Like Gregory of Nyssa.
Good point James.
Understood. I was just mentioning that the vulgate was the source of the infamous “Lucifer” reference.
I am in the music business, and believe me - the counter Christian culture is flourishing. Most of the backdrop and themes for gothic and satanic bands are replete with imagery taken directly from church tradition concerning hell and the mark of the beast and demons and fallen angels.
My point here is that because of the myth and tradition surrounding the english words ‘angel’ and ‘heaven’ the average reader is duped when reading the scriptures. The term angel (neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek) is ever applied to cherubim or seraphim. They are described as living creatures but are never reported as having personal interaction with humans (IIRC) and almost all references to them are concerning the images on the ark of the covenant and in the corresponding post-ark prayers, that is, to the God who “dwells between the cherubims”. So we have the garden reference (guarding the tree of life) the ark images (and corresponding references) and then Ezekiel’s vision, but nothing more on them. They are never once sent out to people as ‘messengers’ and therefore are not ‘angels’ since the term ‘angel’ refers to a specific function and act which is never applied to cherubim and seraphim. Seems important to me to see the difference.
I addressed that a bit early on:
" 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds".
Does not that verse say he disguises and transforms himself into something which he is not? Much of Christianity (using that same verse) says that it somehow confirms he IS (or was) that something. 
Really, I don’t get it.
Thank you James for acknowledging that. It really bugs me when I discuss something and the person holding the opposing view cannot even admit I have one single valid point. 
Yes, the dragon’s messengers made war in the high spiritual places of authority (the “heavens” in the Greek: “high/raised up”). But most teachers claim a third of GOD’S MESSENGERS rebelled. That is not in the bible! Is it? I’ve read the whole thing and haven’t seen it. The dragon cast a third of the ‘stars of heaven’ to the earth. This could not be referring to the angels of God joining him as right after that the Dragon and his messengers fought in the high places until THEY were cast down to the earth for good.
James, I hear all these teachings about Satan deceiving 1/3 of the angels of GOD into leaving God and following him. I cannot find that teaching anywhere in the bible, not even in Revelations.
Even if it was in Revelations it still wouldn’t explain fallen angels in Jesus day. I think that’s where the Nephilim theory gains some ground as they are the last hope of explaining demons as former good guys?
I wonder if a lot of these teachings are holdovers from the Apocryphal teachings adhered to in the RCC?
I see your point, and I think that may actually explain the popularity of the Lucifer/fallen angel doctrine as it offers a solution, I just don’t think it is necessarily an accurate or scriptural solution.
This is a bit like gardening to me. Hard to plant a plot of ground overrun with weeds, right? Plus some of the roots run so deep - after you pull them all up it can look like a war zone!!!
I don’t think I called them silly ideas, just (AISI) not very scriptural ideas. In fact I apologized if I seemed to imply that those holding to fallen angel theory were foolish.
Most mainstream theologians point to Lucifers pride as the original source of evil in the universe, I don’t know Jason’s exact view but I do know many attribute the possibility of the existence of evil to a necessary component contained in the granting of free will.
Hi Byron,
“I am in the music business, and believe me - the counter Christian culture is flourishing. Most of the backdrop and themes for gothic and satanic bands are replete with imagery taken directly from church tradition concerning hell and the mark of the beast and demons and fallen angels.”
I meant that it’s a fringe within the church. My first concern with theology is within the church. For example, some ministers went overboard with helping people recover so-called memories of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA). And I myself briefly believed in a huge conspiracy of SRA with a mass slaughter of humans, but FBI and police investigations didn’t confirm this. Concerning cultures like Goth cultures, they need Spirit-empowered evangelism. Merely telling Goths that their myths are wrong won’t help them.
“My point here is that because of the myth and tradition surrounding the english words ‘angel’ and ‘heaven’ the average reader is duped when reading the scriptures. The term angel (neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek) is ever applied to cherubim or seraphim. They are described as living creatures but are never reported as having personal interaction with humans (IIRC) and almost all references to them are concerning the images on the ark of the covenant and in the corresponding post-ark prayers, that is, to the God who “dwells between the cherubims”. So we have the garden reference (guarding the tree of life) the ark images (and corresponding references) and then Ezekiel’s vision, but nothing more on them. They are never once sent out to people as ‘messengers’ and therefore are not ‘angels’ since the term ‘angel’ refers to a specific function and act which is never applied to cherubim and seraphim. Seems important to me to see the difference.”
First, you recall incorrectly about the seraphim. A seraph speaks to Isaiah (Isaiah 6:7), so we at least have one example of winged spiritual agent delivering a message to a human. Likewise, nobody can claim that they believe all the teachings in the Bible while claiming that there are no biblical examples of a winged spiritual agent delivering a message to a human.
Second, various angels are described as guardians (Exodus 14:19, 23:20-23; Daniel 6:22, 10:12-21, 12:1; Hebrews 1:14; Revelation 12:7). We clearly see that the Bible teaches that angels are spiritual agents who interact with humans in a guardian role and cherubim are spiritual agents who interact with humans in a guardian role.
Third, Psalm 104:3-4 alludes to cherubim surrounding the Lord (for example, Psalm 18:10) while Hebrews 1:7 refers to Psalm 104:4 teaching about angels. Likewise, Hebrews 1:7 implies that cherubim are a class of angel.
Fourth, the root of the word “angel” means messenger, but anybody that studies linguistics won’t limit the meaning of a word to its etymology.
Based on these four points, I see nothing important in your view of cherubim or seraphim.
“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.”
So far, I don’t see you doing this.
“Does not that verse [2 Corinthians 11:14=5] say he disguises and transforms himself into something which he is not? Much of Christianity (using that same verse) says that it somehow confirms he IS (or was) that something. Really, I don’t get it.”
No Christianity says that Satan is an angel of light. Most Christianity says that Satan once was a holy angel. I’m not sure what you don’t get about this.
“Yes, the dragon’s messengers made war in the high spiritual places of authority (the “heavens” in the Greek: “high/raised up”). But most teachers claim a third of GOD’S MESSENGERS rebelled. That is not in the bible! Is it? I’ve read the whole thing and haven’t seen it. The dragon cast a third of the ‘stars of heaven’ to the earth. This could not be referring to the angels of God joining him as right after that the Dragon and his messengers fought in the high places until THEY were cast down to the earth for good.”
“James, I hear all these teachings about Satan deceiving 1/3 of the angels of GOD into leaving God and following him. I cannot find that teaching anywhere in the bible, not even in Revelations.”
Revelation 12:4 says that the dragon (also called “Satan” and “the devil”) swung his tail and swept a third of the stars from the sky to the earth while Revelation 12:7-9 says that the dragon and his aggelos were hurled to the earth. And important background information includes that Revelation 1:20 says the stars of the church are aggelos. This suggests that roughly a third of aggelos are Satan’s aggelos.
“Even if it was in Revelations it still wouldn’t explain fallen angels in Jesus day. I think that’s where the Nephilim theory gains some ground as they are the last hope of explaining demons as former good guys?”
Revelation doesn’t teach about the original fall of Satan and his angels, but clearly teaches about the existence of Satan and his angels.
And the Nephilim theory of demons, which originated in the Apocrypha, won’t gain ground in the church. And I wrote elsewhere that it conflicts with common knowledge about mammalian hybrids. Anyway, the Apocryphal teaching about the Nephilim says that fallen angels impregnated human women while the progeny were hybrids called Nephilim. And these angels fell after Satan tempted Adam and Eve. These fallen angels were punished by being chained and cast into in Tartarus. And the Nephilim physically died while their spirits remained to roam the earth as demons. And the fallen angels still had great powers to rule on earth through the offspring who became demons.
“This is a bit like gardening to me. Hard to plant a plot of ground overrun with weeds, right? Plus some of the roots run so deep - after you pull them all up it can look like a war zone!!!”
Well, from my perspective, you haven’t pointed out ground with overrun weeds that have deep roots. And we still need to carefully look at all Bible teachings about spiritual agents, good and evil.
I too have been duped by over-zealous ministers. From time to time.
Agreed.
Yep, I missed the one reference to a seraphim interacting with a human - and I guess the fact is that anyone who approaches God’s presence (as Isaiah did) must pass the guardian cherubim. I’m trying to understand the difference between the cherubim or seraphim which always surround God’s throne and the spirits ‘sent out’ to minister.
I think that “cherubim are spiritual agents who interact with humans in a guardian role” is undocumented? They are clearly guardians of God’s throne and purity (and of the tree of life). Maybe it’s not important, but I have always seen a distinction between Cherubs and Mal’ak/Aggelos.
Back to my main theme though - God’s angels are all ministering spirits ‘sent’ to minister to those who will be the heirs of salvation. Not potential demons. I would not be comfortable with potential demons guarding me, would you? 
By what is espoused in mainstream theology any of them can and may defect at anytime. What if one carrying you to heaven decided it was a nice time to try out the dark side and threw you in hell instead?
And by all accounts it might be weeks (after a hopefully good posse is sent to recover you) before you get out!!!
Cherubs always surround the Lord, but are never sent out as messengers, right? The guardian role of Cherubs (protecting the tree of life, covering the ark etc.) is clear. I see this a different role from spirits ‘sent out’ to protect and give messages - but maybe it’s not an important distinction.
Okay. Maybe it’s not important.
Okay.
All this verse says is that satan disguises himself as an messenger of light. I have heard many many preachers/teachers use this as confirmation that he was once one of God’s main archangels. That’s what I “don’t get”.
This is my point of frustration with all this James. How can it be assumed that the Dragon casting down a third of the ‘stars’ to the earth = deceiving God’s messengers and convincing them to follow him? What if he convinced the star/angel of YOUR church to follow him? See - you have to assume that all messengers are God’s messengers - yet they just work for who ever convinces them the most or pays the best or seems to be having the most fun at the moment. It just doesn’t add up. Not scripturally or logically. And all my experiences with them (from both sides) contradicts this as well.
Exactly!!!
James, when the basic foundation of evangelical Christian theology is about God’s ‘rebel angels’, and yet it can be shown that most of the scriptures used to support that view do not actually support it at all - how is that not deep rooted weeds?
Thanks for the conversation James. It helps me see what makes some of this theology tick. Like I said - I always learn something. 
Well, and I only point this out to be clear, this is what you said originally:
Are you saying that his head was engulfed in the cloud of thinking that evil is possible through the existence of free will? Just wanted to know what your point of view is.
I believe all that has happened has happened on purpose, not by random anomalies or ‘possibilities’ built into a universal system of free will. I find it un- plausible that God (in static eternity) surrounds Himself with beings who are (in droves) digressing into chaos. I do believe that in the realm of time there are beings who turn aside into chaos through ignorance and are redeemed from chaos (darkness/emptiness) by the knowledge of God.
In lower levels of ontological abstraction freedom of choice seems to be the main theme. Looking at things from higher levels it can be seen that the existence of darkness/adversity/evil/ignorance is the cause for all the bad choices - not the result of all the bad choices. I understand that it is a radical departure from a “Something has gone terribly wrong” perspective but I see various overlaps in evangelical universalism as many here seem to understand that God has a specific purpose for ‘allowing’ evil. I personally do not see (as some do) that the sole purpose of allowing evil is to provide ‘moral freedom’ (in the strictest sense of the term).
“Choice” is hailed by many as the king of destiny. In some aspects though it seems to be a secular humanist style concept of self-betterment as opposed to the scriptural concept of being rescued my a savior who imparts the knowledge of God by sovereign grace after we have been unwittingly placed into clay jars and immersed/emerging in a state of darkened chaos because of one man’s transgression.
I see a deeper meaning in scripture and this actually puts me at odds (theologically) with most Christians. If you look objectively at the garden scenario you will find no disagreement from God that the man has ‘become as one of us’ after eating of the ToKoGaE - but yet most Christians think that God is engaged in a big salvage operation, trying to salvage a few from this cosmic disaster which originally occurred by allowing an un-coerced free choice. Then (the story goes) the disaster can be reversed by believing correct doctrine (I know this is an over-simplification, but all of us here know what I mean 
).
This theme loses some ground in Christian universalist circles and yet some of the basic concepts are still adhered to by many.
So when I said “you are apparently engulfed in this cloud” I was reacting to the depth of the belief (convinced-ness) that I saw in Jason’s post that a cosmic war has erupted in God’s perfect domain as opposed to the war that is happening only in this dimension of time/space (which AISI was created specifically for such a conflict to exist). Yet, I admitted that I am not sure of all the specifics of Jason’s view. Nor am I even sure of all the specifics of my own view. 
My hope would be that those who hold either view would learn something new from the discussion.
I love science fiction (on screen - I don’t do books) and I enjoy all the mystery which surrounds our existence. On the other hand I like to cut through the various layers of ideas to the bottom line.
One thing’s for sure - we all come away with slightly or vastly different ideas after reading the same words.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to orthodox Christians embracing CU is the doctrine of Satan’s/demon’s redemption but I understand that it is a must in CU IF they started out as God’s ambassadors as many believe.
I met one fella who adheres to the Lucifer doctrine and to UR doctrine and the casting out demons doctrine. The result is that he ALWAYS attempts to lead the demons (who are really just good guys stumbling a bit ) back to Christ before casting them out. He reports that in most cases - he is successful in leading the fallen angels back home .
I need to ask him “Awww… if they get saved can’t they stay in there? It could help!!!” 
I’m sure this seems absurd to most of us, but, really - why should it be? I always ask the Lucifer folks what would happen if Lucifer repented today. They generally say “He can’t” or “We know he won’t so he can’t”.
Hm, that was sure alot in that post!
I think Jason would probably agree with you on that part, from what I’ve read of his postings, although I’m not sure… however, I’m on the same page with you. Yet I also believe that even though it was planned to be this way, the plan included us choosing selfishness, to the extent that we are even able to choose things. It’s a paradoxical mystery, that of the combination of determinism and free will.
I like to think of it the way my friend on another message board said it - God is responsible, but He holds us accountable. In other words, He’s responsible for our fall, for He created fallible beings, but He holds us accountable so that we can become pure and lovely vessels of His Spirit. I like to put it this way - “God is justified in creating fallible beings because He knows how to make them heirs of His kingdom.”
Ah… yeah, I’m not sure that’s what he saying, either.
I agree that some of them still have an aspect of goodness to them, or are trying to cling to some kind of degradated good that they feel is right, as all beings who have transgressed must still do… but there are many, many of them who have done very terrible things. Surely it’s not right to implicate a whole race based on what some have done, and surely there are many supernatural entities and even those we would call ‘demons’ who are trying to do some kind of good, but… I don’t know. I guess you’ve made me think about it, but many of them are dangerous and at this point to say they are really just good guys stumbling a bit is, I think, largely a simple generalization that’s probably best not to be made around those who may be vulnerable to the influence of such beings.
It may be that they torture humans much in the same way as a human child might play around with, and even torture, ants, which would make their supposed evil even more understandable, but NO LESS dangerous! C.S. Lewis said something like how their power to transgress in regards to our’s is comparable to ours with regards to a chimp’s.
I must say, it surprised me the first time I thought about it. It was inpired by something in George MacDonald’s book Lilith.
“I guess you’ve made me think about it” is the name of the game bro! Jason, James, Michael, Bob, SG - I learn from everyone’s input. At this time I still don’t see the theme of God reaching out to ‘satan’ or ‘demons’ anywhere in the bible.
We do have these sweeping all encompassing reconciliation passages like:
Col: 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col: 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
and
Eph.1:10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth–in Him.
Yet, it seems the theme is we are redeemed from the power of satan, not being redeemed along with satan from the power of satan, err… power of evil, well… see what I mean?
Really though - where in scripture is God reaching out to demons? Where is He calling for ‘satan’ to come back home? Our rescue is from the “power of ‘satan’ unto God” and from “darkness to light”. Acts 26:18 - To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
I hope folks here can see the dilemma.
I don’t see a dilemma at all, perhaps because I don’t think that Satan will be saved anytime before the full number of humankind has come into the fold. In fact, I think it will most likely be much later than that, even after many of his own kind recant their rebellion. Perhaps his very defeat will suffer as a means to cause him to begin to acknowledge the overwhelming goodness of God, first as an unconquerable opposing power, and eventually as something which, being overpoweringly good in the sense of its force, something essentially good in the very essence and heart of its being, something to be finally acknowledged as eternally and vitally good and accepted within the heart of one’s own being…
I figured the answer could be in a future unmentioned salvation of satan and demons.
But if it’s not mentioned in the bible (a salvation plan for satan and evil spirits), and if satan and darkness are mentioned as things we are saved from - how is it not a dilemma?
It looks to me like the belief in God’s originally good but now fallen evil angels runs so deep in our culture it becomes a natural result (under UR) to believe that they will be saved, even though there are no scriptures that I know of which speak of this.
Not everything is in the Bible. I don’t think it’s necessary to know what God will do with those entities; it’s their and His business, not really ours. I do know, however, that we will judge them - and as we all know, judgment is one step in the salvation process - but I digress.
We are saved from Satan and darkness but we are also saved from tyrants and religious manipulators. The heart of salvation lies in being saved from sin, though. We can be saved from that which is more evil than us but will yet be redeemed as well in the long run. I don’t really see a problem with that.
My issue with it really boils down to this: I don’t believe that God can tolerate evil in His universe, either to create evil (as such) or to allow it to survive forever. Just as the verses you quoted say, all creation will be redeemed by the power of the Son’s sacrifice.
Agreed
But in judgement some things are exalted and some laid low some things are given life and some destroyed.
The only problem is that if that the ‘opposer’ is not a once powerful wonderful agent of God then there is no need for restoration. If he is the very source and essence of lies and murders.
Creation will be redeemed from corruption, but in that process corruption itself will be destroyed. Corruption opposes life and though it exists it is not included in that which shall be restored - just the opposite.
Hi Byron,
I thank you for this discussion while I need to work on all of the related Bible verses for my latest writing project. And I don’t have the time to keep up with the multi-way discussion on this topic, so I’ll focus on your replies to me and I’m sorry if that causes you to duplicate some writing that you replied to somebody else. And let’s focus on the following:
I prefer that angels deciding to sin wasn’t a possibility. However, we clearly live with the sad reality that many human shepherds in the church who are anointed by God have backslidden while I trust that God is ultimately in control of everything. And 2 Peter 2:4 clearly teaches that some angels have sinned while 1 John 3:8 says that the devil sinned. Angels are agents sometimes described as “sons of God” with the moral facility to choose between good and evil while some of them choose evil. And I do my best to prevent my personal preferences from deciding my doctrine.
I suppose that your alternative is that Satan could never choose between good and evil while his only possible choice has always been evil. He’s crafty enough to discuss the choice between good and evil with humans while Satan never had a chance to choose between good and evil. And God made this intelligent agent who always had no choice but to sin and eventually face judgment for those sins. Something about this picture looks wrong to me. Do I correctly understand your view?
We’ve also established that Peter’s “messengers who sinned” reference cannot be demons because they are bound with chains until judgement day. Satan himself is never described as having done any good thing ever.
You are quoting ‘satan’ as a formal name by capitalizing the first letter. So ingrained in our culture is this that spell check will underline it in red (fitting? ) if you don’t capitalize it. What did Jesus tell Peter when his world savouring carnal mindset could not see God’s higher purpose? “Get thee behind me Satan! (adversary/opposer) You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
You don’t know how many times I’ve heard it preached that a ‘person’ named ‘Satan’ entered into Peter and spoke through him (I guess it should be fitting that the first pope was possessed JK) but really - what is being said here? Simple - DEFINITION OF THE WORD in Greek (minus tradition) 1. adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act). Peter wanting Jesus not to die was a natural yet spiritually blind (and worldly) response so Jesus addressed him as one who at that moment was in direct opposition to God’s plan and purpose.
In Luke 13:11 we have a woman with a “spirit of infirmity”. What is a spirit of infirmity when it get’s saved? Well, it can’t be saved - it’s a “spirit of infirmity” - a spirit which opposes health. That what it is, that’s what it does. The woman is described as being “Bound by Satan” ie: "bound by ‘the adversary’ ".
What is a “lying spirit”? It’s a spirit which lies - not a spirit who needs to get saved so it will stop lying. What is the spirit of the ‘opposer’? You guessed it!
So we have this nameless ‘being’ who is described as opposer, serpent, devil, evil one, prince of darkness, the tempter etc etc - and is never referred to in any other way (barring the Lucifer myth). Yet some insist upon adhering to the idea that he was once a good fella named… well… uhm… not adversary - that’s for sure!
The earliest reference is actually in Job (oldest book) and he is on target ‘opposing’ Job. In the garden we have the serpent doing his thing - lying, tempting (testing) and when tested we found out what was in the heart of man. I like the root Greek word for ‘test/tempt’. It means “To pierce through” by implication “to discover what’s really there”. Isn’t that what tests do? Isn’t that what adversity and opposition does? And He saith to Peter “satan has desired to sift you as wheat”. What Jesus doesn’t add is “Just bind him in my name”
Jesus was proven by the ‘tester’ just as Peter, just as us.
Zechariah 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary.
These spirits are all necessary to the process we are going through.
I haven’t contributed to this thread but have enjoyed reading the debate - however, I wonder Byron how you interpret the passage about satan (or Satan) entering Judas before the betrayal?
The spirit of the opposer came through Judas to test Jesus just as he tests us. Jesus responded by being obedient to the Father, even unto death. This is a perfect example of the adversary’s/opposer’s function. Same with Job’s testing, same with Peter’s sifting. Jesus also was tested by the ‘satanic’ ideas Peter put out there “This shall NOT be done unto you”. I probably would have said “Oh Peter - thank you - you’re SUCH a good friend”
Yes, and Paul told Timothy that he shouldn’t make a new convert into a shepherd “or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:6.)
Note: Albert Barnes offers these comments regarding the meaning of the Greek text here:
…fall into the condemnation of the devil. That is, the same kind of condemnation which the devil fell into; to wit, condemnation on account of pride. It is here intimated, that the cause of the apostasy of Satan was Pride–a cause which is as likely to have been the true one as any other. Who can tell but it may have been produced by some new honour which was conferred on him in heaven, and that his virtue was not found sufficient for the untried circumstances in which he was placed? Much of the apostasy from eminent virtue in this world, arises from this cause; and possibly the case of Satan may have been the most signal instance of this kind which has occurred in the universe. The idea of Paul is, that a young convert should not suddenly be raised to an exalted station in the church.
(Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1 Tim.3:6.)
“I trust that God is ultimately in control of everything” too, and I don’t find it necessary to insist that Satan is never used as a personal name, that the temptation in the wilderness is entirely mythological, that Jesus was talking to himself when he was out there in the desert for forty days, that His disciples never witnessed demons leave a man and enter a herd of swine (that entire account also being mythological), or that God created mindless (automatically sinning) robots.
I take these to be the presuppositions necessary to support Byron’s Hypothesis, and a Christian Universalist (who believes in the inspiration of Holy Scripture), needs none of them.
All they can do is get in his way, complicate issues, and totally alienate his audience (if he ever wants to communicate his belief to brothers and sisters in Christ.)
And Esau said to Jacob, “Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary.” Therefore his name was called Edom. (Gen. 25:30.)
Edom means red, was a personal name given one of Isaac’s sons, and is the formal name of the nation descended from that son.
Adam is used as a personal name 13 times in scripture, and is used of the human race over 500 times.
Israel is both the personal name of Edom’s brother, and (like Edom) the name of a nation.
There is nothing unique about “Satan” meaning adversary (in Hebrew, all names have meaning.)
Yes it does, and a pre-programed devil who simply went about doing what he was intended to (kinda like the energizer bunny) wouldn’t be sinning at all (given any definition of the word “sin”–he would in fact be hitting the mark perfectly.)
As the first to miss the mark, the devil spoken of in 1 John 3:8 has been sinning from the beginning (i.e. as long as there’s been sin,“sin’s” beginning–and let’s remember that “beginning” is a relative term see John 15:27.])
Well put, but remember that Byron doesn’t really believe (and I invite you to correct me if I’m wrong here Byron) in the veracity of scripture, probably regards much of it as myth, and doesn’t believe that the evil spirits he speaks of are intelligent agents (or even conscious, self-aware, external beings) at all.
Isn’t that right Byron?
I have no idea what the above is addressing except the personal name part. Do you have me mixed up with someone else? I have heard the viewpoint you are describing but have not espoused it.
I understand all names come from somewhere and most have a ‘regular’ meaning. My main point was to show how tradition makes people superimpose a personal name even in passages where it is not used as one. That the spirit of the opposer is called “Satan” is well documented HOWEVER reading that into every reference (as in the Peter scenario) leads to a lot of confusion.
If you can give any reference at all that the devil ever did one non-evil thing (without the Lucifer myth) then you may have something there.
Can’t let go of your heretic hunt, eh? 
Thanks for staying in the convo though Michael 
Are you conceding that “Satan” is sometimes used as a personal name, that an external individual tempted Christ in the wilderness, and that personal (intelligent, conscious, self-aware) beings (who are aware of a coming judgment) were driven out of men and entered into swine?
First of all, are you saying that there are some passages where “Satan” is used as a personal name?
Secondly, what do you mean by “the spirit of the opposer”?
Are you speaking of a conscious, personal, self-aware being, (with an independent existence, external to man)?
BTW: In addition to “the spirit of the opposer,” I believe you’ve used the terms “spirits,” “evil spirits,” and “spirit of darkness” here.
In the interest of full disclosure, would you please define exactly what you mean by these terms.
It says he’s a sinner, and that means he sinned.
If he was just doing what he was intended to do, he would not be a sinner.
You haven’t answered the question Byron (and since it relates to your basic presuppositions, and the content of the package you’re trying to sell, I believe it’s relevant here.)