Satan and his demons are real beings/entities (with personalities) not abstract evil within unregenerate man

[rwb]

Scripture calls them angels though, you have to agree with that.
I agree the demons are different, IMO, were the Nephilim, who once were mortal hybrids of angels and women, who died in the flood, whom God left to roam as the evil spirits over the earth.

Scott, I find nowhere in Scripture where mortal hybrids of angels and women existed. In fact the Bible seems to indicate that angels (spirit messengers of God) do not procreate.

Mark 12:25 (KJV) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

[MatthewG]

Scott, I find nowhere in Scripture where mortal hybrids of angels and women existed. In fact the Bible seems to indicate that angels (spirit messengers of God) do not procreate.

Mark 12:25 (KJV) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Yo RWB

I do believe that there was like evil demon spirits in Jesus day but they have been done away with.

I do believe that the darkness can still tempt just as it did Satan and those that followed him.


Of course I also believe that there was other gods with God in the beginning and who knows what that was like.


So... i digress.

 

[rwb]

Sons of God are also mentioned in Job
These creatures are not men, not human beings.
These are the same ones Genesis 6 speaks of.
Satan appears to be of the same order of being as themselves.
Peter also refers to 'celestial beings'. in other words angels.
Angels also appear to be of a large amount of variety in kind, some are called 'watchers', but they all are 'celestial', until they leave their appointed by God places, purposes and functions, habitations, against His will.


Job 1

Satan Attacks Job’s Character​

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and [e]Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to [f]Satan, “From where do you come?”

So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you [g]considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and [h]shuns evil?”

9 So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not [i]made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse[j] You to Your face!”

12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your [k]power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”

So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

The sons of God are human not spirit. When the sons of God present themselves before the LORD it is as Christians since Christ also present themselves before the LORD. Where three or more are gathered together in the name of God evil messengers are also there.

 

[Scott Downey]

Matthew 25 :: King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 25 - Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

www.blueletterbible.org

G32 - angelos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G32 - ἄγγελος ággelos, ang'-el-os; from ἀγγέλλω aggéllō (probably derived from ; compare ) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:—angel, messenger.

www.blueletterbible.org

Mat 25:41
¶
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

An angel is a messenger from God
Not hard to understand as angels minister to those who will inherit salvation.
An angel also brought food for Elijah as he flees from Jezebel to run to God in a cave on a mountain

4 But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a [a]broom tree. And he prayed that he might die, and said, “It is enough! Now, Lord, take my life, for I am no better than my fathers!”

5 Then as he lay and slept under a broom tree, suddenly an [b]angel touched him, and said to him, “Arise and eat.” 6 Then he looked, and there by his head was a cake baked on [c]coals, and a jar of water. So he ate and drank, and lay down again. 7 And the [d]angel of the Lord came back the second time, and touched him, and said, “Arise and eat, because the journey is too great for you.” 8 So he arose, and ate and drank; and he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights as far as Horeb, the mountain of God.

9 And there he went into a cave, and spent the night in that place; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

 

[Scott Downey]

Scott, I find nowhere in Scripture where mortal hybrids of angels and women existed. In fact the Bible seems to indicate that angels (spirit messengers of God) do not procreate.

Mark 12:25 (KJV) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Of course, the 'angels which are in heaven' as in heavenly angels don't do that.
But some left their proper place in heaven and came to the earth, which means they were sinning, disobedient, went against the command of God for them.
They went AWOL for evil purposes.

 

[Scott Downey]

An interesting discussion. I looked up what Church fathers said the Nephilim were of angelic origin

Here you go,

The Nephilim concept blends myth, theology, and cultural memory—often interpreted as a warning against boundary-crossing and divine-human transgression. Want to explore how this idea influenced later legends like the Titans or demigods?
Sources: Wikipedia – Nephilim Crosstalk.ai – Origin of Nephilim Biblical Archaeology Society BibleAnalysis.org – Nephilim Before Genesis


which church father thought angelic origin

Several early Church Fathers believed the Nephilim originated from fallen angels who mated with human women, based on Genesis 6:1–4 and Jewish traditions like the Book of Enoch. Here's a breakdown of who supported the angelic origin view:

️ Church Fathers Who Affirmed Angelic Origin​

• Justin Martyr (2nd century): Taught that angels fell by lusting after women and fathered giant offspring.
• Tertullian (2nd–3rd century): Strongly supported the angelic interpretation, referencing the Book of Enoch as authoritative.
• Clement of Alexandria (2nd century): Accepted the idea of angelic beings descending and corrupting humanity.
• Lactantius (3rd–4th century): Echoed the view that fallen angels produced monstrous offspring.
• Ambrose of Milan (4th century): Suggested that angels sinned and were punished, aligning with the Genesis 6 narrative.

Shift in Interpretation​

• Julius Africanus (3rd century): First to propose the “sons of God” were human—specifically the righteous line of Seth.
• Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century): Popularized the Sethite view, rejecting the angelic origin as incompatible with Christian doctrine of angelic nature.

Why the Shift?​

• Concerns about angels having physical bodies.
• Desire to distance Christian theology from mythic or pagan elements.
• Augustine’s influence shaped Western theology for centuries.

So while the angelic origin was dominant in early Christian thought, it was later replaced by more symbolic interpretations. Want to explore how this debate influenced demonology or medieval cosmology?
Sources:

 

[Scott Downey]

Tertullian (/tərˈtʌliən/; Latin: Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus; c. 155 – c. 220 AD[1]) was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa.[2][3] He was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature and was an early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, including contemporary Christian Gnosticism.[4]

Tertullian was the first theologian to write in Latin, and so has been called "the father of Latin Christianity",[5][6] as well as "the founder of Western theology".[7] He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas).[8]

Titus Flavius Clemens, also known as Clement of Alexandria (Ancient Greek: Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς; c. 150 – c. 215 AD),[4] was a Christian theologian and philosopher who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. A convert to Christianity, he was an educated man who was familiar with classical Greek philosophy and literature. As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular, by Plato and the Stoics.[5] His secret works, which exist only in fragments, suggest that he was familiar with pre-Christian Jewish esotericism and Gnosticism as well. In one of his works he argued that Greek philosophy had its origin among non-Greeks, claiming that both Plato and Pythagoras were taught by Egyptian scholars.[6]

Clement is usually regarded as a Church Father. He is venerated as a saint in Coptic Christianity, Eastern Catholicism, Ethiopian Christianity, and Anglicanism. He was revered in Western Catholicism until 1586, when his name was removed from the Roman Martyrology by Pope Sixtus V on the advice of Baronius. The Eastern Orthodox Church officially stopped any veneration of Clement of Alexandria in the 10th century.[citation needed] Nonetheless, he is still sometimes referred to as "Saint Clement of Alexandria" by both Eastern Orthodox[7] and Catholic[8] authors.

Ambrose of Milan (Latin: Aurelius Ambrosius; c. 339 – 4 April 397), canonized as Saint Ambrose,[a] was a theologian and statesman who served as Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397. He expressed himself prominently as a public figure, fiercely promoting Nicene Christianity against Arianism and paganism.[5] He left a substantial collection of writings, of which the best known include the ethical commentary De officiis ministrorum (377–391), and the exegetical Exameron [it] (386–390). His preaching, his actions and his literary works, in addition to his innovative musical hymnography, made him one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century.

Ambrose was serving as the Roman governor of Aemilia-Liguria in Milan when he was unexpectedly made Bishop of Milan in 374 by popular acclamation. As bishop, he took a firm position against Arianism and attempted to mediate the conflict between the emperors Theodosius I and Magnus Maximus. Tradition credits Ambrose with developing an antiphonal chant, known as Ambrosian chant, and for composing the "Te Deum" hymn, though modern scholars now reject both of these attributions. Ambrose's authorship on at least four hymns, including the well-known "Veni redemptor gentium", is secure; they form the core of the Ambrosian hymns, which includes others that are sometimes attributed to him. He also had a notable influence on Augustine of Hippo (354–430), whom he helped convert to Christianity.

Western Christianity identified Ambrose, along with Augustine, Jerome and pope Gregory the Great, as one of the four Great Latin Church Fathers,[6] declared Doctors of the Church in 1298.[7] He is considered a saint by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion, and various Lutheran denominations, and venerated as the patron saint of Milan and beekeepers.

 

[Muna]

Denial might as well be your middle name.

Howso? Let me start here (very simply)

Tribulationsigns has said,

"He had to suffer the wrath that God had decreed upon man for his sins. To do that He had to lower Himself to take on the flesh of man, messengers (angels) be tempted/tried as a man"

Whereas the scriptures say concerning the Word made flesh says here

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus , who was ((( made a little lower))) than ((( the angels))) FOR the suffering of death

And again, so we are clear

Hebrews 2:16 For verily ((( he took not on ))) him ((( the nature of ))) angels; but he took on him ((( the seed of ))) Abraham

Compare with

TribulationSigns,

He had to lower Himself to take on the flesh of man, messengers (angels)

Even Hebrews 2:16 contradicts your words

And the above is why I wrote my question in post #40

To which you responded

Your #40 is terrible eisegesis. You do not make any sense!

Finally we are getting somewhere!!!

I was making all things equal in Mal 3:1 as far as the messengers go between the man John the baptist and Jesus (the word made flesh) and using YOUR defense of men messenger/angels when comparing other scripture

In Malichi there is Jesus (word made flesh) who became a man (also shown as a messenger of the covenant) in that office (as one who is "sent") as the Word was.

At the same time, Jesus (the Word) was made lower than angels or messengers (as you might prefer to call them) which when it come to the nature of such do not die (as men do). Its obvious a man can be sent and be an messenger, John the baptist was, Jesus was the Word made flesh, he also was sent, a messenger of the covenant. If angels or messengers are equally men having the same nature as men then Why wouldnt it just say he took on the nature of angels since men are that? Why contrast between them as far as their nature goes in Jesus case?

Because we know, as the Word, Jesus did not have a nature that would die (similar to that of the angels which die not) But he took that on himself the seed of Abraham which is shown in contrast to the nature of angels (or these sorts of messengers you cling to as men) But obviously the natures differ between them. The seed of Abraham and angels, one can die the other cannot die. Both can be sent (whether earthly, or heavenly) as men of the earth (below) could be prophets, or sent, even as Jesus (who was from above) could be sent into this world. But the heavenly do not die, even Jesus could not have died if he took on the very nature of angels (or the very nature of the heavenly messengers as you might prefer to call them). One suffers death (as the seed of Abraham which he took on does) while the other nature which he took not on himself (which would be heavenly messenger/ angels) do not.

Your strife seems more over the use of "the word" angels versus messengers and at the same time reducing it to a man in all cases as far as his nature goes. Men die, angels do not die, and Jesus being made (a man) was made lower then them in order to suffer death. So their nature cannot equal to men when it comes to death otherwise it would not tell us what nature (a man's) Jesus took on himself as opposed to that which dies not (the nature of an angel). And so being made lower then angels here is speaking of a sort angels/messengers (as you prefer to call them) that do not die, whereas men (whom you equate to angel) do die.

And so when reasoning from the scripture according to both office and nature, you say, "You do not make any sense!"

But you think this makes sense

He had to lower Himself to take on the flesh of man, messengers (angels) be tempted/tried as a man"

And so again, In contrast to what you wrote equating the two

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus , who was ((( made a little lower))) than ((( the angels))) FOR the suffering of death

And again, so we are clear

Hebrews 2:16 For verily ((( he took not on ))) him ((( the nature of ))) angels; but he took on him ((( the seed of ))) Abraham

 

[Muna]

All of mankind until they are born again of the Spirit of Christ in them is spiritually speaking of the spirit of Satan, or of the Spirit of Christ. All man walk according to the spirit (mind/heart/will/emotions) that is in them. If the spirit of evil, we are of our father the Devil, if the Spirit of Christ, we are of our Father in heaven. Our spirit (mind/heart/will/emotions) is the control center of every man.

We are of one Spirit or another, is there somewhere you feel I have said anything differently?

 

[WPM]

What about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? The eternal fire was created for Satan and his messengers, both spirit and human messengers.

That is future - after the resurrection. That is the end goal.

 

[rwb]

That is future - after the resurrection. That is the end goal.

The judgment is future, but the place of the DEAD was then and now. Before the advent of Christ the Old Covenant people believed the grave was divided, one part being the common grave where all the dead in unbelief go. That is where the rich man was carried by the angels after he died. The other part of the grave where Lazarus was carried by the spirit messengers (angels) was known as the bosom of Abraham. The part of the grave the rich man was carried to is the same deepest abyss of Jude and Peter.

The part of the grave, the bosom of Abraham has been emptied by Christ, but the grave where these messengers (human beings) are kept shall not be emptied until Christ comes again and ALL the DEAD in the grave shall be resurrected to stand before God to give account for what is found written according to the books that shall be opened.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course, I don't believe Satan was once an angel of God until he rebelled against God! Why would I believe something that forces contradiction and confusion into the Word of God?

How does that force contradiction and confusion into the Word of God? You know you can't convince me of anything unless you back it up with scripture. So, do that. You clearly don't believe in fallen angels, so how do you interpret these verses...

Jude 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God didn’t spare the angels who sinned but threw them down into Tartarus[a] and delivered them to be kept in chains of darkness until judgment;

Scripture clearly teaches that angels sinned against God and left their positions of authority and abandoned their proper dwelling, so why do you deny this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2 Peter 2:4 — The Core Passage
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment…” — 2 Peter 2:4

The word translated as “hell” here is Tartarus (Greek: ταρταρόω), and this is the only time it appears in the New Testament.

Peter uses it to describe the temporary imprisonment of angels who sinned—likely referring to the rebellious angels mentioned in Genesis 6 or those who joined Satan’s rebellion

I believe it refers to all fallen angels and the text is figurative. Spirit beings can't be literally chained up. So, it's not talking about angels being literally chained up in a place called Tartarus. It's figurative text similar to when it talks about the dragon, Satan, being bound with a chain in a prison and in a bottomless pit (abyss).

But, we can agree to disagree about this if you want. What is being debated is the existence of angels, including fallen angels, and you do acknowledge their existence.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Angels are spirits. Demons are evil fallen angels. I showed this in the Op. How can spirits procreate? That is ridiculous. Scripture doesn't teach that.

Agree. Why are people missing these obvious things? We have one person denying the existence of angels and another person saying they can procreate? What is going on here? It's hard to believe.

 

[Truth7t7]

Angels are spirits. Demons are evil fallen angels. I showed this in the Op. How can spirits procreate? That is ridiculous. Scripture doesn't teach that.

"The Nephilim" a false teaching pushed by the deceased (Chuck Missler/Koinonia House) and Calvary Chapels around the globe

Angels having sex with mortal human women and the off spring are "The Nephilim"?

Sci-Fi Fairy Tales In The Land Of Once Upon A Time, Tim La Haye and the "Nephilim Series", OR Was That Jack And The Bean Stock?

Big Smiles!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They can if they take on human form, that is the idea.

Genesis 6
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were [b]giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

There are 2 views on this Genesis 6 verse and to me it fits well what is mentioned in 2 Peter and Jude what happened to the fallen ones (fallen angels)

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

This passage introduces the Nephilim in the context of a strange union between “sons of God” and “daughters of men.”

Who Were the Nephilim?
The word Nephilim likely comes from the Hebrew root npl, meaning “to fall”—hence, “fallen ones.”

They are described as mighty men, heroes of old, and possibly giants (as in Numbers 13:33).

Interpretations vary:

Fallen angels’ offspring: Many early Jewish and Christian sources (like the Book of Enoch and Church Fathers) believed the “sons of God” were angels who fathered hybrid offspring with human women.

Human lineage: Others, like Augustine, argued the “sons of God” were the righteous descendants of Seth, and the Nephilim were simply powerful humans.

Taking on human form just means they can appear to be human, but it doesn't mean they can actually procreate with humans. There is no clear evidence anywhere in scripture to support the idea that angels can procreate. I'm with WPM on this. I think that idea is ridiculous.

 

[WPM]

The judgment is future, but the place of the DEAD was then and now. Before the advent of Christ the Old Covenant people believed the grave was divided, one part being the common grave where all the dead in unbelief go. That is where the rich man was carried by the angels after he died. The other part of the grave where Lazarus was carried by the spirit messengers (angels) was known as the bosom of Abraham. The part of the grave the rich man was carried to is the same deepest abyss of Jude and Peter.

The part of the grave, the bosom of Abraham has been emptied by Christ, but the grave where these messengers (human beings) are kept shall not be emptied until Christ comes again and ALL the DEAD in the grave shall be resurrected to stand before God to give account for what is found written according to the books that shall be opened.

You are foisting your Chrisdadelphian teaching on Jude and Peter. No humans go there. It is a spiritual place of restraint for demons.

 

[rwb]

You are foisting your Chrisdadelphian teaching on Jude and Peter. No humans go there. It is s spiritual place of restraint for demons.

Once again refusing to address what was said, and instead accusing, attacking, mischaracterizing! You are being very dishonorable/dishonest and I for one have lost respect for you. I fear much learning has made you arrogant and puffed up! It's really very sad for me to be saying this!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The judgment is future, but the place of the DEAD was then and now. Before the advent of Christ the Old Covenant people believed the grave was divided, one part being the common grave where all the dead in unbelief go. That is where the rich man was carried by the angels after he died. The other part of the grave where Lazarus was carried by the spirit messengers (angels) was known as the bosom of Abraham. The part of the grave the rich man was carried to is the same deepest abyss of Jude and Peter.

The part of the grave, the bosom of Abraham has been emptied by Christ, but the grave where these messengers (human beings) are kept shall not be emptied until Christ comes again and ALL the DEAD in the grave shall be resurrected to stand before God to give account for what is found written according to the books that shall be opened.

No, Jesus said the rich man was in Hades, but 2 Peter 2:4 talks about the angels being in Tartarus. In English, the Greek words "hades" and "tartarus" are normally translated as "hell", but in the original text they are not the same. The reason the word is different in relation to the angels is because angels aren't in hades, but the souls and spirits of dead unbelievers are.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Humm… it seems my testimony of Truth struck a nerve, so you felt the need to post my quote on the modern psychological model for their opinion based on their dealings with their patients with mental illnesses? LOL.

But tell me—are your ears truly open to God’s Word? Do you understand that Christ was lower than the messengers that he died for them, and that His miracles are not mere physical curiosities but examples of the work we are called to do in freeing those in spiritual bondage?

LOL. Jesus was not made lower than the humans He died for! Are you kidding me? Where do you get that idea from? He was made human. You come up with ridiculous ways to deny every truth that is presented to you. Your stubbornness is unbelievable. Jesus was not made a little lower than the people He died for, He was made a little lower than the angels in the sense that He was human and mortal (bodily) while angels are not able to die and are immortal. Humans can die and angels can't. That's how Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. You are basically saying that Jesus was made human but somehow made a little lower than the humans He died for. LOL? What? In what way exactly was Jesus made lower than us? Hello? In no way, obviously.