The Unseen Realm Movie

[mikesw]

Help me out, mike. Are you Dispensationalist? I ask because Dispensationalism holds a view of Old and New that's much different and where there is some diversity with the rest of Christendom there tends to be a lot more shared views than differing views. If you're Dispensationalist then I can post accordingly, and if not then I can make that adjustment. That said, I doubt many here (at least the ones I know from other forums) will dispute the importance of context. It's inescapable and those who think otherwise aren't worth the attempt at discussing it unless they're open to considering a different point of view. Context is one of the most basic exegetical skills. Unblessedly, some hermeneutics bias the exegesis by assuming a context that's doctrinal, not inherent.

....


Most Christians view the chief context of the OT to be the covenant. Dispensationalists will assert the dispensation as preeminent.

You posted a bit too quickly since you could have seen my response on the Valdres Urgent Prophecy thread. I see Revelation essentially as the restatement of prophecy for the transition from the Mosaic law era to the era of Christ. I am strongly context-minded where I point out OT prophecies being misapplied to the future when the context is of Jerusalem with all of its first-century neighbors.
If you check my outline on Romans 9-11, you might get an idea of what I say about Paul's view of Israel being saved.
Rom 9-11 Outline Link: #link outline-of-central-message-in-romans-9-11.2079

I had to think hard on the the manner by which all Israel could be saved. The definition of Israel in Paul's account within Rom 11 had to make sense as to whether he was talking about all Jews over all time or whether the concern was narrowed. The remnant concept cannot be disregarded when coming to the understanding of Israel in Romans 9-11.

 

[JoshebB]

There is no such thing as 'older revelation', unless you are referring to the Pharisees and rabbinical traditions.

That is nonsense. What Moses wrote occurred at a time that was millennia before what Paul wrote. That makes what Moses wrote, by definition, revelation from God that is older than what Paul wrote. I'll agree with you that God revealing Himself is all one big ongoing revelation of Himself, but that does not alter the fact what God revealed in Moses' time is older than what God revealed in Daivd's time, which is older than what He revealed in Malachi's time, or John's time.

There is such thing as "older revelation." Revelation occurs in space and time. God alone is eternal.

 

[DavidTree]

That is nonsense. What Moses wrote occurred at a time that was millennia before what Paul wrote. That makes what Moses wrote, by definition, revelation from God that is older than what Paul wrote. I'll agree with you that God revealing Himself is all one big ongoing revelation of Himself, but that does not alter the fact what God revealed in Moses' time is older than what God revealed in Daivd's time, which is older than what He revealed in Malachi's time, or John's time.

There is such thing as "older revelation." Revelation occurs in space and time. God alone is eternal.

So you were not able to understand my speech.

There is no such thing as "older revelation" unless you look at it purely from a historical timeline = which you stated.

Nonsense to the intellect of man is often times BRILLIANCE coming from the Mind of CHRIST to us who believe, and in believing we SEE.

When i search the Scriptures, i am amazed at the Brightness of Glory no matter where or when or by whom the Holy Spirit Spoke.

brilliance /brĭl′yəns/

noun​

1. The state or quality of being brilliant, as.
2. Extreme brightness.
3. Exceptional clarity and agility of intellect or invention.

"Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path." = Brilliance or "old revelation" ???

 

[JoshebB]

So you were not able to understand my speech.

There is no such thing as "older revelation" unless you look at it purely from a historical timeline = which you stated.

Then there is such thing as an older revelation.

Nonsense to the intellect of man is often times BRILLIANCE coming from the Mind of CHRIST to us who believe, and in believing we SEE.

It is ineffective and unwise to couch an argument in the purported lack of understanding of others. That's called an ad hominem argument. It makes you look dumb, not others. It is ALWAYS best to couch any real or perceived difficulty in something like, "Let me better clarify my position...." That helps you keep responsibility for your posts, others not to get offended, defensive, adversarial, or any number of responses that can occur when you tell people they lack some ability you alone possess.

When i search the Scriptures, i am amazed at the Brightness of Glory no matter where or when or by whom the Holy Spirit Spoke.

brilliance /brĭl′yəns/

noun​

1. The state or quality of being brilliant, as.
2. Extreme brightness.
3. Exceptional clarity and agility of intellect or invention.

"Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path." = Brilliance or "old revelation" ???

Thank you for your time but that does nothing to change the facts in evidence. God revealed Himself in scripture, in time and space gradually, incrementally, and progressively. Those are the facts of scripture.

 

[DavidTree]

Then there is such thing as an older revelation.

It is ineffective and unwise to couch an argument in the purported lack of understanding of others. That's called an ad hominem argument. It makes you look dumb, not others. It is ALWAYS best to couch any real or perceived difficulty in something like, "Let me better clarify my position...." That helps you keep responsibility for your posts, others not to get offended, defensive, adversarial, or any number of responses that can occur when you tell people they lack some ability you alone possess.

Thank you for your time but that does nothing to change the facts in evidence. God revealed Himself in scripture, in time and space gradually, incrementally, and progressively. Those are the facts of scripture.

lol my Brother,
"That helps you keep responsibility for your posts, others not to get offended, defensive, adversarial, or any number of responses that can occur when you tell people they lack some ability you alone possess." = i guess your IQ was offended as you immediately went to false accusations which belies your heart = "out of the heart a man speaks"

"Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path." = Brilliance or "old revelation" ???

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Brilliance or "old revelation" ??? = after all that was like 2,000 years ago


And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”

Brilliance or "old revelation" ???

 

[JoshebB]

lol my Brother,
"That helps you keep responsibility for your posts, others not to get offended, defensive, adversarial, or any number of responses that can occur when you tell people they lack some ability you alone possess." = i guess your IQ was offended as you immediately went to false accusations which belies your heart = "out of the heart a man speaks"

Just the opposite. Because I do not take offense when people try to tell me what I can or cannot do, and assign faculties or lack thereof, in violation of the tou, I can speak directly to that subterfuge. I don't have any interest in anyone's views of me.


If you have something op-relevant to contribute to the discussion pertaining to Heiser's movie, "The Unseen Realm," then post it. Otherwise, I will treat you like I do any other troll.

 

[JoshebB]

You posted a bit too quickly since you could have seen my response on the Valdres Urgent Prophecy thread. I see Revelation essentially as the restatement of prophecy for the transition from the Mosaic law era to the era of Christ. I am strongly context-minded where I point out OT prophecies being misapplied to the future when the context is of Jerusalem with all of its first-century neighbors.
If you check my outline on Romans 9-11, you might get an idea of what I say about Paul's view of Israel being saved.
Rom 9-11 Outline Link: #link outline-of-central-message-in-romans-9-11.2079

I had to think hard on the the manner by which all Israel could be saved. The definition of Israel in Paul's account within Rom 11 had to make sense as to whether he was talking about all Jews over all time or whether the concern was narrowed. The remnant concept cannot be disregarded when coming to the understanding of Israel in Romans 9-11.

The remnant is said to be a remnant that existed at that time, not two millennia or more later.

Romans 11:5
In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

Paul is not writing about things that may or may not happen more than 2000 years from the time he wrote his letter to the Romans. He plainly, explicitly stated the "remnant" existed "at the present time." He does not mention the 21st century at all!


Which means two things:

1. Every time any theologian is read to ignore verse 5 he or she has provided a reason to do the same with their views. The ignore scripture. We ignore their scripture-ignoring views.
2. We do not base our own views on a selective reading of scripture, especially if we claim to value context and whole scripture.

Furthermore, the modern geo-political nation-state of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with covenant Israel of the Bible and all the promises and prophecies made thereof. Thinking modern Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology is another invention of modern futurism, not a function of orthodox, historical Christianity..... or scripture.

Paul defines "Israel" as those who live by faith. There are, therefore, those in Israel who are not Israel. When Paul writes of the Israel that will be saved, he is writing about the Israel of promise, the Israel that lives by faith, and that Israel includes both Jews and Gentiles and have little to nothing to do with bloodline or genetics. Christ is called Israel!

Therefore, since you commendably like context and whole scripture so much, go back and re-read the entire Bible with the New Testament definition of Israel in mind....... because the New Testament explains the Old! The newer revelation explains what was previously veiled and/or hidden.

So you were not able to understand my speech.

And please do not tell me what I do or do not understand, again. If something posted is thought not to be understood then take ownership of the possibility the problem is on your side of the conversation, not the other person's. Clarify your post in an effort to preclude any possible lack of understanding.


Paul's remnant was a remnant that existed in his day, not ours.


And let's not forget this op is about Heiser's Unseen Realm. Bring your point back to the op.

 

[mikesw]

The remnant is said to be a remnant that existed at that time, not two millennia or more later.

Romans 11:5
In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

Paul is not writing about things that may or may not happen more than 2000 years from the time he wrote his letter to the Romans. He plainly, explicitly stated the "remnant" existed "at the present time." He does not mention the 21st century at all!


Which means two things:

1. Every time any theologian is read to ignore verse 5 he or she has provided a reason to do the same with their views. The ignore scripture. We ignore their scripture-ignoring views.
2. We do not base our own views on a selective reading of scripture, especially if we claim to value context and whole scripture.

Furthermore, the modern geo-political nation-state of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with covenant Israel of the Bible and all the promises and prophecies made thereof. Thinking modern Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology is another invention of modern futurism, not a function of orthodox, historical Christianity..... or scripture.

Paul defines "Israel" as those who live by faith. There are, therefore, those in Israel who are not Israel. When Paul writes of the Israel that will be saved, he is writing about the Israel of promise, the Israel that lives by faith, and that Israel includes both Jews and Gentiles and have little to nothing to do with bloodline or genetics. Christ is called Israel!

I'm not sure where you find fault with my outline on Romans 9-11. The main point underlying my concept is that the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the first-century via the remnant. This pairs with Rom 9:27-29 that quotes Isa 10:20-22. The remnant that was Israel consisted of those who came to Christ in that era. And those reigning on behalf of Israel are those same Jews. Definitely I see no biblical relevance to the Israel country that we see here today.

 

[DavidTree]

Just the opposite. Because I do not take offense when people try to tell me what I can or cannot do, and assign faculties or lack thereof, in violation of the tou, I can speak directly to that subterfuge. I don't have any interest in anyone's views of me.


If you have something op-relevant to contribute to the discussion pertaining to Heiser's movie, "The Unseen Realm," then post it. Otherwise, I will treat you like I do any other troll.

Because I do not take offense when people try to tell me what I can or cannot do

Who do you feel is trying to tell you what you can or cannot do???
You are in defensive mode with your speech and there is no need.

The Scriptures reveal to us the unseen realm and it is great when they make movies that have some truth in them.
Have you ever watched the 2002 Equilibrium movie with Christian Bale?

Old revelation pertains to traditions, and the animal sacrifices and those who are still under the veil of Moses along with their Gentile twin,
the Vatican.

 

[JoshebB]

I'm not sure where you find fault with my outline on Romans 9-11. The main point underlying my concept is that the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the first-century via the remnant.

I am inclined to agree.

This pairs with Rom 9:27-29 that quotes Isa 10:20-22. The remnant that was Israel consisted of those who came to Christ in that era.

Yep.

And those reigning on behalf of Israel are those same Jews.

All of whom were converts to Christ and therefore, not technically Jews. We might say they were Jewish followers of The Way, the sect within Judaism that followed the teachings of Jesus and were born anew from above. That sect eventually became known as "Christians."

Definitely I see no biblical relevance to the Israel country that we see here today.

Me neither.


Appreciate the clarification.


Now how does that relate to Heiser's Unseen Realm?

 

[mikesw]

I am inclined to agree.

Yep.

All of whom were converts to Christ and therefore, not technically Jews. We might say they were Jewish followers of The Way, the sect within Judaism that followed the teachings of Jesus and were born anew from above. That sect eventually became known as "Christians."

Me neither.


Appreciate the clarification.


Now how does that relate to Heiser's Unseen Realm?

It was the answer to your question if I was a dispensationalist. I'm not sure if that gets you better oriented on why you asked that.

My point had been that we have to consider the OT in context but also with the insight from the NT. Of course the OT is read differently from the rabbis' views. I am cautious about Heiser's observations since he falls too much on the idea of fallen angels, including Satan's supposed origin.

 

[DavidTree]

Paul defines "Israel" as those who live by faith. There are, therefore, those in Israel who are not Israel. When Paul writes of the Israel that will be saved, he is writing about the Israel of promise, the Israel that lives by faith, and that Israel includes both Jews and Gentiles and have little to nothing to do with bloodline or genetics. Christ is called Israel!

100% TRUTH

Paul's remnant was a remnant that existed in his day, not ours.

Why in the TRUTH would you think that God ever stopped saving a remnant of both Jews & Gentiles from out of the nations?

i am going to watch this movie, maybe Sunday

Does the Heiser's movie reflect your belief of 'that was then and not now' ???

 

[JoshebB]

It was the answer to your question if I was a dispensationalist. I'm not sure if that gets you better oriented on why you asked that.

Yep. Much appreciated.

My point had been that we have to consider the OT in context but also with the insight from the NT. Of course the OT is read differently from the rabbis' views.

The "read differently" is the exact reason I asked about your theological orientation. Not only do Jewish rabbis read scripture differently, so too do Dispensational Premillennialists and the other modern futurists/Zionists/two-kingdomers.

I am cautious about Heiser's observations since he falls too much on the idea of fallen angels, including Satan's supposed origin.

Would you mind clarifying that?

I have concerns about Heiser's use of rabbinical teaching and Judaic cosmology but much of what he teaches is valid so, therefore, discernment is needed to sort through what is firmly couched in Tanakh and what is errantly couched in Judaism. Judaism is often wrong. Tanakh, when correctly understood, is always correct, and there is a huge difference between rightly read Tanakh and Judaism, just as there is a great deal of difference between rightly-read Tanakh and Dispensationalism/modern futurism.

I am cautious about Heiser's observations since he falls too much on the idea of fallen angels, including Satan's supposed origin.

Tell me more about that.

 

[JoshebB]

100% TRUTH

Why in the TRUTH would you think that God ever stopped saving a remnant of both Jews & Gentiles from out of the nations?

I did not say that God stopped saving a remnant. What I did say is that Romans 9-11 is not about a far-distant-in-the-future remnant. The remnant of Romans 11 is explicitly stated to be one existing at "the present time." Anything else is an addition to the text.

i am going to watch this movie, maybe Sunday

Does the Heiser's movie reflect your belief of 'that was then and not now' ???

You are going to have make a better effort to read, understand, and represent my posts correctly if you wish to have a conversation with me. I don't tolerate straw men, ad hominem, and the other fallacies. If there's no familiarity with Heiser and the movie hasn't been watched, then I question the appropriateness of anyone posting in ignorance. Watch the movie. Give consideration to what I and others actually posted. Germane comment or inquiry will be considered.

 

[DavidTree]

I did not say that God stopped saving a remnant. What I did say is that Romans 9-11 is not about a far-distant-in-the-future remnant. The remnant of Romans 11 is explicitly stated to be one existing at "the present time." Anything else is an addition to the text.

You are going to have make a better effort to read, understand, and represent my posts correctly if you wish to have a conversation with me. I don't tolerate straw men, ad hominem, and the other fallacies. If there's no familiarity with Heiser and the movie hasn't been watched, then I question the appropriateness of anyone posting in ignorance. Watch the movie. Give consideration to what I and others actually posted. Germane comment or inquiry will be considered.

lolx100

Romans 11:5
In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

Paul is not writing about things that may or may not happen more than 2000 years from the time he wrote his letter to the Romans. He plainly, explicitly stated the "remnant" existed "at the present time." He does not mention the 21st century at all!

You are going to have make a better effort to read, understand, and represent my posts correctly if you wish to have a conversation with me. I don't tolerate straw men, ad hominem, and the other fallacies

You give some good laughter here my Brother in the LORD Jesus Christ.

 

[synergy]

This movie presents much of Michael Heiser's ideas. I watched it you tube but the link may be temporary

I am undecided on the treatment of the gods and spirits in the Old Testament. I do like when they start speaking more of Christ Jesus about 40 min in the video where it was mentioned that God tricked the dark spirits into killing Jesus against their best interest. That a deception was done against them. There also are explanations of moments showing Christ's divinity in the Godhead.

I've seen this Eschatological approach many times before. This group is Anti-Government Zionistic. Reminds me of JW scare tactics that aims to enlist members. God is already present in his Churches and in his Believers. I believe in Jesus' 2nd coming but let's not get ahead of ourselves and start becoming Zionist Anarchists.

 

[mikesw]

Yep. Much appreciated.

The "read differently" is the exact reason I asked about your theological orientation. Not only do Jewish rabbis read scripture differently, so too do Dispensational Premillennialists and the other modern futurists/Zionists/two-kingdomers.

Would you mind clarifying that?

I have concerns about Heiser's use of rabbinical teaching and Judaic cosmology but much of what he teaches is valid so, therefore, discernment is needed to sort through what is firmly couched in Tanakh and what is errantly couched in Judaism. Judaism is often wrong. Tanakh, when correctly understood, is always correct, and there is a huge difference between rightly read Tanakh and Judaism, just as there is a great deal of difference between rightly-read Tanakh and Dispensationalism/modern futurism.

Tell me more about that.

Heiser or others in the video find the devil represented in Isaiah 14. I see no reason for ascribing the passage to the devil. It is sufficient to represent the king of Babylon in prophetic anticipation of Nebuchadnezzar described in Daniel. The analogy of v15 "But you are brought down to Sheol " reflects the idea of being destroyed and out of sight. The falling from heaven (v12-13) reflects the king's loss of power. The stars reflect leaders/rulers if memory serves. No reason appears contextually for Isaiah to identify anyone other that the king of Babylon.

I'm not as familiar with Ezekiel 28. I was looking up some details in the commentaries but did get enough time to settle on any details. However, the passage again does not have a context wherein Satan would be the sudden topic. The text only appears to reflect exalted language and imagery applied to Tyre.

So far my impression about Satan is that he is a creature among others of the earth-based details of the creation story -- just more cunning that the beasts of the field. At the same time, his existence is different in that he exists essentially in the unseen realm but can be appear in various ways to people. Related to his unseen existence, he also does not have the physical lifetime like other creatures. And he has had access to God along with probable power and influence over nations. But this was not as a fallen angel due to minimal reasons to base that on.

 

[JoshebB]

Heiser or others in the video find the devil represented in Isaiah 14. I see no reason for ascribing the passage to the devil. It is sufficient to represent the king of Babylon in prophetic anticipation of Nebuchadnezzar described in Daniel. The analogy of v15 "But you are brought down to Sheol " reflects the idea of being destroyed and out of sight. The falling from heaven (v12-13) reflects the king's loss of power. The stars reflect leaders/rulers if memory serves. No reason appears contextually for Isaiah to identify anyone other that the king of Babylon.

I'm not as familiar with Ezekiel 28. I was looking up some details in the commentaries but did get enough time to settle on any details. However, the passage again does not have a context wherein Satan would be the sudden topic. The text only appears to reflect exalted language and imagery applied to Tyre.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

In the gospels we read/hear Jesus saying he saw Satan fall. Is there a record in scripture of that happening? If so, then where in the Bible would you or I find the report of that event? In what book, chapter, and verse would we find God revealing to us some record of that event?

So far my impression about Satan is that he is a creature among others of the earth-based details of the creation story -- just more cunning that the beasts of the field. At the same time, his existence is different in that he exists essentially in the unseen realm but can be appear in various ways to people. Related to his unseen existence, he also does not have the physical lifetime like other creatures. And he has had access to God along with probable power and influence over nations. But this was not as a fallen angel due to minimal reasons to base that on.

Satan is certainly a created creature.

In saying he is an "earth=based" creature of the unseen realm, what is it that leads you to conclude he is only an earth-based creature and not a creature that can either be in both the heavenly and earthly realms at once or go back and forth between the two? Clarify also for me, please, what you mean by "has had access to God" as an earth-based creature.

Thanks

 

[mikesw]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

In the gospels we read/hear Jesus saying he saw Satan fall. Is there a record in scripture of that happening? If so, then where in the Bible would you or I find the report of that event? In what book, chapter, and verse would we find God revealing to us some record of that event?

Satan is certainly a created creature.

In Luk 10:17-18, the context for falling from heaven was the 72 men returning from their missions. It appears that this fall happens at this mission. More likely he speaks that actually as the consequence of further activity that will ensue, especially as the missions continue after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The fall is expressed in Rev 12:7-9 (ESV)

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 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.

I think Jesus' words also reflect Gen 3:15. We are seeing the devil's loss of power. By contrast the Isa 14 has a context of Babylon better described. We know the glory that Nebuchadnezzar ascribed to himself.

The gotquestions website is not quite consistent on Isa 14 and Ezekiel 28:12–18. The links are below if you want to look:

Did one third of the angels fall with Lucifer? | GotQuestions.org

Did one third of the angels fall with Lucifer? Does the Bible say how many angels rebelled with Satan, becoming the demons?

www.gotquestions.org

How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven? | GotQuestions.org

How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven? Where did Satan come from? Why did Satan decide to rebel against God?

www.gotquestions.org

The falling stars in Rev 12:4 may represent governments/leaders. That may be explained on Bruce Gore's youtube video on Revelation 12

Satan's fall means that his control or influence over governments (and maybe some people) was mostly (fully?) ending in the first-century. This point may be reflected in Roman 16:20 -- The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

In saying he is an "earth=based" creature of the unseen realm, what is it that leads you to conclude he is only an earth-based creature and not a creature that can either be in both the heavenly and earthly realms at once or go back and forth between the two? Clarify also for me, please, what you mean by "has had access to God" as an earth-based creature.

Thanks

I basically was distinguishing Satan from angels serving in the heavens. My best working theory on the nature of Satan is that he is creature made in service of the earth. His role is tempt people so as to expose evil. Then he accuses people before God. The Book of Job shows Satan's access to God. He is a bottom-feeder. He is like a cow-magnet to attract harmful items.

So I see Satan being created for a specific purpose to achieve God's goals in creation, but Satan, in a sense, goes too far. Then in Rev 20:7-10 Satan is released again to expose the evildoers who then are purged from earth.

Probably we find Satan's fall also as keeping Satan from having the apparent access to God of the type of access described in Job.

 

[JoshebB]

In Luk 10:17-18, the context for falling from heaven was the 72 men returning from their missions. It appears that this fall happens at this mission. More likely he speaks that actually as the consequence of further activity that will ensue, especially as the missions continue after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The fall is expressed in Rev 12:7-9 (ESV)

I think Jesus' words also reflect Gen 3:15. We are seeing the devil's loss of power. By contrast the Isa 14 has a context of Babylon better described. We know the glory that Nebuchadnezzar ascribed to himself.

The gotquestions website is not quite consistent on Isa 14 and Ezekiel 28:12–18. The links are below if you want to look:

Did one third of the angels fall with Lucifer? | GotQuestions.org

Did one third of the angels fall with Lucifer? Does the Bible say how many angels rebelled with Satan, becoming the demons?

www.gotquestions.org

How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven? | GotQuestions.org

How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven? Where did Satan come from? Why did Satan decide to rebel against God?

www.gotquestions.org

The falling stars in Rev 12:4 may represent governments/leaders. That may be explained on Bruce Gore's youtube video on Revelation 12

Satan's fall means that his control or influence over governments (and maybe some people) was mostly (fully?) ending in the first-century. This point may be reflected in Roman 16:20 -- The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.





I basically was distinguishing Satan from angels serving in the heavens. My best working theory on the nature of Satan is that he is creature made in service of the earth. His role is tempt people so as to expose evil. Then he accuses people before God. The Book of Job shows Satan's access to God. He is a bottom-feeder. He is like a cow-magnet to attract harmful items.

So I see Satan being created for a specific purpose to achieve God's goals in creation, but Satan, in a sense, goes too far. Then in Rev 20:7-10 Satan is released again to expose the evildoers who then are purged from earth.

Probably we find Satan's fall also as keeping Satan from having the apparent access to God of the type of access described in Job.

thank you for all of that. I appreciate the effort, but I read a lot of speculation and extra-biblical sourcing and I do not value either very much.

Let's start simple and basic. Who or What is the adversary (which is what "Satan" means)? Was he ever an angel? Is he a human? If neither, then what is Satan? Use scripture where you can, and use explicit statements from scripture wherever possible. Thanks