LUCIFER

[jeremiah1five]

No, and you cannot provide a biblical quote of Jesus saying that.
Humans can be children of father Satan.

The Term “Satan” Applied to a Human Adversary
The word “satan” occurs as a noun at various points in the Old Testament to designate a human opponent. It is translated in English Bibles as “adversary” or “enemy.” For example, King Solomon speaks of the opportunity he has to build a temple because of the absence of any “satan” or “adversary” to hinder him from this endeavor (1 Kgs 5:4). The term is also used by King David to speak of Abishai as an opponent or adversary (2 Sam 19:22).

Humans can be satan:

22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah [humans], that ye should this day be adversaries [satan] unto me? 2 Sa 19:22.

4 But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary [satan] nor evil occurrent. 1 Ki 5:4.

The Word of God.

And this is not exhaustive.

 

[Consecrated Life]

The Term “Satan” Applied to a Human Adversary
The word “satan” occurs as a noun at various points in the Old Testament to designate a human opponent. It is translated in English Bibles as “adversary” or “enemy.” For example, King Solomon speaks of the opportunity he has to build a temple because of the absence of any “satan” or “adversary” to hinder him from this endeavor (1 Kgs 5:4). The term is also used by King David to speak of Abishai as an opponent or adversary (2 Sam 19:22).

Humans can be satan:

The Term “Satan” Applied to a Human Adversary
The word “satan” occurs as a noun at various points in the Old Testament to designate a human opponent. It is translated in English Bibles as “adversary” or “enemy.” For example, King Solomon speaks of the opportunity he has to build a temple because of the absence of any “satan” or “adversary” to hinder him from this endeavor (1 Kgs 5:4). The term is also used by King David to speak of Abishai as an opponent or adversary (2 Sam 19:22).

Humans can be satan:

22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah [humans], that ye should this day be adversaries [satan] unto me? 2 Sa 19:22.

4 But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary [satan] nor evil occurrent. 1 Ki 5:4.

The Word of God.

And this is not exhaustive.

As I said, the Lord Jesus Christ had plenty to say about Satan, but you have failed & cannot provide a single quote from Jesus Backing your claim that "Humans can be satan:" .
By definition then you are a liar.
Given your sympathy for Satan & this obsession you have with guiding people in a new up to date sense of Satan it does not surprise me that you are quite comfortable in the role.

 

[jeremiah1five]

As I said, the Lord Jesus Christ had plenty to say about Satan, but you have failed & cannot provide a single quote from Jesus Backing your claim that "Humans can be satan:" .
By definition then you are a liar.
Given your sympathy for Satan & this obsession you have with guiding people in a new up to date sense of Satan it does not surprise me that you are quite comfortable in the role.

The Term “Satan” Applied to a Human Adversary
The word “satan” occurs as a noun at various points in the Old Testament to designate a human opponent. It is translated in English Bibles as “adversary” or “enemy.” For example, King Solomon speaks of the opportunity he has to build a temple because of the absence of any “satan” or “adversary” to hinder him from this endeavor (1 Kgs 5:4). The term is also used by King David to speak of Abishai as an opponent or adversary (2 Sam 19:22).

Humans can be satan:

22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah [humans], that ye should this day be adversaries [satan] unto me? 2 Sa 19:22.

4 But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary [satan] nor evil occurrent. 1 Ki 5:4.

The Word of God.

And this is not exhaustive.

 

[gordon777]

All that opposes God is what satan is, ( spirit of antichrist.) there are many antichrists.



2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 

[Mark51]

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying,
Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Isaiah 14:12–16.

11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 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. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. Eze. 28:11–19.

Here, Strong defines the word as:

Hebrew Word: מִמְשַׁח
Transliteration: mimshaḥ
Phonetic Pronunciation: mim-shakh’
Root: from <H4886>, in the sense of expansion
from <H4886> (mashach), in the sense of expansion; outspread (i.e. with outstretched wings)

The ministry of Lucifer was to guard/station at the throne of God on earth. This was BEFORE Adam and Eve. My guess is the throne was at what is now called Jerusalem. At any rate, Lucifer was himself created "sin-ful" or missing the mark of the glory of God which is why sin was found in him. Cherubs guard holy earthly things and seraphim guard holy heavenly things. No doubt Lucifer was jealous and envious and wanted to be 'like God.' So, what can be understood, implied, and reasoned from these two passages of Scripture dealing with ol' slew-foot? What can be learned about this cherub and the circumstances that surround him?

Lucifer is derived from the Latin word meaning to “shine.” The Hebrew word translates to mean “shining one.” There are other various renderings in other Bible translation/versions.

The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further evident by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind--not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.-Isaiah 14:4, 11-16.

To believe/state that Satan/Devil was created "sinful" is stating a reproach against Almighty God. All of his creation was good or very good. Should we consider that Adam and Eve were crested sinful also?-James 1:13-15.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Lucifer is derived from the Latin word meaning to “shine.” The Hebrew word translates to mean “shining one.” There are other various renderings in other Bible translation/versions.

The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further evident by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind--not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.-Isaiah 14:4, 11-16.

Ultimately, I believe the Scripture that is very clear and declares this:

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pe 2:4.

This includes ALL the angels that sinned. There are no angels that are described above loose on the planet. ALL the sin that is among men originate from men (with the Holy Spirit restricting the depth of sin entirely. but when He diminishes His Presence on the earth in the future that's how the man of sin is to be revealed.)

To believe/state that Satan/Devil was created "sinful" is stating a reproach against Almighty God. All of his creation was good or very good. Should we consider that Adam and Eve were crested sinful also?-James 1:13-15.

God declared various portions of His creation in Genesis as "good" but this does not mean "morally good." That word is used elsewhere but not in the Genesis creation.
The word "good" means "good [enough]," or "to specification."

And yes, God created man (Adam) sinful for that's the only way God can create a being lower than the angels. God did not reduplicate or copy or mimic any aspect of His nature or deific attributes in man for there is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE.
And I understand the implications of a Righteous God creating an unrighteous being, that this would impugn His character, but a lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world. THIS is what allowed God to create an unrighteous sinful being as man. Adam sinned BECAUSE he was a sinner. He is not a sinner because he sinned.

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sam. 24:13.

The ancient proverb could have come from the time of Adam and God's revelation and instruction to Adam that he was indeed created sinful. It was the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and Evil.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Ultimately, I believe the Scripture that is very clear and declares this:

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pe 2:4.

This includes ALL the angels that sinned. There are no angels that are described above loose on the planet.

The only thing you have correct here in your now very familiar and very weak attempts at misdirection concerning Satan is that the angels who rebelled with him are still in 2023 reserved in chains unto judgement.

Not so for Satan, who unlike his angels has been judged already .
His judgement pronounced in the Garden of Eden becoming reality for him 2000 years ago, by way of Christ being resurrected from dead unto eternal life, just as Jesus said:

Jhn 16:11
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

You cannot reconcile Satan being cast down to hell and in chains awaiting judgement, long before Jesus was born, and at the same time have Him freelancing across the earth as the temporary " Prince Of This World"
But I am sure yet another very convoluted attempt at doing so is about to be presented.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The only thing you have correct here in your now very familiar and very weak attempts at misdirection concerning Satan is that the angels who rebelled with him are still in 2023 reserved in chains unto judgement.

Not so for Satan, who unlike his angels has been judged already .
His judgement pronounced in the Garden of Eden becoming reality for him 2000 years ago, by way of Christ being resurrected from dead unto eternal life, just as Jesus said:

Jhn 16:11
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

You cannot reconcile Satan being cast down to hell and in chains awaiting judgement, long before Jesus was born, and at the same time have Him freelancing across the earth as the temporary " Prince Of This World"
But I am sure yet another very convoluted attempt at doing so is about to be presented.

The prince of the world is man.
There were no angels in the Garden of Eden. They were all locked up.
Something to consider:

1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite culture.

2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern religious culture.

3. The Hebrew word satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in first century Judaism.

a. The Hebrew term satan occurs in the Old Testament 26 times, in only eight contexts: Num 22:22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4 and its parallel 1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25; Zech 3:2 (2); Psa 109:6; 14 times in Job 1-2; and 1 Chron 21:1.
b. The term is normally translated [NRSV] "adversary" (Num 22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4/1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25) or "accuser" (Psa 109:6). In most of these cases it is clear that it is a human being that is referenced, as in 1 Kings 11:14. The verbal form of the word, which only occurs a handful of times, means "to be an adversary to" or "to oppose" (note Zech 3:1).
c. The term is customarily translated as "satan" 18 times but in only three of those contexts: Job 1-2, 1 Chronicles 21:1, and Zechariah 3:1-2. It is a translation decision based on a range of factors that determines to translate "satan" rather than "adversary" or "accuser."
d. 1 Chronicles 21:1 has a parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1. In 2 Samuel it is God who incites David to take the census, while in 1 Chronicles it is the satan who does so. Since 1 Chronicles is a later editing of the Samuel-Kings tradition, it seems obvious that Chronicles changed the referent from God to the satan, which suggests on some level that the two were interchangeable. At the very least it challenges the notion that the satan was seen in anything close to modern popular notions of the Devil or Satan.
e. In the Job passages, it seems evident that the satan is one of the sons of God (usually translated "heavenly beings," Job 1:6). That is, in the context of the narrative in which God is portrayed as a high king with attendant servants (sons of God), the satan is part of the royal entourage in the service of the king (God). For discussion of the meaning of "sons of God" see Sons of God and Giants.
f. In the Balaam story of Numbers 22, the word satan is translated "adversary." Here, the adversary is a messenger of God who opposes a prophet, reflecting much the same idea as Job 1-2. Again, it is a translation decision not to translate the word as "satan" here.
g. Zechariah 3:1-2 demonstrates a similar context as Job 1-2, in which a servant of God is challenged by an adversary. The main difference in Zechariah is that rather than a test as in Job, God immediately defends the accused, reflecting a common theme of post-exilic literature.

4. The word satan normally appears without a definite article in Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does implies a title or function, the adversary, rather than a proper name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural form in Hebrew).

5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word satan is left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated "adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the text.

6. All three texts in which satan is translated as Satan are generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old Testament writings. This suggests that the satan is a developed concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the exile.

7. A further development of the concept of the satan can be tracked within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.

 

[Consecrated Life]

The prince of the world is man.
There were no angels in the Garden of Eden. They were all locked up.
Something to consider:

1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite culture.

2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern religious culture.

3. The Hebrew word satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in first century Judaism.


4. The word satan normally appears without a definite article in Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does implies a title or function, the adversary, rather than a proper name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural form in Hebrew).

5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word satan is left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated "adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the text.

6. All three texts in which satan is translated as Satan are generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old Testament writings. This suggests that the satan is a developed concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the exile.

7. A further development of the concept of the satan can be tracked within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.

I stand corrected.
I claimed you would present a "very convoluted" explanation .
You presented a extremely convoluted explanation.
I am really curious about something however.
Can you name any other person, group, church on planet earth who espouses this theology of yours concerning Satan ?
Because I have never heard it before.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I stand corrected.
I claimed you would present a "very convoluted" explanation .
You presented a extremely convoluted explanation.
I am really curious about something however.
Can you name any other person, group, church on planet earth who espouses this theology of yours concerning Satan ?
Because I have never heard it before.

If it's Bible, then it is God.
Men have trouble accepting His Word especially when it conflicts with their pet ideas about God and this "so-great salvation."
Especially when centuries of vain traditions of men about the satan have rooted themselves in the mind of the Church of God's people.
But some of us have the Holy Spirit to help sort it out.
His truth is marching on.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Satan in the Old Testament​

So, just some things to think about, limited to observations from Old Testament texts:

1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite culture.

2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern religious culture.

3. The Hebrew word satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in first century Judaism.

a. The Hebrew term satan occurs in the Old Testament 26 times, in only eight contexts: Num 22:22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4 and its parallel 1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25; Zech 3:2 (2); Psa 109:6; 14 times in Job 1-2; and 1 Chron 21:1.
b. The term is normally translated [NRSV] "adversary" (Num 22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4/1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25) or "accuser" (Psa 109:6). In most of these cases it is clear that it is a human being that is referenced, as in 1 Kings 11:14. The verbal form of the word, which only occurs a handful of times, means "to be an adversary to" or "to oppose" (note Zech 3:1).
c. The term is customarily translated as "satan" 18 times but in only three of those contexts: Job 1-2, 1 Chronicles 21:1, and Zechariah 3:1-2. It is a translation decision based on a range of factors that determines to translate "satan" rather than "adversary" or "accuser."
d. 1 Chronicles 21:1 has a parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1. In 2 Samuel it is God who incites David to take the census, while in 1 Chronicles it is the satan who does so. Since 1 Chronicles is a later editing of the Samuel-Kings tradition, it seems obvious that Chronicles changed the referent from God to the satan, which suggests on some level that the two were interchangeable. At the very least it challenges the notion that the satan was seen in anything close to modern popular notions of the Devil or Satan.
e. In the Job passages, it seems evident that the satan is one of the sons of God (usually translated "heavenly beings," Job 1:6). That is, in the context of the narrative in which God is portrayed as a high king with attendant servants (sons of God), the satan is part of the royal entourage in the service of the king (God). For discussion of the meaning of "sons of God" see Sons of God and Giants.
f. In the Balaam story of Numbers 22, the word satan is translated "adversary." Here, the adversary is a messenger of God who opposes a prophet, reflecting much the same idea as Job 1-2. Again, it is a translation decision not to translate the word as "satan" here.
g. Zechariah 3:1-2 demonstrates a similar context as Job 1-2, in which a servant of God is challenged by an adversary. The main difference in Zechariah is that rather than a test as in Job, God immediately defends the accused, reflecting a common theme of post-exilic literature.

4. The word satan normally appears without a definite article in Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does implies a title or function, the adversary, rather than a proper name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural form in Hebrew).

5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word satan is left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated "adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the text.

6. All three texts in which satan is translated as Satan are generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old Testament writings. This suggests that the satan is a developed concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the exile.

7. A further development of the concept of the satan can be tracked within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Reflections on Scripture​

There is a lot more to consider. However, here are some reflections that arise from these limited aspects.

Within the Old Testament, God was the only source of life and the arena in which humans existed. While the Israelites went through a process from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism, they maintained the belief that God was central. Many of the prophets argued that other gods are worthless and have no power to influence human existence. As such, God alone was responsible for human testing (Gen 22, Exod 16:4, Deut 8:2), an idea needing further clarification later (James 1:13).

Using the imagery of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship, I would suggest that the idea of the satan as a servant of God made its way into Israelite thinking as a way to distance God from the testing, yet without introducing a second deity. That is the function of the Heavenly Council and Sons of God that appear in many places in the Old Testament.

The conceptual framework of Dualism, which understood the world in terms of opposing forces of good and evil, often in other contexts in terms of dueling deities, were a later development in Israelite thinking. This dualism was likely introduced as a conceptual model from Babylon during the exile, and reinforced by contact with Greek Platonism. By New Testament times Judaism tended to use dualistic constructs to express how they viewed the world. Yet, this manner of expression does not and should not be taken as some sort of ontology, how things really are.

From such a dualistic framework, there is little question that New Testament Jews talked about a Satan or Devil that was responsible for all sorts of evil in the world. That does not necessitate projecting ontology onto those means of expression, nor does it require us to think that first century Jews "believed in" the devil or Satan like many moderns insist on doing.

 

[Consecrated Life]

If it's Bible, then it is God.
Men have trouble accepting His Word especially when it conflicts with their pet ideas about God and this "so-great salvation."
Especially when centuries of vain traditions of men about the satan have rooted themselves in the mind of the Church of God's people.
But some of us have the Holy Spirit to help sort it out.
His truth is marching on.

Can you name any other person, pastor, author, alive or dead who you can quote biblically espousing what you espouse ?
If it is as biblically straightforward as you say it is you should easily be able to name some other person alive or dead out of the hundreds of millions of Christians who can be quoted saying the same thing as yourself concerning Satan ?
Yes?
No?
Rather not say ?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Can you name any other person, pastor, author, alive or dead who you can quote biblically espousing what you espouse ?
If it is as biblically straightforward as you say it is you should easily be able to name some other person alive or dead out of the hundreds of millions of Christians who can be quoted saying the same thing as yourself concerning Satan ?
Yes?
No?
Rather not say ?

No. And I don't need to.
Many believers throughout Christian history have been the first to bring out truth from Scripture.
But I don't believe I am first. I don't necessarily follow other men's bible studies as I know how to study on my own with the very best translation for the English-speaking people (KJV) and a Strong's for my Greek and Hebrew, and I am anointed in my gift of the Holy Spirit to understand His Word.
The things that Paul taught was new and never thought through by others and he was basically the first to espouse those things he did. Even Peter had not known the things he taught from Scripture.
Who was first to teach God had a Son? Or who was first there was a trinity? Who was first to teach that? Who was first to teach a resurrection of the dead? Many things Jesus taught was new to His disciples. To everyone. They were all amazed. Does that mean He was wrong?
Nope.
If I'm wrong, then I am wrong. But every generation of believers throughout Christian history are given only so much light of illumination to understand the Scripture for their time as per God's will, and every individual is given so much illumination to understand the Scripture in their lives. It's called a "measure/portion of faith. And when we all come to that predetermined measure of knowledge of God upon which faith rests, then we die. Ever heard that? We haven't come to understand everything about God as He is still revealing His Word to individuals and to this generation and we and they are being taken from glory to glory.
What if I told you who the man of sin was and was the first to do so? Maybe I can accurately describe who the beast is and stand alone in this? Does it mean I am wrong? ONLY TIME will tell.
When Scripture says, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Pe 2:4,) then that should be incorporated into my understanding on angelology, and it does. The Holy Spirit says this. And if I can't 'get past' this Scripture and it is clear to me then that should cause me to look again at what this "Satan" is or what 'Lucifer' is, and it does. So, if all the angels that sinned are cast down to hell and delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment then this tells me that something is wrong with the present understanding on these two subjects in Scripture. So what if you've never heard what I 'espouse.' I never heard either before I came to this understanding, and I am confident in my conclusions. Can you get past 2 Pete 2:4?
Can you?
It's a literal, straightforward statement by Peter and Jude says the same thing. Now it comes down to WHEN did God do this? Knowing angels are locked in chains then "sons of God" in Genesis 6 CANNOT be angels. God would not create bodies for them and allow these fallen angels to partake of the HOLY bonds of matrimony for the purpose of lust or offspring. That makes NO SENSE. Then to turn and destroy all life but eight people. How can a spirit-being (if they weren't locked up) mate with a woman from the material world? Angels don't have genitals for one, and they are of two different created orders, of a different 'glory' of 'flesh,' if you will. Given that, God ordained that cats mate with cats and have more cats, dogs mate with dogs and have more dogs. But an angel and human are totally beyond all sane comprehension. It's impossible. And I don't believe in dualism or yin and yang.
But there are Christians that hold to this madness. They watch too much TV and actually believe a human can mate with a Klingon and have hybrids.
When I come to a conclusion about Scripture that places me alone or in a minority I don't care. I used to be taught Arminianism when I was first saved and when I came across Scripture that said the opposite of the Remonstrants, I'd rather hold to Scripture. I never read or studied Augustine or Calvin but, in my studies, when I began to look into the theology of these two, I found I had come to the same conclusions as they. This was encouraging. But I don't base my beliefs on their theology. I am my own man, and I am complete in my references and sources.
I love what Al Einstein said, "If 50 million people say a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing."

 

[Consecrated Life]

Can you name any other person, pastor, author, alive or dead who you can quote biblically espousing what you espouse ?
If it is as biblically straightforward as you say it is you should easily be able to name some other person alive or dead out of the hundreds of millions of Christians who can be quoted saying the same thing as yourself concerning Satan ?
Yes?
No?
Rather not say ?

No. And I don't need to.
Many believers throughout Christian history have been the first to bring out truth from Scripture.

Name One ?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Name One ?

The Apostle Paul:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 1 Cor. 12:1-11.

 

[Consecrated Life]

The Apostle Paul:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 1 Cor. 12:1-11.

The other apostles and many others were well aware of "spiritual gifts" prior to Paul knowing about them.
Try again ?

 

[jeremiah1five]

The other apostles and many others were well aware of "spiritual gifts" prior to Paul knowing about them.
Try again ?

How could they when the Holy Spirit had not been given?
And who was it that understood them the way Paul did?
First?
Jesus told His disciples He had many things to say still but they could not receive (understand) them yet. They couldn't even understand His parables without further revelation and instruction from the Holy Spirit.
But the thing about Paul was that being a Pharisee meant he knew the Old Testament Scripture. But he understood nothing of the Scripture until the Holy Spirit illuminated his mind to them. And it was about fourteen to seventeen years before he began his ministry in Acts 13 depending on when one dates his letter to Galatia. So, it took time for him to come to the knowledge of the truth of the types and shadows of the Old Testament being not only finding reality in the New Testament but in having one man like Paul to think it through and teach so much of the Doctrines of Christ (or of the Spirit.) Peter and the disciples didn't have ready access to the Old Testament. The priests had the oracles of God, and they knew Scripture more than the common folk. Still, my point is that if God has one man totally committed to Him that's enough. Paul was among those that were committed to Him. And it was one man to whom God revealed the spiritual nature of His Word and having Scripture and the Holy Spirit was enough. This allowed Paul not only to bring out the spirit of the Law and the doctrines of a new thing God was doing on the earth but that he was the one to be used of God to write at least fourteen letters to the Church that were inspired of God and eventually became part of the New Testament Scriptures.
Let's see, Noah was one man, Enoch was one man, Abraham was one man, Moses was one man, Joshua was one man, David was one man, Solomon was one man, Josiah was one man, Boaz was one man, and maybe I should post chapter 11 of Hebrews which describes God using one man at various times.
That's all it takes.

 

[Consecrated Life]

How could they when the Holy Spirit had not been given?
And who was it that understood them the way Paul did?
First?

Peter & John to name a couple.
Act 3:11
And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Peter & John to name a couple.
Act 3:11
And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

So, there had to be a first somewhere that brought forth teaching that was never before part of 'mainline' doctrine or considered.
Peter and John who were apostles to the "Jews" as was James brought forth teaching and healing that was first taught by Jesus.
Same as you are "wondering" what it is I post about the satan and the sinning angels.
No difference.
Greater understanding about New Testament doctrine had to start somewhere.