Did I ask you if you care about my beliefs? Nay, I asked you to remind me of what your view of angels is.
Yes, I understand that. Thanks.
I know you don’t care to know my beliefs. You’ve made it quite clear that you don’t care to know anyone’s beliefs. You simply care to talk at people, rather than talking with people.
I wasn’t formulating an argument. I was pointing out an observation.
You did claim to be “intimately familiar with quantum philosophy.” Do you know the difference between classical information transfer and the result from a measurement on entangled states?
You’re sharp.
LOL. Judging from the way you’ve conducted yourself here and on other forums over the years, I’d bet that you are intimately familiar with insecurity.
Oh, ok. Thanks for straightening that out for me.
Are the same Gabe from Tentmaker? In any case, you sure gotta bitterness streak brother, as this pettiness of yours is unbelievable.
As for how I have conducted myself here, it is in response to people who are already insufficient and resort to insult over substance. I have no respect for those who use sarcasm and insult in place of actual reason and discussion; and it is worthless to discuss anything with them as a result to an already assault. You are getting my reaction from me, and I have already admitted my fault and weakness.
If you want a discussion, participate in one. Don’t claim to be an expert in something but not discuss it and then gloat that you are some educated person (like others) only to be demonstrated that your education didn’t cover the discussed subject. There is a science subcategory in this forum, create or participate in the discussion.
I responded to your accusations and whether or not people don’t like me, matters not to me.
Again, respond seriously to discussions or don’t respond at all. Pretty much how it is. You pretty much showed nothing of profit in your responses except a lack of knowledge of the discussed subject to contribute. If what I say goes against what you believe, tell us what you believe and actually use it to retort and refute the other beliefs.
But once again, you were the one who decided to hijack a thread for your personal agenda this time. I don’t mind having my posts deleted or being banned for standing up for myself.
Getting back on track…
Craig,
So when we create these spirits, good, bad, or neutral, from our minds, then these spirits become autonomous? It is rather like when God created Adam and breathed into to him and Adam became a living soul, the essence of who he was came from the characteristics of God. At that moment, the thing God created was ‘very good’. But now the Adam-spirit is autonomous, about to reason and think like God, but also make decisions aprat from God, which led to the fall. He was in essence a ‘little god’ created from a big God, in His likeness.
When we create spirits, we are making copies of ourselves which will exhibit certain characteristics, good or bad, that in turn can influence others (or even back on ourselves, like the seven spirits that return) according to its psychic charactersitics that has been ingrained in it from our psyche. That is if we exhibit love, then love will manifiest itself in that spirit. If we exhibit hate, then the spirit will manifest hate.
Am I following you on this?
If so (and if I remember Craig’s position correctly), these autonomous, thinking, reasoning, decission making creatures will be anihilated when we’re saved.
What of the scriptures that attribute all creation to God thru Christ, and speak of the reconciliation of all?
If men or angels have creative powers, they were given them by God thru Christ.
They and their creations would be part of God’s creation.
If Craig is right, those who say that “all doesn’t mean all” must also be right.
P.S.: The Bible does say that there were angels that sinned. were cast down, and are now in a place (or condition) of restraint.
2 Peter 2:4.
Jude 6.
(And even if they’re kept on a long enough leash to interact with our world at the invitation of humans, they would still be in “invisible chains.”)
Also (whatever his original name), the Bible strongly implies that Satan once held some high office.
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.
(1 Tim. 3:1-2,6.)
And a scholar by the name of Albert Barnes offered these comments regarding the Greek text of verse 6.
(Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1 Tim.3:6.)
Craig,
You asked:
Yes, I am that Gabe, but you and I never had any altercations on any of the boards where we both posted, for I was, until now, biting my tongue. So you clearly are confusing me with someone else. Now, Craig, I have much respect for your knowledge of the Bible and for your exegesis, even if I think you might be off-base sometimes. It was never my intention through all these years to call your character into question, although lately I must confess to being fed up with your arrogance and with what appears to be a tendency on your part to pathologically lie. I’m certain you consider me as judgmental for saying (and thinking) this way, but I am only being honest according to what I have observed in you. Others, too, have pointed this out to you in the past, of that I’m certain. You would do well to let yourself mature by confronting this part of you.
So you’re going to respond in kind? Eye for an eye? Don’t you think we should strive to live according to Jesus’ teachings (return good for evil)?
Just so I am sure of what you are saying, can you tell me what exactly are your faults and weaknesses you have in mind here?
When did I ever claim to be an expert in anything? When did I ever gloat about my education? And what “discussed subject” are you referring to? Angels, I presume?
I’d be glad to do that. Will you join the discussion?
Sarcasm does not necessarily undermine the seriousness someone’s argument/point.
How did my posts display a lack of knowledge of the discussed subjects? This statement of yours does nothing to profit our discussion.
Okay, but I wasn’t calling you out on your beliefs but rather your way of conducting yourself. But you can do what you want with it.
It’s nothing personal on my part. But I do think its a shame that you are hurting this forum, as you have others, with your snide arrogance.
No, you are the same Gabe. I only know one Gabe and that is you. If you were biting your tongue, then you for sure have let bitterness grow inside to show up 2 or more years later, so I am not ‘clearly’ confusing you with anyone else.
Where have I lied? In order to prove a lie, you need to have evidence of such. Having experiences and stories that are beyond the natural understanding is no evidence for lies. Are you confusing arrogance for confidence? Are you sure you are not confusing your disbelief in my experience as your need to think I am pathologically lying?
You see, I know what I know; but you are acting out assumption and the limited nature of discussion.
Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
In any case, you may want to abide by the rules of the forum.
No disrespectful, vulgar or inflammatory comments about any person or any institution*
All you are doing is justifying my reactions, especially since you didn’t talk to me in private prior to this.
Proverbs 17:28
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
If I have had no problems with you, and we had no altercations in the past; you may want to keep it that way.
If I am hurting this forum, I am sure management would make it clear to me.
Sorry for taking so long to respond to your last post on this thread, Auggy! As you know, I’ve been very busy lately. But I guess better late than never!
But what did the Gospel writers mean they spoke of people being “possessed by demons,” and of Jesus “casting out demons?” For instance, when Luke tells us that a certain man had been “driven by the demon into the desert” and that Jesus “commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man” (Luke 8:29), what did the apostle mean by these words? What meaning did Luke ascribe to the word “demon” and “unclean spirit?” Did he ascribe to it the same meaning that was ascribed to it by, say, Josephus, who was a Pharisee (and whose beliefs concerning “demons” may consequently be seen as representative of the common Jewish view in the first century)? Or did Luke ascribe to the word a different meaning? If the former, then Luke is teaching us that the evil disembodied spirit of a dead man (or disembodied spirits of dead men) was controlling the “Gerasene demoniac,” and that Jesus commanded the wicked ghost(s) to come out of him. But is this the meaning that Luke was intending to convey by the language he used? If not, why not?
Now, in Luke 11:14, we’re told that Jesus was “casting out a demon that was mute.” Do you think there was a literal spirit-being possessing a man, and that this spirit-being was mute? I don’t, and I doubt most Christians who actually believe in the literal existence of demons believe that this particular demon was unable to speak. So why then does Luke call this demon “mute?” I see two options, both of which are against the idea that demons actually exist. It’s possible that this is what the common understanding was. That is, if a person was unable to speak, then this disability may have been attributed to his being possessed by a “demon” (the disembodied ghost of a dead man) that was mute, and which manifested its muteness through the person it had possessed. But there is another possibility: When referring to this fictional entity that the Jewish people (both unbelievers and new believers, to whom the gospels were primarily addressed) thought was possessing this man, Luke used language which, literally speaking, was applicable only to the man, since he didn’t believe the “demon” had any real existence. Understood in this way, Luke could thus speak of the man and the “demon” interchangeably, since the “demon” was in reality nothing more than the physical or psychological impairment that was afflicting the man.
Similarly, we find that, while certain passages seem to indicate that demons were able to speak (Mark 1:24, 26, 34; Luke 4:41; etc.) when we compare these statements with others, no distinction is drawn between the cries of the demoniacs and the cries attributed to the demons themselves (cf. Mark 1:23; Luke 8:28). This should be a good “clue” as to what the Gospel writers really believed concerning demons. Isn’t it interesting that the only time “demons” actually show up in the Gospels and make their “existence” known to people, it’s always through those men and women who were thought to be possessed by them? It would seem that they couldn’t talk without using human vocal cords (and as seen above, some couldn’t even talk at all!), change locations without using human legs and feet, or inflict harm on people without using human arms and hands. Should not this fact be seen as somewhat suspicious to the reader, and perhaps raise a red flag that, unlike other supernatural beings that are described in Scripture as appearing to mortals in an objective form (i.e., all non-fallen angels!), perhaps these “entities” don’t really have an objective existence? For according to the traditional Christian view, “demons” are actually fallen, angelic beings. Why then do they seem so limited in their abilities? If they really exist, why is there not a single example of them manifesting themselves to people as nearly every other non-fallen angelic being seems fully capable of doing? Again, it’s as if they have no real existence apart from the insane and afflicted people who were thought to be possessed by them. Why is this?
I would suggest that when we start with the OT, the burden of proof shifts to those who would argue that demons have a real, objective existence. If I’m not mistaken, the Old Testament refers to “demons” (shêd) only twice. Significantly, in both places the context has to do with paganism and idol worship. In Deuteronomy 32:17, we read, “They sacrificed to demons (shêd) that were not God, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.” Here we find that the first time “demons” are mentioned in Scripture they are referred to as being equivalent to the false gods of the Gentile nations, to which unfaithful Israel is represented as offering sacrifices. Concerning the word “shed,” the Jewish Encylcopedia has this to say:
So we see that, in the OT, “demons” (shêd) were nothing more than Canaanite gods! In Psalm 106:36-38 we read: “They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons (shêd) they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.”
Here, the apostate people of Israel are said to have sacrificed their own children to the idols of Canaan. Whereas in Deuteronomy 32:17 “demons” are referred to as being equivalent to false Canaanite gods, here they are made equivalent to Canaanite idols. Of course, there is no inconsistency in this, since “idols” are nothing more than visible, tangible representations of pagan gods. In 1Chron 16:26 we are told that “all the gods of the peoples are idols” - and an idol is but a man-made thing (Deut 28:336; 2Kings 17:29; 19:17; etc.). But the gods of the heathen nations which are represented by the idols are man-made “things” as well; they’re simply intangible, unlike the idols that represent them. They are not really “gods” at all, but fictitious non-entities, existing only in the darkened imaginations of pagan man. But if (as these verses suggest) “demons” are in fact equivalent to these false gods of the heathen (as well as the idols which represent them), and such pagan gods have no real existence, then would it not follow that “demons” also have no real existence? Of course it would.
Moreover, Paul quotes Deut 32:17 in 1 Cor. 10:20, and uses daimonion to translate the Hebrew shed, which tells us that he understood “demons” as being equivalent to the non-existent pagan gods that idols represented. What the pagans sacrificed they offered to demons - that is, pagan gods. He even states in 1 Cor 8:4 that “we know that an idol has no real existence” (ESV) or “is nothing in the world.” What did he mean by this? He certainly did not mean that idols are illusions; they’re real enough. But the supposed supernatural entities which idols were thought to represent (i.e., the pagan gods or daimonion) were mere figments of the imagination with no real existence in the world. But, as Paul goes on to say, not all believers had this knowledge; some really believed that there was a supernatural power behind the idol, and consequently their conscience, “being weak” (because of their lack of knowledge) would be defiled if they were to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols.
Now, as noted earlier, Moses taught that “demons” were equivalent to the false gods of the heathen, and thus had no real existence. It was these false gods that were (and still are today) represented with idols. But to the unbelieving Gentiles, “demons” (i.e., their most proximate “gods”) were very real, and were believed to have power both to help or to harm the living. Thus, they were feared and worshipped. But let us examine more closely the connection made by the Gentiles between “demons” and “gods.” The reason “demons” were equivalent to “gods” among the Gentiles is because a number of the “gods” which the pagans worshipped were thought to be the spirits of great and powerful men whom they’d (for all practical purposes) deified.
Edward Elliott, a prominent English expositor of the late 19th century, has the following to say concerning this:
Thus, to say that the heathens worshipped “demons” is simply to say that they worshipped departed “heroes,” or deified men who were thought to influence (for better or worse) the affairs of mortals. That “demons” were, to the Gentiles, more or less “gods” (or perhaps more specifically, “demigods”) is evident from Acts 17. In verses 16-18, we read,
The word here translated as “divinities” is daimonion, which is consistently translated elsewhere in the NT as “demons.” But did these Greek philosophers think Paul was a preacher of “unclean spirits” which desired to posses people (as most Jews understood the word)? Not at all; to the Gentiles, daimonion were more or less deities or divinities, whether benevolent or malevolent. Paul goes on to say in his speech (in reference to all the idols around him), “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.” The word translated as “religious” is deisidaimonesteros, which denotes the worship or reverencing of daiomonion, or “demons.” It’s unlikely he was intending to offend them by this comment; he was simply stating a fact with which they would have agreed. Had he made such a comment to the Jews, however, they would have likely gnashed their teeth at him, for their understanding of “demons” was wholly negative; for them, “demons” were the “unclean spirits” of wicked men who possessed and tormented the living. Whereas they were objects of worship for the “Gentile sinners,” they were despised by the Jews as the causes of unexplained physical and psychological maladies.
Paul tells us that the “prince of the power of the air” is “the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.” But what is this “spirit?” Answer: it is the spirit that indwells and characterizes those who live in the “passions of the flesh” and carry out “the desires of the body and the mind.” In Scripture, the word “spirit” was very often used to denote a way of thinking, disposition, attitude, or mindset (Deut 2:30; 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; 78:5-8; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; 25:28; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 54:6; 61:3; Ezekiel 18:31; Mark 14:38; Luke 1:80; 2:40; John 13:21; Rom 11:8; 1Cor 4:21; 2Cor 2:13; 12:18; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6). The people being described by Paul (among whom he once counted himself) are disobedient - their “spirit,” or way of thinking, was hostile to God. They wanted only to do what their lusts and desires led them to do; consequently, they were considered “children of wrath” and deserving of divine judgment.
By way of another scriptural context that describes this “spirit” in a similar way, consider Psalm 78:5-8:
The generation of “their fathers” in v. 8 was stubborn and rebellious; their “spirit” was not faithful to God, because it was that same attitude or state of mind as the “spirit” that was at work in “the children of disobedience” of which Paul speaks in Ephesians 2:2-3.
Paul personifies the disobedient spirit that is present in all who are living according to the desires of their flesh as the “prince of the power of the air.” Paul speaks in a similar way elsewhere in his epistles, such as when he personifies sin as a king who reigns, has dominion and has servants (Rom 6:13-17), and as a paymaster (Rom 6:23). But what does “the power of the air” mean? The word translated “air” is a different word to that translated “air” in the sense of the heavens (e.g., Luke 9:58). Here, the word denotes the literal air around us which we breathe. The word conveys the idea of universality, since the air we breathe is everywhere present. For example, in Revelation 16:17 we’re told that “the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air,” because his work affected the whole of the earth (it was a result of this vial that the Messianic kingdom was established in the world). Thus, for Paul to say that this spirit is the “prince of the power of the air” is simply a figurative way of saying that this “spirit” is universal in its sway over the human heart, and has dominion over people all over the world.
It is evident from v. 13 that follows that Paul was wanting to make sure the believers to whom he wrote were prepared for the “evil day” which the church was about to be facing. This “evil day” likely refers to a period of intense persecution. If this is the case, then the “evil day” which was then approaching was to come at the hands of the Romans (seeing as they were the only people with enough power to create an “evil day” for the Christian church at the time Paul was writing - 1Pet 4:12; 5:8-9), most likely in league with the ruling civil and ecclesiastical powers of Israel. It is my understanding that the “rulers,” “authorities” and “powers of this dark age” were the ruling civil authorities of Rome working in conjunction with the Jewish authorities; it is this persecuting power that is collectively personified by Paul as the accusing enemy (or “devil”), of the believers (cf. Rev 2:10).
Elsewhere in Scripture the words here translated “rulers” and “authorities” refer to positions of authority in human governments, both Jewish and Roman (Matt 7:29; 20:25; Luke 12:11; 20:20; 23:13; Acts 3:17; 4:26-27; 14:5; 17:6; Rom 13:1-3; 1Cor 2:6-8; 15:24; Col 1:16; 2:15; Titus 3:1). The expression “world-rulers (kosmokratōr) of the present darkness of this age” should, I think, be understood in a similar way. The “wrestling” of which Paul speaks refers to the believer’s ongoing struggle to keep the faith in the midst of persecution and trial (2Cor 10:3-5). While the expression “flesh and blood” sometimes denotes mankind in general, here it may denote more specifically the mortal human body (as it does in 1Cor 15:50). By saying believers do not “wrestle against flesh and blood,” Paul is simply making the point that those to whom he wrote were not engaged in a physical, bodily struggle like the wrestlers at the Grecian games. That is, they weren’t engaged in bodily combat that requires physical strength in order to overpower and defeat an opponent. Instead, they were “wrestling” (in a figurative sense) with the civil and religious authorities of that day - i.e., with the false and deceptive views and ideas that were being so heavily propagated by them and believed upon by those over whom they exercised their power and influence. Consider Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, which are strikingly similar to the passage from the verse under consideration:
This, then, is how we should understand how Paul and the early Christians “wrestled” and “fought” with the unbelieving civil and religious authorities: they boldly proclaimed the truth of the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Both the Jewish and Roman ruling authorities of that day were in constant (and increasingly more violent) opposition to Christ and his followers. Recall that it was King Herod, Caiaphas the high priest, and the other Jewish rulers who so fiercely opposed and resisted Jesus, going so far as to employ the power of Rome (exercised by Pilate) to put him to death. It was of those people that Jesus said: “When I was daily with you in the temple, you stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Notice “the power of darkness,” which relates to “the rulers of the darkness of this age.” It is something Jesus speaks of in relation to his (human) enemies, because soon afterwards they would carry out the evil intent that was already in their minds. The “darkness” was something that was in them, because they refused to listen to him (see Luke 11:34-35; John 3:19; 12:46; Rom 13:12; Eph 5:8). Jesus’ disciples followed his example, and had the same experience of witnessing to rulers who were following human thinking, and resisting the word of God (see Acts 4:21-30). And of course, the verse in question from Ephesians was written by Paul, whose own experiences were just the same. He too was brought before kings (Acts 9:15), and ultimately appealed to Caesar. He was finally put to death under Nero, as were countless Christians living in that day.
But what about the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places?” Earlier in this same epistle, Paul writes that believers were “in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 2:6), which certainly does not mean the believers to whom he wrote were then literally dwelling in heaven. In both places, the “heavenly places” refers to the exalted status of those who are in positions of authority and privilege. It is likely that Paul has in mind religious authority here as opposed to merely secular authority. It should also be noted that this “wickedness in the heavenly places” is called “spiritual” - but throughout Paul’s epistles, the word “spiritual” (pneumatikos) conveys a positive characteristic or attribute. For Paul, those who are “spiritual” are believers who are mature in their faith (1Cor 2:13-15; 3:1; 14:37; Gal 6:1). So it is likely that Paul is calling this wickedness “spiritual” because of its deceptive nature; that is, it would have the outward appearance of being righteous and godly, although in reality it would be a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” like the false prophet of Revelation which John described as having two horns like a lamb, but as speaking like a dragon (Rev 13:11).
Who are these messengers that children have who always behold the face of the Father?
Who are these messengers who abandoned their proper abode and are kept by God in eternal chains under darkness until the judgment day. If I hadn’t been informed differently by those in this thread, I would have been sure that they are fallen angels.
Hi Paidion,
I believe these messengers are holy, immortal beings who were created to serve and worship God and to minister to human beings (Heb 1:13-14).
I believe this verse from Jude (and the parallel verse from 2 Peter) provides the strongest support for the doctrine of “fallen angels” in Scripture. However, I remain unconvinced that the actual existence of such beings is being taught or revealed in these verses. One possible view is that Jude and Peter are alluding to a popular Jewish myth in their day which, although not derived from any inspired source and having no historical basis, served to illustrate the point at hand (i.e., that the wicked will not escape God’s judgment): Index to Gregory MacD’s EU
Another possible view is that the messengers referred to in these verses are mortal men (specifically Korah and his company). I believe the position that men rather than supernatural beings are in view has been advocated by Craig (Student of the Word) and perhaps some others on this forum. And whereas the “Enochian tradition” view initially seemed more compelling to me, after further study of this subject my mind has become somewhat more inclined toward the latter position. So when I have a little more time I’ll try to give something of a defense of it. 
**
They are Israel.**
Compare Jude’s Quote with Paul’s quote.
And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Romans 11:17
That doesn’t mean supernatural beings don’t exist, good and evil. It just means that fallen angels, messengers who fell from their place of authority, never spoke about supernatural beings but men chosen to carry the Message of God but gave up in unbelief.
Aaron,
I still see no reason to not take the text to mean what it says. Now I can understand Criag’s point of view because he at least seems to believe that the Demons are actual existences.
But to say that the OT treated demons as myths and therfore the spirits being cast out of people in the NT is all a placebo is odd.
It seems to me this is quite an extended over-exaggeration made only re-inforce one side of the argument (of course which it fails at).
If the bible spoke of pink unicorns and the day which God created them, then you would be right (there is as much evidence for demons then there are pink unicorns). But there are reasons why people believe in demons which are in the scriptures and there are no accounts neither in scripture nor in history books of people who have seen pink unicorns. So try at least to understand why people believe in demons without making them sound like they’re crazy.
First off, The dragon (devil) is reported in scripture as having a seperate will apart from man. His tail swept 1/3 of the stars out of the sky and he tried to consume the woman and the child (rev 12). Now couple this with Jesus telling the disciples to quiet down because the prince of this world was coming is odd - dont you think? Along with that is Jesus going around town and telling the disciples that some mental illnesses require fasting? Why is that Aaron? Are some viruses more stubborn than others and God has to work extra hard to fix the mental handicap? Your view does not offer any solution to the difficulty of mute demons nor demons who can make piggies off themselves.
My point is try to be a bit more generous that people believe in it for a reason and if you can’t do that then I suppose there’s no real discussion then because the reasons people believe in demons and the devil are absolutely evident. And if you find as much evidence for pink unicorns as for demons in scripture, then good luck bro. I love ya, but I don’t think we can really get anywhere.
Aug
Revelation is written as the apocolypse of John, written after Jesus Israel had fallen, the Gentiles were brought in and Jesus died and ressurected. To use an apolcolyptic writing which is metaphor and parable, had really no substance for any doctrinal decision and belief. Everything written in Revelation is found in the Old Testament and in the testimony of the apostles. None of which EVER mentions Satan falling from heaven because his origin was there, but that the dragon fought his way to the heavens only to be thrown down again.
Stars refer to humanity, nations of men, decedents of Abraham, etc. (Genesis 22:17; 26:4; 37:9, Exodus 32:13, Deuteronomy 1:10; 10:22; 28:62, Judges 5:20; etc.)
Satan’s origin is always from below heaven, specifically earth; not above and has always been. (Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2; etc.)