The Lucifer Myth

[firstborn888]

The knowledge I was speaking of is neither intelligence or instinct.

Understood - it’s a certain quality or type.

If Adam and Eve and the Devil had none of the above, how in the world do you think they could be held responsible for bad choices?

So they can learn (and I’m not talking about how to build a bridge or a skyscraper here.)

Agreed. Concerning man that is.

There is no reason to try and prove they are not speaking of something which they don’t even mention and which does not fit the statements surrounding them. Daniel speaking of a spiritual battle between the king of Persia and Michael is plain and stated as such.

How plain is this?

In that day,’ declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them. Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them. (Jer. 30:9.)

Is it speaking of David (who was already dead) or David’s greater son?

The meaning of inspired scripture isn’t always “plain and stated as such.”

For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’ "Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. (Acts 2:25-31.)

…And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. (Acts 8:27-35.)

Great Michael. I admit, when I am wanting to make my point I can become a literalist even though I’m mainly a symbolist, so yes, I get the part that it could be speaking of multiple things in Isaiah and Ezekiel and I follow the logic.

The other statements you quoted sit in a context, they fit with the subjects at hand. So does this:

17 Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

I don’t see how it could be any more plain that He is stating that he observed the adversary losing his authority and power over men as the apostles were sent out.

This was before the cross, wasn’t it?

Jesus would have seen this as a token of His ultimate victory over Satan, but He knew that Calvary lay yet ahead, the disciples would be scattered, and most of them would give their lives for the faith.

I believe He would have seen the events of that day in the context of all that lay ahead, and all (that He knew, as God incarnate, with a personal knowledge of pre-history) lay behind.

He saw Satan fall (in the past), He saw him falling further that day (present), and He saw him hitting bottom (in the future.)

Again, I follow the logic here, even though I don’t believe that’s the reality of the situation.

What do pagans sacrificing to ‘demons’ have to do with a myth about a ‘perfect’ archangel in ‘heaven’ named “Lucifer” who was really stupid?

I don’t believe creatures can be created perfect, remember?

And if the Ezekiel passage has reference to Satan, it doesn’t say he was perfect.

it only says that he was outwardly “perfect in all his ways, until the day iniquity was found in him.”

…‘perfect’ archangel in ‘heaven’ named “Lucifer” who was really stupid?

No more stupid than you, me, Adam, or Judas.

BTW: Do you believe that Judas really existed, or is his betrayal of Christ another myth?

Ooooo - low blow Michael!(JK) In this thread I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible (in this thread ) I am challenging what has become a major foundational doctrine (in some circles) which is based on conjecture and requires some major connecting of some various dots in particular ways. I understand we must fill in some blanks but it should be understood that it’s NOT plainly stated that demons are fallen angels or that ‘satan’ is a fallen archangel. So to take an absolute dogmatic stance about that is unwarranted unless an individual feels God has given them clear absolute supernatural revelation on the subject. In that case, of course, a person will be dogmatic. But when you get many with opposing views (by supernatural revelation) then that’s where the bible is seen as a way to address who is correct. In most of my deep discussions with those who adhere to fallen angel theory (and have preached it their entire lives) they admit that the bottom line is, it doesn’t say for sure.

What do pagans sacrificing to ‘demons’ have to do with a myth…

Tyre was a pagan city (like Babylon and Persia) that offered daily sacrifices to spiritual entities Paul identified as demons.

In the New Testament, Satan is called the prince of demons (and I don’t believe you’ve proven that his fall is a myth.)

I think the Pharisees said that? And Jesus answered them “If satan cast out satan”, right?

If God cannot be blamed for all this mess - who can? Is it the fault of those created with a complete lack of knowledge and wisdom, and understanding?

If a parent tells a child not to pull his sister’s hair, and he does, he’s responsible for the action whether or not he realizes it hurts.

He may have to learn that it hurts.

Also, you’re the only one here who’s looking to blame someone, and you keep choosing to blame God.

Perhaps Satan does the same, and maybe that’s why he’s such a slow learner.

Scripture does say that he’ll be tormented (tried,tested, harassed, or vexed) to the ages of the ages (Rev. 20:10.)

And that would seem a little harsh if he’s just (consciously) doing his job, wouldn’t it???

Thanks for your input into this thread Michael. I learn so much everyday. I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day. I suppose you may not be open to this idea? Let me know. I don’t want to go there in this thread even though I think Jason alluded to something along those lines early on (concerning the ancient culture issue).

Like I shared with Jeff in a PM, I make some strong dogmatic assertions for the purpose of seeing how they hold up under scrutiny and also to see how they may challenge the concepts and understandings of others. I thank God for this medium we have to connect and exchange ideas.

As you guys may have noticed, I am DEEPLY concerned with some of the fatalism deeply entrenched in Christian dogma - particularly the ‘end times’ rapture and tribulation theories, demonology, eternal hell, the wrath of God and so on.

In so many ways these concepts, if misunderstood (which I believe they are to a great extent) consume the time and resources of the largest ‘faith group’ in the world and greatly limit our effectiveness in breaking the present day oppression and abuse of God’s living creatures.

Michael, I am particularly touched by your apparent understanding that raising/confining animals for the sole purpose of slaughter and consumption is not "God’s best’ but you feel (because of a few plain but ancient verses) that you are not free to act on those convictions. I would submit to you, that according to many of your own concepts that we ARE free to take the next step into God’s best and are not limited in how far we want to move forward in that direction.

Godspeed…

[Michael]

when I am wanting to make my point I can become a literalist even though I’m mainly a symbolist

But a literalist couldn’t possibly take the 28th chapter of Ezekiel to refer solely to the human king of Tyre, because men go through a biological process of birth and maturation.

They’re not created in a day (verse 13), and none of Ezekiel’s contemporaries had lived long enough to have seen Eden (same verse.)

In this thread I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible

But you do (or may) in other threads?

to take an absolute dogmatic stance about that is unwarranted unless an individual feels God has given them clear absolute supernatural revelation on the subjectI understand we must fill in some blanks but it should be understood that it’s NOT plainly stated that demons are fallen angels or that ‘satan’ is a fallen archangel. So to take an absolute dogmatic stance about that is unwarranted unless an individual feels God has given them clear absolute supernatural revelation on the subject.

My point was that an individual who believes that the entire Bible is the inspired word of God can (and should) look outside the immediate context to the third chapter of first Timothy (verses 1 and 6), Christ’s personal encounter with Satan in the wilderness, His personal encounters with demons (who expected a day of judgment, and feared being tormented “before the time”), Satan’s judgment (in the 20th chapter of Revelation), and what Peter and Jude said about fallen angels.

For anyone who believes in the varacity of the Bible, this is (at least) circumstantial evidence that there’s truth in the tradition you insist on calling myth.

which is based on conjecture

Your interpretation of Ezekiel 28 is also based on conjecture.

The conjecture that Ezekiel is using poetic license when he speaks of the king of Tyre being in Eden, and being outwardly perfect in all his ways from the day that he was “created.”

I think the Pharisees said that? And Jesus answered them “If satan cast out satan”, right?

The Pharisees mentioned “Beelzebub, the prince of demons,” and Jesus identified Him as Satan (the individual with whom He had a personal encounter in the wilderness.)

I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

If you do, could you start with the following passage?

So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils. (Matt. 8:31-33.)

What made a whole herd of swine self-destruct at precisely the same time that Jesus humored these poor deluded men by pretending to exorcise their internal demons?

…the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

Please don’t forget the diversity of that culture.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8.)

Among the Gentiles, I believe the Epicureans (and/or the Stoics) challenged such ideas.

So, why would Jesus and his inspired Apostles perpetuate false beliefs that were alredy being questioned in the contemporary culture of their day?

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

I wish I could have gotten to this earlier. As I’ve stated in another forum, I heard various Evangelical scholars say that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan. And the Early Church view of Satan wasn’t in any way influenced by the Vulgate. We can agree on these things.

Anyway, this doesn’t mean that the New Testament (NT) doesn’t teach about fallen angels, for example, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. And I could understand if you said that you reject these NT teachings because you’ve already stated that you reject some NT teachings. But are you suggesting that your rejection of all teaching about fallen angels is based on the Christian Bible?

[Michael]

I heard various Evangelical scholars say that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.

But it is a reasonable inference (given the circumstantial evidence I outlined), and I doubt all Evangelical scholars (living and dead) have come to the conclusion that “Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.”

But are you suggesting that your rejection of all teaching about fallen angels is based on the Christian Bible?

I think that’s a very good question.

Thank you James.

[james.goetz]

I heard various Evangelical scholars say that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.

But it is a reasonable inference (given the circumstantial evidence I outlined), and I doubt all Evangelical scholars (living and dead) have come to the conclusion that “Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.”

Michael, it’s not uniformly accepted or rejected among Evangelical scholars. I agree it’s easy to see these verses describing an allegory about the fall of an archangel. And the Bible clearly teaches that Satan is an angel while some angels fell from grace. In any case, we always want to clarify that the primary teachings about these verses are about the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.

There are a couple of notes about this. For example, Isaiah 14 describes the King of Babylon who is a prefiguration of the beast, so any possible allegory might be more about the beast instead of Satan.

Also, the translation of Ezekiel 28 is debatable.

Here is Ezekiel 28:14-16 in NRSV:

[14] With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you;
you were on the holy mountain of God;
you walked among the stones of fire.
[15] You were blameless in your ways
from the day that you were created,
until iniquity was found in you.
[16] In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and the guardian cherub drove you out
from among the stones of fire.

And here is Ezekiel 28:14-16 in NASB:

[14] "You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
[15] "You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
[16] "By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.

Hebrew scholars debate if these verses teach A) the King of Tyre was anointed as a cherub who fell (see NASB) or B) the King of Tyre was protected by a cherub and then the cherub expelled the king after the king fell (see NRSV). I don’t know enough about Hebrew to decide between these two translations while the debate has no or little influence on my theology of fallen angels such as Satan.

[firstborn888]

when I am wanting to make my point I can become a literalist even though I’m mainly a symbolist

But a literalist couldn’t possibly take the 28th chapter of Ezekiel to refer solely to the human king of Tyre, because men go through a biological process of birth and maturation.

They’re not created in a day (verse 13), and none of Ezekiel’s contemporaries had lived long enough to have seen Eden (same verse.)

Well, that’s where the Hebrew writers wax so poetic - for instance in the other examples I gave (second post I think).

In this thread I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible

But you do (or may) in other threads?

Of course. I’m not just a heretic - I’m a mega-heretic. It’s not the unpardonable sin ya’ know

to take an absolute dogmatic stance about that is unwarranted unless an individual feels God has given them clear absolute supernatural revelation on the subjectI understand we must fill in some blanks but it should be understood that it’s NOT plainly stated that demons are fallen angels or that ‘satan’ is a fallen archangel. So to take an absolute dogmatic stance about that is unwarranted unless an individual feels God has given them clear absolute supernatural revelation on the subject.

My point was that an individual who believes that the entire Bible is the inspired word of God can (and should) look outside the immediate context to the third chapter of first Timothy (verses 1 and 6), Christ’s personal encounter with Satan in the wilderness, His personal encounters with demons (who expected a day of judgment, and feared being tormented “before the time”), Satan’s judgment (in the 20th chapter of Revelation), and what Peter and Jude said about fallen angels.

Since I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible in this thread then I’m not challenging the existence of a spirit who opposes. Or that there is a chief spirit among the spirits who oppose. As far as the ‘messengers’ who left their first estate etc- again, more speculation as it says nothing about ‘demons’ in those verses IIRC. I am not saying that a messenger of God cannot fall - obviously many have. Remember the title though: “the LUCIFER myth”.

For anyone who believes in the varacity of the Bible, this is (at least) circumstantial evidence that there’s truth in the tradition you insist on calling myth.

I agree there is circumstantial (but not conclusive) evidence.

which is based on conjecture

Your interpretation of Ezekiel 28 is also based on conjecture.

The conjecture that Ezekiel is using poetic license when he speaks of the king of Tyre being in Eden, and being outwardly perfect in all his ways from the day that he was “created.”

But it DOES say he is speaking of the king of Tyre. That much is certain.

I think the Pharisees said that? And Jesus answered them “If satan cast out satan”, right?

The Pharisees mentioned “Beelzebub, the prince of demons,” and Jesus identified Him as Satan (the individual with whom He had a personal encounter in the wilderness.)

Well, I think Beelzebub was a Philistine deity? A derivative of Ba’al the - supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites? Doesn’t the bible say those false ‘gods’ are only idols who cannot speak? I never really thought of Ba’al (or Beelzebub) truckin’ up to heaven to pay God a visit about Job. Hmmmm. the plot thickens.

I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

If you do, could you start with the following passage?

So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils. (Matt. 8:31-33.)

What made a whole herd of swine self-destruct at precisely the same time that Jesus humored these poor deluded men by pretending to exorcise their internal demons?

FB originally asked: “I suppose you may not be open to this idea? Let me know.”
I’ll take that as a ‘no’ to my question!

…the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

Please don’t forget the diversity of that culture.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8.)

Among the Gentiles, I believe the Epicureans (and/or the Stoics) challenged such ideas.

So, why would Jesus and his inspired Apostles perpetuate false beliefs that were alredy being questioned in the contemporary culture of their day?

I don’t think they perpetuated false beliefs about ‘satan’ being a fallen archangel or demons being fallen angels.

I ask you a lot more questions that I wish you would respond to but if you don’t care to - not much I can do

Blessings

[firstborn888]

Hi Byron,

I wish I could have gotten to this earlier. As I’ve stated in another forum, I heard various Evangelical scholars say that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan. And the Early Church view of Satan wasn’t in any way influenced by the Vulgate. We can agree on these things.

Anyway, this doesn’t mean that the New Testament (NT) doesn’t teach about fallen angels, for example, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. And I could understand if you said that you reject these NT teachings because you’ve already stated that you reject some NT teachings. But are you suggesting that your rejection of all teaching about fallen angels is based on the Christian Bible?

Thanks for your reply James. The answers are in my last response to Michael. I hope you guys don’t hold it against be that I’m not a proponent of biblical infallibility. But for the purposes of this discussion (and since I’m targeting mostly those who do believe in biblical infallibility) I will operate from a premise of biblical infallibility in this thread and if I depart from that premise in any of my statements I will plainly state that I am.

Love you guys - and the discussion.

[Michael]

I heard various Evangelical scholars say that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.

But it is a reasonable inference (given the circumstantial evidence I outlined), and I doubt all Evangelical scholars (living and dead) have come to the conclusion that “Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.”
Michael, it’s not uniformly accepted or rejected among Evangelical scholars…

Than there’s no consensus.

I heard various Evangelical scholars say that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.

But it is a reasonable inference (given the circumstantial evidence I outlined), and I doubt all Evangelical scholars (living and dead) have come to the conclusion that “Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don’t allegorically teach about Satan.”
…I agree it’s easy to see these verses describing an allegory about the fall of an archangel.

Especially when you consider what is revealed (for those of us who believe scripture is a revelation) regarding the spiritual rullers of nations in the book of Daniel (and the other circumstantial evidence available from the wider context of the Christian Bible.)

Also, the translation of Ezekiel 28 is debatable.

Perhaps, but I noticed both translations speak of “the day you were created,” and being “in Eden” (and a strictly literal interpretation of those verses would require us to look beyond any mere mortal king.)

I don’t know enough about Hebrew to decide between these two translations while the debate has no or little influence on my theology of fallen angels such as Satan.

I would agree that it’s a side issue, and (like you) I’m more interested in the wider context of scripture.

But Byron started this thread to prove that the traditional interpretation is without foundation.

This he claims to have proven, and I don’t believe he has.

when I am wanting to make my point I can become a literalist even though I’m mainly a symbolist

But a literalist couldn’t possibly take the 28th chapter of Ezekiel to refer solely to the human king of Tyre, because men go through a biological process of birth and maturation.

They’re not created in a day (verse 13), and none of Ezekiel’s contemporaries had lived long enough to have seen Eden (same verse.)

Well, that’s where the Hebrew writers wax so poetic

You said that the traditional interpretation is based on inference (as if that made it untrue), and I was merely pointing out that your interpretation is also based on inference (the inference that Ezekiel is waxing poetic here.)

which is based on conjecture

Again, your interpretation is also based on conjecture.

The conjecture that Ezekiel is using poetic license when he speaks of the king of Tyre being in Eden, and being outwardly perfect in all his ways from the day that he was “created.”

But it DOES say he is speaking of the king of Tyre. That much is certain.

And Daniel is speaking of a non-human king of Persia.

That much is certain.

So (for those of us who believe the whole Christian Bible is a revelation from God) it is by no means cetain that Ezekiel is speaking (solely) of a human king.

I admit, when I am wanting to make my point I can become a literalist even though I’m mainly a symbolist

Has it ever occured to you that that could construed as being somewhat disingenuous?

I think the Pharisees said that? And Jesus answered them “If satan cast out satan”, right?

The Pharisees mentioned “Beelzebub, the prince of demons,” and Jesus identified Him as Satan (the individual with whom He had a personal encounter in the wilderness.)
Well, I think Beelzebub was a Philistine deity? A derivative of Ba’al

And Paul said:

…the things that the nations sacrifice – they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not wish you to come into the fellowship of the demons. (1 Cor. 10:20.)

Idols of wood and stone may be lifeless things of themselves, but the Christian Church has always conceived of the demons behind pagan worship as real, external beings (and if you believe that any other vieof them is compatible with the Christian Bible, please comment on Matt. 8:31-33.)

I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

If you do, could you start with the following passage?

So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils. (Matt. 8:31-33.)

What made a whole herd of swine self-destruct at precisely the same time that Jesus humored these poor deluded men by pretending to exorcise their internal demons?

FB originally asked: “I suppose you may not be open to this idea? Let me know.”
I’ll take that as a ‘no’ to my question!

I offered you the oportunity to comment on Matt. 8:31-33, and you took that as a “no” to your question?

Let’s look at this in context.

You said

I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible in this thread

And

I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

I offered you the opportunity to share your thoughts on Matt. 8:31-33 without challenging the varacity of the Bible (if possible.)

You declined, so I take it that that passage doesn’t really fit with your thesis.

In fact you’re not open to the idea that the events took place as recorded in scripture, are you?

the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

Please don’t forget the diversity of that culture.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8.)

Among the Gentiles, I believe the Epicureans (and/or the Stoics) challenged such ideas.

So, why would Jesus and his inspired Apostles perpetuate false beliefs that were alredy being questioned in the contemporary culture of their day?

I don’t think they perpetuated false beliefs about ‘satan’ being a fallen archangel or demons being fallen angels.

Not the false belief that demons are fallen angels, only that they’re personal beings (consciously aware of a coming judgment), right?

I ask you a lot more questions that I wish you would respond to but if you don’t care to - not much I can do

I believe I’ve answered your questions, but you haven’t answered mine (concerning Matt. 8:31-33, for intance.)

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask two more (and I really wish you’d respond to them, but if you don’t care to - not much I can do )

Why is it that someone who admitedly rejects New Testament teachings, and doesn’t believe in the varacity of scripture, feels quilified to tell those of us who do how to interpret our scripture?

Isn’t it possible that you’re biased against the very idea of external demons, of a personal devil, and a host of other things you haven’t told us here?

[firstborn888]

I admit, when I am wanting to make my point I can become a literalist even though I’m mainly a symbolist

Has it ever occured to you that that could construed as being somewhat disingenuous?

It has occurred to me that I can make my points and you can make your and we can discuss. I enjoy learning other viewpoints. I don’t consider confessing my flaws in a discussion is disingenuous, so the answer is “no”, it did not occur to me.

I offered you the oportunity to comment on Matt. 8:31-33, and you took that as a “no” to your question?

Let’s look at this in context.

You said

I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible in this thread

And

I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day.

I offered you the opportunity to share your thoughts on Matt. 8:31-33 without challenging the varacity of the Bible (if possible.)

You declined, so I take it that that passage doesn’t really fit with your thesis.

Actually here is the context:

I learn so much everyday. I would like to comment some more, especially about modern demonology and the idea that Jesus’ addressing the ills of man (AKA ‘the powers of darkness’) was interpreted a certain way by the culture and writers of His day. I suppose you may not be open to this idea? Let me know. I don’t want to go there in this thread

I asked if you were open to the idea (not of discussing it in this thread - if you were open to the idea that the writers interpreted things in way that reflected their culture). You didn’t directly answer the question, but from your comments it seems like “no” you are not open to the idea.

In fact you’re not open to the idea that the events took place as recorded in scripture, are you?

Back on the heretic hunt!!! Great…

I don’t think they perpetuated false beliefs about ‘satan’ being a fallen archangel or demons being fallen angels.

Not the false belief that demons are fallen angels, only that they’re personal beings (consciously aware of a coming judgment), right?

I ask you a lot more questions that I wish you would respond to but if you don’t care to - not much I can do

I believe I’ve answered your questions, but you haven’t answered mine (concerning Matt. 8:31-33, for intance.)

Really?

Since I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible in this thread then I’m not challenging the existence of a spirit who opposes. Or that there is a chief spirit among the spirits who oppose. As far as the ‘messengers’ who left their first estate etc- again, more speculation as it says nothing about ‘demons’ in those verses IIRC. I am not saying that a messenger of God cannot fall - obviously many have. Remember the title though: “the LUCIFER myth”.

I thought that was a clear answer?

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask two more (and I really wish you’d respond to them, but if you don’t care to - not much I can do )

Why is it that someone who admitedly rejects New Testament teachings, and doesn’t believe in the varacity of scripture, feels quilified to tell those of us who do how to interpret our scripture?

Isn’t it possible that you’re biased against the very idea of external demons, of a personal devil, and a host of other things you haven’t told us here?

I said I don’t believe in inerrancy but am willing to discuss from an inerrantist’s viewpoint. If you don’t feel comfortable consorting with heretics I understand.

[Michael]

Since I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible in this thread then I’m not challenging the existence of a spirit who opposes. Or that there is a chief spirit among the spirits who oppose. As far as the ‘messengers’ who left their first estate etc- again, more speculation as it says nothing about ‘demons’ in those verses IIRC. I am not saying that a messenger of God cannot fall - obviously many have. Remember the title though: “the LUCIFER myth”.

I thought that was a clear answer?

Did you really think that was a clear answer to my question?

Were you talking about human messengers, or the kind we see in the first chapter of Luke?

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, “to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.” And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.” (Luke 1:11-13.)

(The same messenger who told Daniel of his struggle with “the king of Persia” some five centuries earlier btw.)

Did you have these messengers in mind when you said “obviously many have” fallen?

If not, it would seem to me that your answer was at best unclear–and at worst disingenuous (to put it kindly )

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask two more (and I really wish you’d respond to them, but if you don’t care to - not much I can do )

Why is it that someone who admitedly rejects New Testament teachings, and doesn’t believe in the varacity of scripture, feels quilified to tell those of us who do how to interpret our scripture?

Isn’t it possible that you’re biased against the very idea of external demons, of a personal devil, and a host of other things you haven’t told us here?

I said I don’t believe in inerrancy but am willing to discuss from an inerrantist’s viewpoint. If you don’t feel comfortable consorting with heretics I understand.

Since we have such radically different presuppositions, I really don’t see the point of such a discussion.

[james.goetz]

“Since I’m not challenging the veracity of the bible in this thread then I’m not challenging the existence of a spirit who opposes. Or that there is a chief spirit among the spirits who oppose. As far as the ‘messengers’ who left their first estate etc- again, more speculation as it says nothing about ‘demons’ in those verses IIRC. I am not saying that a messenger of God cannot fall - obviously many have. Remember the title though: “the LUCIFER myth”.”

Byron, I want to make sure I understand your goal in this thread. Are you only opposing that Isaiah 14 teaches about the devil or is there anything else? Please clarify this for me. If you’re only opposing that Isaiah 14 teaches about the devil, then many Evangelical scholars agree with you. I’m just a little confused because you made many other points in another thread and then updated your post in the other thread to point to this thread. Please clarify this.

[firstborn888]

Byron, I want to make sure I understand your goal in this thread. Are you only opposing that Isaiah 14 teaches about the devil or is there anything else? Please clarify this for me. If you’re only opposing that Isaiah 14 teaches about the devil, then many Evangelical scholars agree with you. I’m just a little confused because you made many other points in another thread and then updated your post in the other thread to point to this thread. Please clarify this.

Hi James,
I am opposing (that is: satan-ing) that a being named “Lucifer” has any place in spiritual reality (ie: I am acting as a ‘satan’ to the generally accepted concept of ‘satan’ ). It’s a perfect example of how an abstract idea (in this case an extremely metaphoric poetic passage) can be repeated over and over until it becomes a literalistic stronghold. As many biblical writers use commonly known and accepted themes to make their point, Isaiah apparently used the well known Helel son of Shahar story, just as Paul used the common practice of praying for the dead to make his point about the resurrection.

I am also basically SO tired of all the superstition in some portions of Christianity. From the belief that Mick Jagger and Jimmy Page sold their souls to the ‘devil’ to get rich and famous (as opposed to them just being great entertainers) to the belief that large groups of possessed people sacrifice their babies and other hapless victims every Oct. 31st. Enough is enough. Some answer “But Mick admitted he sold his soul to the devil”. (See how it works?)

The fables seem endless - For example - “angels” with wings (In the 200+ Hebrew references (Mal’ak) or the nearly 200 Greek (Aggelos) references no messenger/ambassador of God is ever described as having wings. Yet - in modern times many people have reported having seen visions of ‘angels’ with wings (!). What does that tell us?

So one goal would be to debunk what are (to me) some obvious mis-representations of scripture. After that, another goal would be to uncover/discover who the REAL opposer is, how the spirit of accusation works and why creedal believers in Jehovah gained the title “you are of your father - the accuser” as opposed to Jesus singling out some pagan priests or some atheists or other sinners for that title. Of course some will claim the title belongs to ALL unsaved, but really, read that context and what is being described as the ones who always opposed the message (and messengers) of God while claiming to BE the messengers of God.

Also, if the ‘angels’ (actually leaders/messengers) that sinned are the ones from a pre-historic rebellion and have been cast into tartaroo and bound with chains of darkness, how could they also be the legions of ‘demons’ running amok on the earth? Unless, (as one suggested) it’s an ongoing process with many joining the ranks as we speak. If so, why are all these kamikaze ‘angels’ of God so eager to defect from bliss and dive into a lake of fiery torment?

Some believe that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim who can’t move on (being neither fully human nor fully a heavenly creature). Very cool concept, especially for novels, but reality?

So really James, my purpose is to shake things up a bit - to incite thought and conversation, maybe shed some light on biblical facts as opposed to oft repeated and believed ideas which sometimes give rise to entire sub-cultures.

Just for the record - I do believe in a spirit of darkness and many sub-spirits of that darkness. I also believe they are very active in sustaining myths about themselves.

[Michael]

Just for the record - I do believe in a spirit of darkness and many sub-spirits of that darkness. I also believe they are very active in sustaining myths about themselves.

Just for the record - do you believe that they’re personal, external, non-human beings?

Do you believe that some of them entered into a heard of swine after being cast out of men?

Do you believe that the messenger who appeared to Zacharias was an external (personal, self-aware) individual named Gabriel, that he appeared to Daniel centuries earlier, and that he was opposed by personal beings he knew as the rulers of Persia?

All of that’s in the Christian Bible - including the very personal offense Gabriel took at having his word questioned by a mere mortal:

And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season. (Luke 1:19-20.)

In the interest of full disclosure, how much of this do you consider myth?

[stellar_renegade]

Wow, I originally skimmed this post to get the gist but after reading it in detail I must say you are apparently completely engulfed in this cloud ( ) as to what the cause and origin of evil is. That would make sense, and I should have assumed as much because these things seem to be the fuel of every great ethereal fiction story, and since you are an author and all…

I assume you read Frank P. and Ted Dekker? - people really eat that stuff up!!! I don’t do books but I am close to those who do and have read portions, seen the movies etc. And of course I’ve heard a ton of sermons on this subject

Bottom line is I studied ‘scripture only’ for 30+ years (and always avoided the commentary) and am always digging into the Hebrew and Greek. To me the commentary sometimes seemed more like progressive degradation than progressive revelation. My only comment here is that (as one who doesn’t give much credence to the creeds and doctrines of the ‘church’) I don’t see the multiple points you made above as the overarching message of scripture, at all. Much less out in the real world (outside the ‘church’). I CAN however see how some arrive where you are at - if you start down that road and then develope the ideas more and more and more (as has been done for the last 1800 years of Christianity).

Are you saying that these concepts don’t jive well outside of Christianity? I would say the converse, that they do jive very well - particularly with the evidence. Whether it be mothers hearing voices in their heads telling them to kill their very own children, or multiple people having consistent experiences with supernatural beings after being injected with DMT, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of validation to believe that there are higher conscious entities than ourselves at all. The space-time continuum is not made up entirely of what we personally can see or hear, y’know. Quantum physics, string theory, and at the very least our knowledge of limited perception of the light/sound spectrum should demonstrate this to us fairly well.

[JeffA]

So after all this time we still believe mental illness to be caused by demons - all hail quantum physics so we can rationally retain our bronze age superstitions

P.S. Apologies in advance for the dig

[firstborn888]

Just for the record - do you believe that they’re personal, external, non-human beings?

Do you believe that some of them entered into a heard of swine after being cast out of men?

Do you believe that the messenger who appeared to Zacharias was an external (personal, self-aware) individual named Gabriel, that he appeared to Daniel centuries earlier, and that he was opposed by personal beings he knew as the rulers of Persia?

All of that’s in the Christian Bible - including the very personal offense Gabriel took at having his word questioned by a mere mortal:

And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season. (Luke 1:19-20.)

In the interest of full disclosure, how much of this do you consider myth?

Michael,
I have NOT called the bible a myth in this thread or in any other thread. If you are interested in discussing the scriptural merits of Lucifer and fallen angel theory or anything about demons, then fine - please make some more points and I will try and respond to all your questions/comments. I already said I am not interested in discussing (in this thread) the errancy or non-errancy of scripture. I would love for you to continue in this discussion, even though you said you were not interested.
In the interest of full disclosure - I have historically believed everything recorded in the bible - every word. More recently I have been seriously questioning some things (mostly interpretations) but that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion about the SCRIPTURAL merits of Lucifer doctrine or fallen angel doctrine, does it?
I have a lot of questions Michael - about SCRIPTURES and what they mean. I am a Spirit filled follower of Jesus even though I am not a bible inerrantist. You have already stated that you feel the latter disqualifies me from "telling’ inerrantists ‘how’ to interprete scripture. A shame since I have spent most of my life studying the scriptures. In fact I have never studied C.S. Lewis or the dozens of other theologians and Christian authors so many mention and seem to enjoy. That’s fine Michael, but you may find I do have something to contribute biblically simply because it’s been my only influence.

I don’t ‘do’ theological books and I don’t do Christian fiction (no offense to any great Christian writers on this forum) and I always dig as deep as I can into the Hebrew and Greek. If I were here to challenge the veracity of the bible I would NOT be here saying “the Lucifer myth it is unscriptural”. I would be saying “The bible teaches Lucifer is a fallen archangel but I don’t believe it”

I personally am open to learning new points of view and am curious how those who adhere to the Lucifer doctrine deal with certain questions.

In retrospect it may have been wiser to title the thread “Is the orthodox Lucifer story scriptural or not”? I seem to have put you off by my dogmatic belief it is false.

[firstborn888]

Are you saying that these concepts don’t jive well outside of Christianity? I would say the converse, that they do jive very well - particularly with the evidence. Whether it be mothers hearing voices in their heads telling them to kill their very own children, or multiple people having consistent experiences with supernatural beings after being injected with DMT, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of validation to believe that there are higher conscious entities than ourselves at all. The space-time continuum is not made up entirely of what we personally can see or hear, y’know. Quantum physics, string theory, and at the very least our knowledge of limited perception of the light/sound spectrum should demonstrate this to us fairly well.

I am not questioning the existence of other spiritual beings (or physical beings) besides humans, at all. People have all kinds of experiences though. I know a guy who had demons coming up out of a flaming hell and trying to drag him down there with them. Bill Weise vividly went to a flaming hell and used 100 scriptures (terribly twisting them) to back up all his claims (I wrote a short expose’ on the first few scriptures he used - all bunk). He saw people eternally nailed to crosses as a punishment for mocking the cross. I believe Bill’s experience was orchestrated by evil spirits - plain and simple.
I have worked with people suffering from schizophrenia and in fact am currently working with one, so I know all about ‘voices’. I also also did hallucinogenic drugs in my youth and have had all sorts of experiences there. In my first couple of weeks as a believer I had demons cast out of me by the finger of God (for real). I have been involved in deliverance ministry and worked with ministers who were former satanists.

The more I studied scripture the more I saw the misunderstandings of modern demonology, especially concerning the origin of evil. Demons, evil spirits, aliens - all these concepts are as old as man. The sub-culture which Christianity has created (which I referred to in the other thread) is driven (AISI) by the popularity of unscriptural Christian tradition.

[stellar_renegade]

Alright. Were you merely telling Jason how silly the idea is that evil originated with supernatural entities on a higher level than humans, and not implying that said entities don’t exist? I guess that’s where I got confused. I’m not sure I remember Jason saying that evil originated with them but that many of them rebelled just as humans did.

I do believe that some visions that people have had were deceptive in nature, or at the very least misleading. Some of them may have come from their imagination or may have been given by demons. I also believe that sometimes they may have simply been misinterpreted.

I also believe that people can hear voices coming from their subconscious, but I tend to be skeptical of the notion that several mothers not connected to each other suddenly had a subconscious inclination surface, disguising itself as a divine voice, to violently kill their children. I simply refuse at this point to believe that otherwise very naturally loving mothers would suddenly snap to that extent simply because of a change in medication. Of course, I confess I haven’t researched it thoroughly, but the repetition of such events seems rather unlikely.

The doctor who experimented with DMT made a very thorough study of it and reported that such experiences were of a very realistic quality. There were several experiences noted where the subjects said they were suddenly aware of entities in the room they didn’t perceive before:

Miqel.com

"]Here’s the deal: DMT experiences (Wikipedia entry for DMT) are the most powerful psychedelic trip possible. It literally lights up the brain in a tsunami of neural activity for a brief 5 to 15 minutes of infinity and then the user returns to normal consciousness, usually with no hang-over or lingering after-effects.

In these trips there is an unusually high frequency of reports of communication with some form of high-intensity intelligence. Currently there is no widely accepted theory on what these experiences actually represent. The first researcher in 30 years to get FDA/DEA approval to conduct human research on DMT was Dr. Rick Strassman. He had heard about the contact reports before the study, but he was astonished at both the regularity and the details of the entity experiences. The content of these encounters was so bewildering, so alien, so unprecedented that he concluded there was no simple psychological explanation in terms of wish-fulfillment or exteriorization.

Some feel the entities are aspects of ones own mind. That is the easiest theory to conceive and feel safe/comfortable with. However experiencers maintain that the contact is unquestionably with something very interactive, attentive, hyperintelligent and alien to one’s whole existence. The psychedelic scene seperates into foreground and background and then the independently operative ‘entities’ become invasively curious, interactive and often coldly business-like. Many witnesses say that either way the implications are profound, because if these apparent beings exist as part of the mind then we have horrendously strange latent cognitive abilities that are light-years beyond normal experience.

Coast to Coast AM

"]A confluence of problems eventually ended his study, however Strassman indicated a major factor was that his research subjects began seeing other-worldly beings while on DMT – something he calls “lifting the veil.” Strassman said at least half of the volunteers reported meeting intelligent, often malevolent, creatures. Commonly encountered entities, according to Strassman, included aliens, insects, crocodiles, clowns, and elves. These unnerving experiences led some of the volunteers to form support groups to deal with what they saw.

Despite some disturbing results, Strassman said “the more [his research subjects] let go, the more pleasant the experiences became.” He also said he thought the implications of his study were too alarming for mainstream science, and have scared off American researchers. Currently, Strassman believes DMT interacts with the soul, and is studying ancient Hebrew scriptures and commentaries to learn about the evolutionary role of DMT.

JeffA - Don’t worry about it, man, I completely understand and I’ve been through much worse stonings than that - hah! I’ve had some pretty brutal debates with people, so I think I’ve got kind of a tough skin by now.

[Michael]

Alright. Were you merely telling Jason how silly the idea is that evil originated with supernatural entities on a higher level than humans, and not implying that said entities don’t exist? I guess that’s where I got confused. I’m not sure I remember Jason saying that evil originated with them but that many of them rebelled just as humans did.

Thank you stellar.

I don’t believe the idea that evil (as a practical reality) originated with “supernatural entities on a higher level than humans” (i.e. when they first sinned “just as humans” do) is particularly silly (and I think Jason would agree with me), but you asked a good question here (and I’d be interested in the answer.)

I do believe that some visions that people have had were deceptive in nature, or at the very least misleading. Some of them may have come from their imagination or may have been given by demons. I also believe that sometimes they may have simply been misinterpreted.

I also believe that people can hear voices coming from their subconscious, but I tend to be skeptical of the notion that several mothers not connected to each other suddenly had a subconscious inclination surface, disguising itself as a divine voice, to violently kill their children. I simply refuse at this point to believe that otherwise very naturally loving mothers would suddenly snap to that extent simply because of a change in medication. Of course, I confess I haven’t researched it thoroughly, but the repetition of such events seems rather unlikely.

The doctor who experimented with DMT made a very thorough study of it and reported that such experiences were of a very realistic quality. There were several experiences noted where the subjects said they were suddenly aware of entities in the room they didn’t perceive before:

Miqel.com

"]Here’s the deal: DMT experiences (Wikipedia entry for DMT) are the most powerful psychedelic trip possible. It literally lights up the brain in a tsunami of neural activity for a brief 5 to 15 minutes of infinity and then the user returns to normal consciousness, usually with no hang-over or lingering after-effects.

In these trips there is an unusually high frequency of reports of communication with some form of high-intensity intelligence. Currently there is no widely accepted theory on what these experiences actually represent. The first researcher in 30 years to get FDA/DEA approval to conduct human research on DMT was Dr. Rick Strassman. He had heard about the contact reports before the study, but he was astonished at both the regularity and the details of the entity experiences. The content of these encounters was so bewildering, so alien, so unprecedented that he concluded there was no simple psychological explanation in terms of wish-fulfillment or exteriorization.

Some feel the entities are aspects of ones own mind. That is the easiest theory to conceive and feel safe/comfortable with. However experiencers maintain that the contact is unquestionably with something very interactive, attentive, hyperintelligent and alien to one’s whole existence. The psychedelic scene seperates into foreground and background and then the independently operative ‘entities’ become invasively curious, interactive and often coldly business-like. Many witnesses say that either way the implications are profound, because if these apparent beings exist as part of the mind then we have horrendously strange latent cognitive abilities that are light-years beyond normal experience.

Coast to Coast AM

"]A confluence of problems eventually ended his study, however Strassman indicated a major factor was that his research subjects began seeing other-worldly beings while on DMT – something he calls “lifting the veil.” Strassman said at least half of the volunteers reported meeting intelligent, often malevolent, creatures. Commonly encountered entities, according to Strassman, included aliens, insects, crocodiles, clowns, and elves. These unnerving experiences led some of the volunteers to form support groups to deal with what they saw.

Despite some disturbing results, Strassman said “the more [his research subjects] let go, the more pleasant the experiences became.” He also said he thought the implications of his study were too alarming for mainstream science, and have scared off American researchers. Currently, Strassman believes DMT interacts with the soul, and is studying ancient Hebrew scriptures and commentaries to learn about the evolutionary role of DMT…
Very interesting (and thanks again.)

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

“I am opposing (that is: satan-ing) that a being named “Lucifer” has any place in spiritual reality (ie: I am acting as a ‘satan’ to the generally accepted concept of ‘satan’ ). It’s a perfect example of how an abstract idea (in this case an extremely metaphoric poetic passage) can be repeated over and over until it becomes a literalistic stronghold. As many biblical writers use commonly known and accepted themes to make their point, Isaiah apparently used the well known Helel son of Shahar story, just as Paul used the common practice of praying for the dead to make his point about the resurrection.”

[Update, removing mistake.] The Vulgate didn’t exist to influence Early Church Universalists and many Evangelicals such as myself put no stock in Isaiah 14 teaching about Satan.

“I am also basically SO tired of all the superstition in some portions of Christianity. From the belief that Mick Jagger and Jimmy Page sold their souls to the ‘devil’ to get rich and famous (as opposed to them just being great entertainers) to the belief that large groups of possessed people sacrifice their babies and other hapless victims every Oct. 31st. Enough is enough. Some answer “But Mick admitted he sold his soul to the devil”. (See how it works?)”

This sounds like a fringe issue. I recall hearing some people talking up a storm about it in the 1980s and early 1990s, but not now.

“The fables seem endless - For example - “angels” with wings (In the 200+ Hebrew references (Mal’ak) or the nearly 200 Greek (Aggelos) references no messenger/ambassador of God is ever described as having wings. Yet - in modern times many people have reported having seen visions of ‘angels’ with wings. What does that tell us?”

The Bible clearly teaches about spiritual agents with wings such as cherubim and seraphim, and I think only a nitpicker would complain about classifying cherubim and seraphim as angels.

“So one goal would be to debunk what are (to me) some obvious mis-representations of scripture. After that, another goal would be to uncover/discover who the REAL opposer is, how the spirit of accusation works and why creedal believers in Jehovah gained the title “you are of your father - the accuser” as opposed to Jesus singling out some pagan priests or some atheists or other sinners for that title. Of course some will claim the title belongs to ALL unsaved, but really, read that context and what is being described as the ones who always opposed the message (and messengers) of God while claiming to BE the messengers of God.”

To do this, we need to carefully look at all Bible verses about all spiritual agents such as cherubim, angels, seraphim, princes, Satan/the devil, demons, the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world, the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. For example, what do you think about 2 Corinthians 11:14 teaching that the devil masquerades as an angel of light?

“Also, if the ‘angels’ (actually leaders/messengers) that sinned are the ones from a pre-historic rebellion and have been cast into tartaroo and bound with chains of darkness, how could they also be the legions of ‘demons’ running amok on the earth? Unless, (as one suggested) it’s an ongoing process with many joining the ranks as we speak. If so, why are all these kamikaze ‘angels’ of God so eager to defect from bliss and dive into a lake of fiery torment?”

This is a good question. And I’ve heard better explanations then “as one suggested”. For example, Revelation says that the devil and his angels were cast from heaven and sent to the earth. We could delve more into this.

“Some believe that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim who can’t move on (being neither fully human nor fully a heavenly creature). Very cool concept, especially for novels, but reality?”

I definitely reject that teaching from the Apocrypha. Perhaps you saw that is some of my other posts.

“So really James, my purpose is to shake things up a bit - to incite thought and conversation, maybe shed some light on biblical facts as opposed to oft repeated and believed ideas which sometimes give rise to entire sub-cultures.”

To do this, you’ll need to teach about all the verses that describe spiritual agents or you’re doing nothing but pointing out problems without offering a solution.

“Just for the record - I do believe in a spirit of darkness and many sub-spirits of that darkness. I also believe they are very active in sustaining myths about themselves.”

Good. Perhaps we could talk more about what the Bible teaches about Satan and demons.