What Power Does Satan Have?

[Elife3]

He has the power to tempt us to sin.

 

[k2svpete]

He has the power to tempt us to sin.

Scripture seems to put it more down to being tempted by our own desires.

James 1 -
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Scripture seems to put it more down to being tempted by our own desires.

James 1 -
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

It just speaks of the temptation in relation to man . . . not the source of the temptation. I am pretty sure we can all agree that Gen 3 was the Serpent's initiative.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Pertaining to these points, the temptation of Christ occurs after his period of prayer and fasting and the devil or accuser seeks to tempt him. Now one need only ask who were the group/people who continually sought to accuse Christ of wrongdoings. These same people were in the position to take Christ to the pinnacle of the temple (an actual place). A temptation needs to have a realm of credibility to it to actually be a temptation.

As an example, if you were a regular person down on their luck but without any particular skills and saw two identical cars in the street. One is locked and the other unlocked with the keys in it. Which is the greater temptation to steal? The one with the keys in it. Why? Because you know you can take that one whereas you can't the other. There is only one credible temptation with these two cars.

So, in the example of Christ's temptation and the offer of being given the kingdoms of the world Christ knew this scripture -
Dan 4:25
till you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses.

The power to give kingdoms rests with God alone, so this isn't a credible temptation if made by Satan in the popular construct.

Don't take scriptures in isolation, the reference to Lucifer is in the midst of a prophecy against the King of Babylon. Now this is in Isaiah and is to come. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever when you examine the timeline against the popular use of this scripture to support the existence of a Devil.

The word satan is hebrew in origin and means adversary. This can apply to anyone who opposes you, for example in a sporting game, the opposition is the adversary to that team. Young's literal translation does translate the word satan to adversary and the passages still make perfect sense. It was a shame that way back when the word was not translated but merely transcribed.

A really good example of how odd the popular construct of satan is, is evident in these passages.

1 Chron 21 -
1 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

2 Sam 24 -
1 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

and here is the 1 Chron verse from the Young's translation -
1And there standeth up an adversary against Israel, and persuadeth David to number Israel,

So the verse still makes perfect sense and when cross-referenced to the 2 Sam passage it is then clear that God was the adversary to Israel.

Most references in the New Testament have satan as an adversary to God's plan for salvation. I believe that this is what fuels most of the belief in Satan being a supernatural being.

In Matt 16, Peter is chastised by Christ -
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Here, Christ clarifies it for us, pointing out that Peter is being mindful of the things of men, hence being an adversary.
This ties straight into Romans 8 -
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Since Christ came to conquer sin and death, anything that opposes the fulfillment of this plan is an adversary to Christ, most noteable in this is sin itself which is born out of the carnal mind. So this is where I draw out satan being the personification of sin. Perhaps not the best way around it but it is in keeping with the nature of middle eastern languages. See Prov 8 for an example of the personification of wisdom as a woman.

Nope . . . it is clear that God is sovereign . . . and as such the Devil is on a leash. Satan took Jesus to the temple mount, spoke to Jesus, tempted Him. Sorry I don't see Jesus responding to a mere personification in the rebukes that He gave Satan . . . not to mention Michael's rebuke in Jude . . . can't be a personification of sin in that passage either.

 

[k2svpete]

So you just choose to ignore the meaning of satan as adversary and the explanation that anyone can be an adversary.

Yes Gen 3 does indeed place the serpent as the source of the deceit of Eve. A beast as clearly stated in that same verse. How people think they can possibly transpose a serpent for a supernatural being is beyond me.

James clearly states that we are all drawn away by our own desires. What may be a tempation to one is not to another, it is dependant on what our own lusts and desires are.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Any power that Satan has....was given to him by God.
On his own Satan is like you and me, and can do nothing......

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So you just choose to ignore the meaning of satan as adversary and the explanation that anyone can be an adversary.

Yes Gen 3 does indeed place the serpent as the source of the deceit of Eve. A beast as clearly stated in that same verse. How people think they can possibly transpose a serpent for a supernatural being is beyond me.

James clearly states that we are all drawn away by our own desires. What may be a tempation to one is not to another, it is dependant on what our own lusts and desires are.

James brackets his diatribe on sin (chapter 4) with references to evil supernaturalism. So the source is two fold . . . he does not depict the issue unidimensionally.

As for Satan, Adversary, yeah . . . doesn't change anything. Christ means anointed . . . but becomes a forensic title. Same with Satan.

Almost ALL of the NT usages of the term is in reference to a SOLITARY being . . . only a couple of times could it be construed as towards more. Intertestamental Judaism coined the term SATAN in reference to the Fallen angel that orthodox Christianity affirms.

 

[Ben12]

Last I checked a immaterial analogy for sin cannot take one and put them on top of a temple . . . nor appear as an angel of light.

So is Satan this man dressed in red with a pitch fork?

Where does it say he is an angel of light; he was a liar/murderer from his beginning. How could he be both liar/murderer in his beginning; as well as an angel? Can't have it both ways?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So is Satan this man dressed in red with a pitch fork?

Where does it say he is an angel of light; he was a liar/murderer from his beginning. How could he be both liar/murderer in his beginning; as well as an angel? Can't have it both ways?

No satan is not dressed in red with a pitch fork . . . that would give him away! ;0)

But for the other:

2 Cor 11:14
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
NASU

 

[Ben12]

Got me; my point is it is a bad translation. The word angel comes from the Greek Word “aggelos”, and simply means messenger. If you take note of the Greek spelling somehow the translator actually did not translate this word; but transformed a Greek spelling by his own religious bias imagination into the English word “angel”.

NT:32

aggelos (ang'-el-os); from aggello [probably derived from NT:71; compare NT:34] (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:

This is my point….. I will reword my question; “How could he be both liar/murderer in his beginning; as well as an angel”? Can't have it both ways?

 

[Ben12]

You see when God’s Word proves something is wrong in scripture I always have to blame the translator. God’s Word is inerrant; but translators are not. We live in a corrupt bias carnal world; and only by observing truth by the telescope of the Holy Spirit can we be led to the truth.

This whole fallen angel dogma gives satan way too much power.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering-----------in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth -----15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Is 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning!------13 For thou hast said in thine heart (mind) I will ascend into heaven, ---- 14 I will belike the most High, 15 yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit, -----16----Is this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms------.


Now the religious system teaches that Ez 28:13 and Is 14:12 are speaking of Satan and the KJ Bible is the only version that uses the word Lucifer. It is not even a Hebrew word.


Moffat translation says "What a fall from heaven O Shining star of the dawns" Rotherham"How hast thou fallen from heaven, O shining One, son of the dawn!"Amplified "how are you fallen from heaven O light-bearer and day star, son of the morning!"

2 Pet 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.


Rev 22:16 I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify unto you these thing sin the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The word Lucifer in the Strong's Concordance says it is a title applied to the king of Babylon. The word itself means the morning star. The word MAN means a mortal, an individual, a male person. I could rest my case on just that one verse alone, but why would Peter under the direction of the Holy Spirit compare Jesus as the Day star with Lucifer the Devil?
It is the erroneous translation of the KJ that infers such.
Lucifer was never an Arc Angel, he was a MAN. (Satan is a spirit.)

Is14:15 says he was brought down to hell, (sheol, place of the dead) the side of the pit. Satan is never thrown in the grave because he has no part in a natural death as he is a spiritual being. Only MAN dies and is placed in a grave. Evil spirits only go to a place called Tartarus and Satan the high ranking one is sent to the lake of fire.( which is not hell)

Even the Jews knew the true name of Satan. They called him Beelzebub. Satan was created a tool

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his works; and I have created the waster to destroy. (See God created Satan)


Jesus in Jn 8:44 Said Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the BEGINNING and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. John writes in

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the BEGINNING. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil..


I cannot see that Satan had two beginnings. The word beginning in the Greek means beginning. Not first he was an angel, second he was a murder and liar. Which one was he? Do we take the RCC's translation or do we take the correct translation of the word Lucifer?

Satan was full of darkness. God is not working on a plan B. He has had a plan and a purpose from the beginning and Satan was a part of that plan. Simply a tool. Never an angel.

This is my stand and I feel that you have a choice to believe the word of God or to accept a false doctrine made up in the minds of religious men.

 

[armothe]

I would suggest that most sin originates from within ourselves. As humans we have the ability to do right and wrong. Some of us do more wrong than right, and some of us do more right that wrong; although all of us still sin at some point. As James states, these desires which lead to sin come from within us and are based on the environment of which we are in.

Satan was created as an adversary (as seen in the Bible) to sorta give some people a 'nudge' in certain situations so God's mercy could be demonstrated and recorded in His Word for all of us to witness and learn from.

-A

 

[Ben12]

I would suggest that most sin originates from within ourselves. As humans we have the ability to do right and wrong. Some of us do more wrong than right, and some of us do more right that wrong; although all of us still sin at some point. As James states, these desires which lead to sin come from within us and are based on the environment of which we are in.

Satan was created as an adversary (as seen in the Bible) to sorta give some people a 'nudge' in certain situations so God's mercy could be demonstrated and recorded in His Word for all of us to witness and learn from.

-A

I believe sin was put there by God. God does not us to be like our Greatgrandfather Adam (innocent) at the beginning of the book. He wants us to overcome like at the end of the book.

Romans 5:18-20 (Weymouth’s)​

It follows then just as the result of a single transgression is a condemnation which to the whole race, so also is the result of a single degree of righteousness is a life giving acquittal which extends to the whole race. (19) for as thought the disobedience of one individual the mass of mankind were constituted as sinners, so also though the obedience of one, the mass of mankind will be constituted righteous. Now law was brought in later on so that the transgression might increase, but sin increased, grace is overflowed.​

 

[mattlock73]

So is Satan this man dressed in red with a pitch fork?

Where does it say he is an angel of light; he was a liar/murderer from his beginning. How could he be both liar/murderer in his beginning; as well as an angel? Can't have it both ways?

The nature of Satan is such that he was a liar and murderer from the beginning, the same as man. That does not negate his being an angel, any more than my being justified now negates my prior sinful nature.

 

[squint]

This is my point….. I will reword my question; “How could he be both liar/murderer in his beginning; as well as an angel”? Can't have it both ways?

The term angel does not indicate any "holiness" is involved. The term means messenger and that term is attached to "men as messengers" "holy messengers" and "evil messengers."

Men is a similar term that is multifunctionally attached to holy, mankind or the devil.

So where one sees such terms as men or angels, they should not automatically assume it applies to just humans or holy messengers.

The term men and angels are also applied to EVIL ones who are neither of the former nor were they ever.

 

[Ben12]

The term angel does not indicate any "holiness" is involved. The term means messenger and that term is attached to "men as messengers" "holy messengers" and "evil messengers."

Men is a similar term that is multifunctionally attached to holy, mankind or the devil.

So where one sees such terms as men or angels, they should not automatically assume it applies to just humans or holy messengers.

The term men and angels are also applied to EVIL ones who are neither of the former nor were they ever.

"The term angel does not indicate any "holiness" is involved. The term means messenger and that term is attached to "men as messengers" "holy messengers" and "evil messengers."

I agree...

But how is the term "Men" used in a multifuntional word in reference to Satan?

I agree with you "one sees such terms as men or angels, they should not automatically assume it applies to just humans or holy messengers" to include the devil and his messenger (angel). They are the devils messengers which has nothing to do with angels; this where i see the error.

In reference to "The term men and angels are also applied to EVIL ones who are neither of the former nor were they ever" I would have to see the context and search it out more.

 

[squint]

"The term angel does not indicate any "holiness" is involved. The term means messenger and that term is attached to "men as messengers" "holy messengers" and "evil messengers."

I agree...

But how is the term "Men" used in a multifuntional word in reference to Satan?

Lucifer was called a "man" in the O.T. If you understand that Lucifer is synon. w/Satan then Satan was termed "a man."

IF you see that the postion of Satan is for no uncertain fact OVERLAID upon MANKIND as Jesus showed us clearly in the N.T. then it becomes quite clear the term "men" would have to include "what is in men." Men are not alone. There is also a MAN OF SIN with all men who is not the same as the "man" they are with...A son of perdition...a vessel of dishonor and wrath.

This elementary principle can be expounded on from the N.T. and put beyond any doubt. It is therefore simple ignorance that sees the term men or angel and just assumes it is only man or a holy angel gone sour when neither of these would be the case.

The presentation of "freewill" has sold the public a bill of phony goods on Satan having once been "holy." That is never presented in the scriptures and Jesus told us that Satan was a murderer from the beginning.

I agree with you "one sees such terms as men or angels, they should not automatically assume it applies to just humans or holy messengers" to include the devil and his messenger (angel). They are the devils messengers which has nothing to do with angels; this where i see the error.

Satan and his family are EVIL messengers or EVIL angels...the term "angel" does not equate to HOLY.

In reference to "The term men and angels are also applied to EVIL ones who are neither of the former nor were they ever" I would have to see the context and search it out more.

A large part of the error in judgment on Satan once being holy stems from the statement in Ezek. 28 where the king of Tyrus is generally accepted to have been Lucifer/Satan and having been created perfect in "all his ways."

Unfortunately Satan can certainly have been created a PERFECT DEVIL and that does not have to equate in any way to being holy. So even the attachment of the word PERFECT does not equate to being PERFECT in the God sense of the word PERFECT. There are PERFECT men, a PERFECT devil, A PERFECT GOD...and in no use of the term does the word PERFECT cross connect to the traits for each of these parties.

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[Ben12]

Lucifer was called a "man" in the O.T. If you understand that Lucifer is synon. w/Satan then Satan was termed "a man."

IF you see that the postion of Satan is for no uncertain fact OVERLAID upon MANKIND as Jesus showed us clearly in the N.T. then it becomes quite clear the term "men" would have to include "what is in men." Men are not alone. There is also a MAN OF SIN with all men who is not the same as the "man" they are with...A son of perdition...a vessel of dishonor and wrath.

This elementary principle can be expounded on from the N.T. and put beyond any doubt. It is therefore simple ignorance that sees the term men or angel and just assumes it is only man or a holy angel gone sour when neither of these would be the case.

The presentation of "freewill" has sold the public a bill of phony goods on Satan having once been "holy." That is never presented in the scriptures and Jesus told us that Satan was a murderer from the beginning.



Satan and his family are EVIL messengers or EVIL angels...the term "angel" does not equate to HOLY.



A large part of the error in judgment on Satan once being holy stems from the statement in Ezek. 28 where the king of Tyrus is generally accepted to have been Lucifer/Satan and having been created perfect in "all his ways."

Unfortunately Satan can certainly have been created a PERFECT DEVIL and that does not have to equate in any way to being holy. So even the attachment of the word PERFECT does not equate to being PERFECT in the God sense of the word PERFECT. There are PERFECT men, a PERFECT devil, A PERFECT GOD...and in no use of the term does the word PERFECT cross connect to the traits for each of these parties.

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

I do not believe that Satan is Lucifer, nor do I believe he is a man; but a spirit. The “man of sin”; is the Adamic nature in all of us. In referring to Matthew 25:41 the last two words should read “his messengers”

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Got me; my point is it is a bad translation. The word angel comes from the Greek Word “aggelos”, and simply means messenger. If you take note of the Greek spelling somehow the translator actually did not translate this word; but transformed a Greek spelling by his own religious bias imagination into the English word “angel”.

NT:32

aggelos (ang'-el-os); from aggello [probably derived from NT:71; compare NT:34] (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:

This is my point….. I will reword my question; “How could he be both liar/murderer in his beginning; as well as an angel”? Can't have it both ways?

You would then have to make that arguement on EVERY instance of translation of aggelos . . . but you can't. 99 percent of the time it means a supernatural entity.

transformed a Greek spelling by his own religious bias

actually that is not true. What has happened is a transliteration. Like the word baptism from the Greek baptizo . . . so angel from aggleos. We have imbued the word for centuries with halos and harps and little fat cherubs with wings. Fact is that the encounters with celestial beings that we would call angels usually left fear and amazement.

It is what it is. Paul means celestial being . . . otherwise the statement looses its force.

As for liar/murder and angel . . . see revelation with the revolt in heaven . . . where angels are fallen . . . and Jude and Peter where angels are punished for sin . . . not hard to then have an angel who is BOTH a liar and a murderer. AND Jesus' statement to the disciples about Satan falling from heaven.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You see when God’s Word proves something is wrong in scripture I always have to blame the translator. God’s Word is inerrant; but translators are not. We live in a corrupt bias carnal world; and only by observing truth by the telescope of the Holy Spirit can we be led to the truth.

This whole fallen angel dogma gives satan way too much power.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering-----------in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth -----15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Is 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning!------13 For thou hast said in thine heart (mind) I will ascend into heaven, ---- 14 I will belike the most High, 15 yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit, -----16----Is this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms------.


Now the religious system teaches that Ez 28:13 and Is 14:12 are speaking of Satan and the KJ Bible is the only version that uses the word Lucifer. It is not even a Hebrew word.


Moffat translation says "What a fall from heaven O Shining star of the dawns" Rotherham"How hast thou fallen from heaven, O shining One, son of the dawn!"Amplified "how are you fallen from heaven O light-bearer and day star, son of the morning!"

2 Pet 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.


Rev 22:16 I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify unto you these thing sin the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The word Lucifer in the Strong's Concordance says it is a title applied to the king of Babylon. The word itself means the morning star. The word MAN means a mortal, an individual, a male person. I could rest my case on just that one verse alone, but why would Peter under the direction of the Holy Spirit compare Jesus as the Day star with Lucifer the Devil?
It is the erroneous translation of the KJ that infers such.
Lucifer was never an Arc Angel, he was a MAN. (Satan is a spirit.)

Is14:15 says he was brought down to hell, (sheol, place of the dead) the side of the pit. Satan is never thrown in the grave because he has no part in a natural death as he is a spiritual being. Only MAN dies and is placed in a grave. Evil spirits only go to a place called Tartarus and Satan the high ranking one is sent to the lake of fire.( which is not hell)

Even the Jews knew the true name of Satan. They called him Beelzebub. Satan was created a tool

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his works; and I have created the waster to destroy. (See God created Satan)


Jesus in Jn 8:44 Said Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the BEGINNING and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. John writes in

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the BEGINNING. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil..


I cannot see that Satan had two beginnings. The word beginning in the Greek means beginning. Not first he was an angel, second he was a murder and liar. Which one was he? Do we take the RCC's translation or do we take the correct translation of the word Lucifer?

Satan was full of darkness. God is not working on a plan B. He has had a plan and a purpose from the beginning and Satan was a part of that plan. Simply a tool. Never an angel.

This is my stand and I feel that you have a choice to believe the word of God or to accept a false doctrine made up in the minds of religious men.

You are creating a false dichotomy where angels cannot sin. Yet scripture is clear that they do. So your two "begninngs" one liar/murderer one angel contention is false. Angels can sin.

Also, the reference to Ezek. and Isaiah in seeing Satan/Lucifer has never held much weight with me. So to me your points are moot . . . I don't see them as refering to Satan.

Also, Beelzebub is a Jewish mockery of the right name which is Baal Zebub . . . one of the Canaanite Baal deities.

I agree that Satan is God's devil . . . he cannot do anything that is not under God's sovereign rule. But he was an angel

see here

Rev 12:7-10
And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil andSatan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
NASU

where Michael (who is an angel) and his angels (of God) are paralleled with Satan and his angels.

I really don't see why one would have an issue as seeing Satan as a fallen angel. He can still be a tool either way. What kink does it throw in your theology to see him as an angel?