heb 2 .14 in context
” 'Here am I and the children God has given me'
Now since the children are men of blood and flesh, Jesus likewise had a full share in ours ,that by his death he may rob the THE DEVIL, THE PRINCE OF DEATH of his power, and free those who through FEAR OF DEATH had been slave their whole lives long.”
Who had the power?-SATAN
What was his other name?-The Prince of death.
Where had the POWER of SATAN come from? From his ability to influence those controlled by the fear of death.
How did Jesus rob SATAN? He died as a man and rose again showing us that death is only a deep sleep and not the end, and resurrection is to new life is for us who are in Him too.
Satan exists and torments men.

[Sammo]

Hi Nick

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,23:53)

Lets put Heb 2 .14 in context ” 'Here am I and the children God has given me' Now since the children are men of blood and flesh, Jesus likewise had a full share in ours ,that by his death he may rob the THE DEVIL, THE PRINCE OF DEATH of his power, and free those who through FEAR OF DEATH had been slave their whole lives long.”

Where did you get this translation? Here are 9 translations that say absolutely nothing about “robbing the prince of death”, which radically changes the meaning of the passage – look for yourself.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,23:53)

Who had the power?-SATAN

Agreed.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,23:53)

What was his other name?-The Prince of death.

Not according to any version of Hebrews 2 I've seen.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,23:53)

Where had the POWER of SATAN come from? From his ability to influence those controlled by the fear of death.

Please follow the link I gave – each of the 9 versions says that the devil has the power of death, or something very similar. It's quite a leap from “the devil has the power of death” to “the devil gets his power from his ability to influence those controlled by the fear of death”.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,23:53)

How did Jesus rob SATAN? He died as a man and rose again showing us that death is only a deep sleep and not the end, and resurrection is to new life is for us who are in Him too.

Where did you get the bit about “robbing” from?

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,23:53)

Satan exists and torments men.

That's your call.

Sam

[Sammo]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2004,17:27)

I would encourage the readers of your posts to click on your link to the Christadelpian church. Look for the summary of basic bible beliefs and you will see why you believe what you do.

I'd encourage that too, absolutely. And if there's a Christadelphian church in your area, why not come meet us?

We're real people too you know, and would always be glad to talk to anyone about God's word

[NickHassan]

Hi Sammo,
That may have been from my New American Bible not the NASB-sorry. Theseand the others all seem to differ radically on whether
1.Satan's power is annulled,robbed,or rendered powerless or
2.Satan is destroyed which is the idea from KJV and NIV.
Again we need the experts.

[NickHassan]

Hi Sammo,
I can understand after reading the dogmas of your Christadelpian church how difficult it must be to consider any other view-even goo scripture teaching.

In the summary of Basic Bible Doctrines
4.8 says there will only be a bodily resurrection of thse who have KNOWN THE TRUE GOSPEL.
4.9 says that Judgement will be on the basis of KNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATION OF GOD'S WORD[??]
8.7 Understanding the TRUE GOSPEL is required for baptism to be valid.
9.7 Fellowship with those who hold the TRUE DOCTRINE ONLY is required for baptised believers.
9.8.Those who cease to BELIEVE OR PRACTICE THE TRUTH cease to be in fellowship with the body of TRUE BELIEVERS.
[9.2 suggests self effort is necessary to save oneself]

ok . if your church defines truth as it's interpretation of the bible and says that is the basis of your salvation and accepts no other view then that is a real bind for you. If you were to question one dogma your salvation would seem to be at risk.What a trap. No wonder you cannot accept reason as no change is possible and you can only offer what you have to others.
I respect your knowledge and intelligence and I just ask you to be brave and cast your burden of the only one who can save you anyway. Anyone who tries to save his own life will lose it. God is bigger than your dogmas and welcomes genuine searchers who are prepared to give up all for Him.

[Author]

Posts