Where does it say Satan is an angel?

[markedward]

Still, Just because something is not said, does not negate its possibility does it?

Only if you assume it, without any Scripture to validate your assumption.

Perhaps he was replaced?

Again... only if you assume it, without any Scripture to validate your assumption.

It seems more of a role or position rather then a type?

Yes. The title of "Archangel" literally means "Chief of the angels". It's the New Testament equivalent to the title "Commander of YHWH's host" of the Old Testament.

All heavenly beings are angels.

Says what Scripture? The cherubim and the seraphim are clearly distinguished as heavenly beings... but not once are they identified as "angels".

Now, you are totally wrong about Michael being the only archangel. In Jude 1:9 Michael is referred to as an archangel,

The Greek uses the definitive article ("the" in English). Jude 9 refers to Michael as the archangel, not "an" archangel. Don't water it down.

and in Daniel 10:13 he is called ONE of the chief princes, which certainly indicates that there are others like him.

The Hebrew word translated as "one" in many translations also means "first" or "foremost". (Examples: Genesis 1.5 "There was evening, and there was night; the first day." Genesis 2.11: "The name of the first is the Pishon." Daniel 6.2: "... and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was first, to whom these satraps should give account...") As in... Michael is the foremost of the chief princes. In which case, he is still taking on a unique leadership role.

What is a cheribum or cherub and where there, are there other creatures in heaven other than the angelic beings???

Angels are angels. Cherubim are cherubim. The fact that the cherubim are so drastically different in physical appearance from anyone ever called "angel" in the Bible should be a tip that they are a different created being. Cherubim aren't angels.

[theBelovedDisciple]

Scripture declares that the Lake of Fire is prepared for who??

'the devil and his angels'....

and no wonder... for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light....

it seems that those 'under command' or 'control' , of the devil ........ are angels.. according to what the Scripture declares..

the use of the word 'his' .. shows ownership.... possession ...

he controls, he commands them... these who particpated in the Insurrection at the beginning...

is Satan God? no... although he believes he is and wants to be worhsipped as God.. and he is declared to be the 'god' of this world..

is he man? no, although he can possess, oppress, harass , and vex men.. and not only him but those angels who follow him and are subordiante to him

if he is not God and not man... then he must be a supernatural being, most likely some class of angelic being.... who operates in the supernatural and can manifest himself in the natural...

for those who are under the belief that satan does not exist, that he is some 'blob' of negative charma or energy...

that is deception..

he is real.. and he is alive.. he is as real as the five fingers on your hand.. that you use to type or post on this website..

[divaD]

The Hebrew word translated as "one" in many translations also means "first" or "foremost". (Examples: Genesis 1.5 "There was evening, and there was night; the first day." Genesis 2.11: "The name of the first is the Pishon." Daniel 6.2: "... and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was first, to whom these satraps should give account...") As in... Michael is the foremost of the chief princes. In which case, he is still taking on a unique leadership role.

Per that context, since the Hebrew word for 'chief' can also mean foremost, how do you then interpret it? Such as the following?

but, lo, Michael, foremost of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia

Obviously, since 2 different Hebrew words are used, they wouldn't mean the same thing, would they? Wouldn't it be more likely that it means the following?

but, lo, Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia

Meaning that he is one of many others, or at least meaning that there are others.

[David Taylor]

But we shouldn't read 'archangel' into the word "princes" in that one Daniel passage.

princes in the OT is not defined as archangel in this text.

We could just as easily see 'one of the foremost princes' as being.....

....one of the foremost angels......
....one of the foremost messengers...
....one of the foremost heavenly hosts....

etc.

What others have metioned above, and it is scripturally true...only Michael is denoted by name to be an archangel; and the bible never uses the term archangel plurarly.

One must read into texts like Daniel to arrive at that extra-biblical conclusion.

I know the RCC has dozens of named angels, and different classes, and diffent distinctions, etc....

But solely talking Biblically; there is only one named archangel. (Michael)

[divaD]

Where does it say Satan is an angel?

I cant find it.

Could it be that Satan is a principality or power?

I also posted this in unrelated thread, but the verse that shows satan is an angel, wouldn't it be Revelation 12:7?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Since we are talking about the Scriptures here, it would be inconsistant for one part of Revelation 12:7 to mean one thing, then another part to mean entirely something different.

Take Michael for instance. The Bible tells us that he's the archangel. This would mean he's an angel, correct? Revelation 12:7 also tells us that he has angels, as in charge of them. We see the same thing about the dragon aka satan.
he also has angels, and he too ranks higher than them, such as a general might rank above a private. Keeping in mind that this is Scriptures we're talking about here, if Michael is an angel, and that he has charge over his angels, and if satan also has angels, and if he too has charge over them, then logically deducing, this makes satan an angel. A fallen angel, but an angel nonetheless.
If anyone wants to argue with this logic, then fine, but in my opin it is the only logical conclusion to come to, based on what we know in regards to Michael and his angels.

[theBelovedDisciple]

I also posted this in unrelated thread, but the verse that shows satan is an angel, wouldn't it be Revelation 12:7?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Since we are talking about the Scriptures here, it would be inconsistant for one part of Revelation 12:7 to mean one thing, then another part to mean entirely something different.

Take Michael for instance. The Bible tells us that he's the archangel. This would mean he's an angel, correct? Revelation 12:7 also tells us that he has angels, as in charge of them. We see the same thing about the dragon aka satan.
he also has angels, and he too ranks higher than them, such as a general might rank above a private. Keeping in mind that this is Scriptures we're talking about here, if Michael is an angel, and that he has charge over his angels, and if satan also has angels, and if he too has charge over them, then logically deducing, this makes satan an angel. A fallen angel, but an angel nonetheless.
If anyone wants to argue with this logic, then fine, but in my opin it is the only logical conclusion to come to, based on what we know in regards to Michael and his angels.

I agree with your conclusion and your spot on 100%

[Naphal]

Third. Scripture never says that there is more than one "archangel". The term is used only twice in all of the Bible, and both times it is used with the article "the"... the "archangel" is a one-of-a-kind individual. If you're going to claim that Satan was a cherub, he certainly can't be an archangel. And if you're going to claim that Satan was an archangel... you're blatantly contradicting Scripture, which only ever mentions one "archangel".

Scripture mentions more than one archangel.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Michael is the archangel most know of.


Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Here we see Michael spoken of again but a different term for Archangel is used, "chief Prince" and we see that Michael is but one of them. We do not know how many others there are but he is only one of them as opposed to the only one.







Daniel 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.


Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

[Steven3]

Hi Isitlove

Where does it say Satan is an angel?

I cant find it.

Num 22:22 But God's anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary (Hebrew = satan). Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him.

2Co 11:14And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
(one of 4 citations from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Adam_and_Eve in 2Co 10-12) ... in the Jewish legend Satan transforms himself into an angel of light outside the walls of Eden to get his associate the serpent to tempt Eve. In Judaism of this period Satan is not by nature an angel.

Interesting parallels can be found with some New Testament passages, such as the mention of the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2. The more striking resemblances are with ideas in the Pauline epistles: Eve as the source of sin (2 Corinthians 11:3), Satan disguising himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), the location of the paradise in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2).

or the Matt passage "the devil and his angels" and Rev 12 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

But Satan is not called an angel, or an archangel, he has angels. He also has children. And goats. But the children and goats aren't literal children and goats = they are men, so Satan's angels may not be literal either = they may be men too.

Could it be that Satan is a principality or power?

That's something different again http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...r=A&artid=1521
God bless
Steven

[Naphal]

Perhaps a thread discussing exactly what an angel is, or is not is in order.

[webhead]

Perhaps a thread discussing exactly what an angel is, or is not is in order.

Good idea.

Angel usually translates as "messenger" in both the Hebrew and Greek.

[Naphal]

The Greek uses the definitive article ("the" in English). Jude 9 refers to Michael as the archangel, not "an" archangel. Don't water it down.

A definitive article does not imply that the person or thing is the one and only, sole example.

14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Despite the presence of a def. article, this Alexander wasn't the only coppersmith in the world and nor does Paul intend to imply such a concept.

The Hebrew word translated as "one" in many translations also means "first" or "foremost".

As in... Michael is the foremost of the chief princes. In which case, he is still taking on a unique leadership role.

And it also can mean "one" as in this very scripture. The sentence properly reads as it has been translated. The translators know that the sentence reads that Michael is "one of" a group of princes, not that he is the foremost. He may be the foremost but this verse does not address it.


Genesis 21:15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.

Here is the same wording yet the translators know when something means foremost and when it simply means "one of".

Cherubim aren't angels.

Even if they are acting as a messenger?

[Naphal]

Yes satan is an angel, so isnt Micahel. Any heavenly created being is an angel in a generic term in the sense of a "heavenly being". An angel may have a more specific description or title such as Cherub:

3742

03742 k@ruwb {ker-oob'}

of uncertain derivation; TWOT - 1036; n m

AV - cherubims 64, cherub 27; 91

1) cherub, cherubim (pl)
1a) an angelic being
1a1) as guardians of Eden
1a2) as flanking God's throne
1a3) as an image form hovering over the Ark of the Covenant
1a4) as the chariot of Jehovah (fig.)

I also posted this in unrelated thread, but the verse that shows satan is an angel, wouldn't it be Revelation 12:7?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Since we are talking about the Scriptures here, it would be inconsistant for one part of Revelation 12:7 to mean one thing, then another part to mean entirely something different.

Take Michael for instance. The Bible tells us that he's the archangel. This would mean he's an angel, correct? Revelation 12:7 also tells us that he has angels, as in charge of them. We see the same thing about the dragon aka satan.
he also has angels, and he too ranks higher than them, such as a general might rank above a private. Keeping in mind that this is Scriptures we're talking about here, if Michael is an angel, and that he has charge over his angels, and if satan also has angels, and if he too has charge over them, then logically deducing, this makes satan an angel. A fallen angel, but an angel nonetheless.
If anyone wants to argue with this logic, then fine, but in my opin it is the only logical conclusion to come to, based on what we know in regards to Michael and his angels.

[Naphal]

Good idea.

Angel usually translates as "messenger" in both the Hebrew and Greek.

Lets check:

4397

04397 mal'ak {mal-awk'}

from an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; TWOT - 1068a; n m

AV - angel 111, messenger 98, ambassadors 4, variant 1; 214

1) messenger, representative
1a) messenger
1b) angel
1c) the theophanic angel


The hebrew translates this word as angel 111 times and as messenger 98 times, ambassadors 4, variant 1 for a total os 214 total.

32

32 aggelos {ang'-el-os}

from aggello [probably derived from 71, cf 34] (to bring tidings);
TDNT - 1:74,12; n m

AV - angel 179, messenger 7; 186

1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger
from God


The greek translates this word as angel 179 times but messenger only 7 times.


Angel usually translates as ANGEL most of the time in hebrew and greek but significantly more in the greek.