₦airaland Forum

Although most people will say Satan is an angel, the bible doesn't actually identify him as one, rather the bible explicitly says that Satan masquerades as an angel.

Watch as this is being discussed

https://youtube.com/shorts/a1ZbE0u9vuw?si=xWlzAu_Jd2bqaEWL

Satan was initially a Cherub. A “guardian cherub.” Cherubs are high ranking angels.
Once an angel is always an angel that's why he's indestructible.

Cherubs are not actually angels, it's just religion that make us think Cherubs are angels.

Yes lucifer was formerly a Cherub until he sinned. The term Cherub is a servant or worshiper of God. Humans are servants and worshipers of God. These are well explained in the video

https://youtube.com/shorts/GXjJkX6hxFY?si=bh0IYcZlHcIfYo1n

RealityKings1:
Satan was initially a Cherub. A “guardian cherub.” Cherubs are high ranking angels.
Once an angel is always an angel that's why he's indestructible.

oridavid:
Cherubs are not actually angels, it's just religion that make us think Cherubs are angels.

Yes lucifer was formerly a Cherub until he sinned. The term Cherub is a servant or worshiper of God. Humans are servants and worshipers of God. These are well explained in the video

https://youtube.com/shorts/GXjJkX6hxFY?si=bh0IYcZlHcIfYo1n

Well said, but your argument is unconvincing. If you claim Satan was meant to worship God as a man, then why do we still find Satan and his angels in heaven? 🥱 That reveals an inconsistency in your framework.

You also assume that Eden was exclusively for man and that God could not place an angel there. But where is this basis? 🤨 Isn’t this your own eisegesis—the very thing you accuse others of? 🤕

Before dismissing anything as ‘not an angel,’ you must first define what an angel is. From such a definition, we can determine whether cherubim fall within the category of angels or represent something distinct.

Since the term ‘angel’ generally refers to heavenly beings who serve as messengers, it follows that all heavenly beings may theoretically be considered ‘angels,’ insofar as God can send any of them on His errands. To deny this would imply a limitation on God’s omnipotence, which is impossible.

Thus, beginning with the axiom that God is omnipotent, and from the fact that angels are heavenly messengers, we may conclude that ‘angel’ is a generic term. After all, if God could send His own Son, then no member of the heavenly court is beyond being sent by Him. Therefore, all heavenly beings can, at least functionally, be called angels. 🤔

Returning to the main issue: Satan has angels, and Scripture identifies him as a cherub—a class of heavenly beings who serve in God’s work. This strongly suggests that Satan was indeed an angel in function.

That said, the deeper question is whether all cherubim are angels by nature or whether they form a distinct category. Since Scripture offers insufficient detail to settle this, we can only say with certainty that, in the generic sense of role and function, Satan was an angel. Whether cherubim constitute a unique order within the angelic host remains an open question.

What language do you get the idea that Cherubs are angels? Did you make that up yourself, since it's certainly not Hebrew?

Also, what we know is that Eden was a place for man. God didn't make Eden until he made man. This is what we know.

And when God placed someone in Eden, it has always been a man. There's no record of angels being placed in Eden. Since we know that Satan was placed in Eden as a Cherub, we can only realistically, factually and textually conclude him to be a man.

So, if you refuse what is known and clearly written, for some personal goose chase, that's on you. It's not my responsibility or anyone's responsibility to join you on that goose chase. Do have a lovely day, my friend.

Gabrielshow24:
Well said, but your argument is unconvincing. If you claim Satan was meant to worship God as a man, then why do we still find Satan and his angels in heaven? 🥱 That reveals an inconsistency in your framework.

You also assume that Eden was exclusively for man and that God could not place an angel there. But where is this basis? 🤨 Isn’t this your own eisegesis—the very thing you accuse others of? 🤕

Before dismissing anything as ‘not an angel,’ you must first define what an angel is. From such a definition, we can determine whether cherubim fall within the category of angels or represent something distinct.

Since the term ‘angel’ generally refers to heavenly beings who serve as messengers, it follows that all heavenly beings may theoretically be considered ‘angels,’ insofar as God can send any of them on His errands. To deny this would imply a limitation on God’s omnipotence, which is impossible.

Thus, beginning with the axiom that God is omnipotent, and from the fact that angels are heavenly messengers, we may conclude that ‘angel’ is a generic term. After all, if God could send His own Son, then no member of the heavenly court is beyond being sent by Him. Therefore, all heavenly beings can, at least functionally, be called angels. 🤔

Returning to the main issue: Satan has angels, and Scripture identifies him as a cherub—a class of heavenly beings who serve in God’s work. This strongly suggests that Satan was indeed an angel in function.

That said, the deeper question is whether all cherubim are angels by nature or whether they form a distinct category. Since Scripture offers insufficient detail to settle this, we can only say with certainty that, in the generic sense of role and function, Satan was an angel. Whether cherubim constitute a unique order within the angelic host remains an open question.

oridavid:
What language do you get the idea that Cherubs are angels? Did you make that up yourself, since it's certainly not Hebrew?

Also, what we know is that Eden was a place for man. God didn't make Eden until he made man. This is what we know.

And when God placed someone in Eden, it has always been a man. There's no record of angels being placed in Eden. Since we know that Satan was placed in Eden as a Cherub, we can only realistically, factually and textually conclude him to be a man.

So, if you refuse what is known and clearly written, for some personal goose chase, that's on you. It's not my responsibility or anyone's responsibility to join you on that goose chase. Do have a lovely day, my friend.

It seems you didn’t actually read what I wrote—you just reiterated your delusion. By your logic, are we to conclude that the two cherubs covering the Lord’s throne were men? 😔👀 The cherub with the flaming sword was also a man? 🤨 And the cherub the Lord rode upon was yet another man? 🤨 Do you see the absurdity here?

Do you even read before presenting such half-baked theories? At the very least, take the whole of Scripture into consideration before speaking!

Nowhere are we given the illusion—or even the slightest hint—that cherubs were men. Your logic collapses because the fact that men were placed in the garden does not mean that, historically, factually, or whatever ’ly’ you want to add, an angel could not also be placed there. In fact, the very passage itself explicitly states that a cherub was placed there. 🤷

So your so-called ’oridavid’s exclusion principle’ is both insufficient and wrong. Need I remind you that the fall of man was localized in the garden? If your principle were valid, how then did the serpent gain entry at all—much less mislead the woman?

Pls, do better than this😮‍💨.

Like I said, if you go on a goose chase outside what can be known, then you're on your own. There's no where that the Bible tells us that Cherubs are angels, you're bringing your bias into the text.

Yes, after Adam and Eve left Eden, the Cherubims that was placed in the garden was a man. You don't know this because you mix your bias with scripture. I'll show you example: the Bible didn't actually tell us that God placed "two" cherubim in Eden after Adam and Eve, but you said "two" because your bias say two. So you seamlessly attached this to scripture unconsciously.

However, the Cherubim was man because firstly, the garden was for man and secondly, it wasn't immediately Adam and Eve left that God placed man there. God had to wait till there was man he could take from earth and put back in the garden to keep it till his restoration plan could take effect.

The writer of Genesis saw all of this in a vision and didn't tell you what time thus happened. He simply wrote what he saw. And what he saw was that after (not time specific) Adam and Eve were chased out, Cherubim (Cherubim are humans) and a flaming word was put in Eden.

Also, you inferred that the serpent was a person, trying to say he was an angel and cannot be a man. That's another of your bias you brought again. The Serpent was not a person or a Being, it was simply the intuition speaking with Eve inwardly.

I'll end by saying that if you got out of what can be known and start spewing religious bias, you'll go astray. God expects you to know him through what has been revealed and not through religious biases.

I'll leave you a few of my videos so you'll see from other perspective. I respect your zeal to know and I truly appreciate you and your great pursuit of knowledge, but I'll ask you to open your mind and see things more openly. I hope these videos help you.
https://youtube.com/shorts/cRmZ864JHQY?si=np-WHJKcK5MmQouQ

https://youtube.com/shorts/ocrkvPhG0Lg?si=wg8JbpYd1ZrAXqtU

https://youtube.com/shorts/g0A2C-MQoBE?si=p2FvliUGbQatx2QR

Gabrielshow24:
It seems you didn’t actually read what I wrote—you just reiterated your delusion. By your logic, are we to conclude that the two cherubs covering the Lord’s throne were men? 😔👀 The cherub with the flaming sword was also a man? 🤨 And the cherub the Lord rode upon was yet another man? 🤨 Do you see the absurdity here?

Do you even read before presenting such half-baked theories? At the very least, take the whole of Scripture into consideration before speaking!

Nowhere are we given the illusion—or even the slightest hint—that cherubs were men. Your logic collapses because the fact that men were placed in the garden does not mean that, historically, factually, or whatever ’ly’ you want to add, an angel could not also be placed there. In fact, the very passage itself explicitly states that a cherub was placed there. 🤷

So your so-called ’oridavid’s exclusion principle’ is both insufficient and wrong. Need I remind you that the fall of man was localized in the garden? If your principle were valid, how then did the serpent gain entry at all—much less mislead the woman?

Pls, do better than this😮‍💨.

oridavid:
Cherubs are not actually angels, it's just religion that make us think Cherubs are angels.

Yes lucifer was formerly a Cherub until he sinned. The term Cherub is a servant or worshiper of God. Humans are servants and worshipers of God. These are well explained in the video

https://youtube.com/shorts/GXjJkX6hxFY?si=bh0IYcZlHcIfYo1n

Seems you have written your own bible

What is an angel or what are Angels? It simply means messenger. It could either be a man or a divine messenger. A messenger delivers a message from a higher authority to another person or group. Jonah was an angel sent by God to the people of Ninevah.
To the Satan, did the Bible ever refer to him as an angel? The book of Job calls him "a son of God". In the original version of the story, the God there was Marduk and Satan there was Enlil, who was the Lord of the wind.
I think our delusion will be cured if we actually did some independent study rather than display our gross ignorance.
Satan is simply a personification of a principle with God. This happens to be the wind.

Hahahaha very subtle yet funny.

I didn't actually write my own Bible, I just studied the one that was written to ensure that I'm not believing a wrong thing. If you also go and study the language, you'll see that cherub are not actually angels and the idea that they're is a religious one created by people to satisfy the mind.

RealityKings1:
Seems you have written your own bible

I don't understand how you concluded that the book of Job calls Satan "a son of God."

This is a false claim my friend. While I understand your assumption and why you may assume, scriptural truth must not be interpreted with our assumption.

You should watch this video, it'll help you see another perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcUGTqEa9uo

sonmvayina:
What is an angel or what are Angels? It simply means messenger. It could either be a man or a divine messenger. A messenger delivers a message from a higher authority to another person or group. Jonah was an angel sent by God to the people of Ninevah.
To the Satan, did the Bible ever refer to him as an angel? The book of Job calls him "a son of God". In the original version of the story, the God there was Marduk and Satan there was Enlil, who was the Lord of the wind.
I think our delusion will be cured if we actually did some independent study rather than display our gross ignorance.
Satan is simply a personification of a principle with God. This happens to be the wind.

oridavid:
Like I said, if you go on a goose chase outside what can be known, then you're on your own. There's no where that the Bible tells us that Cherubs are angels, you're bringing your bias into the text.

Yes, after Adam and Eve left Eden, the Cherubims that was placed in the garden was a man. You don't know this because you mix your bias with scripture. I'll show you example: the Bible didn't actually tell us that God placed "two" cherubim in Eden after Adam and Eve, but you said "two" because your bias say two. So you seamlessly attached this to scripture unconsciously.

However, the Cherubim was man because firstly, the garden was for man and secondly, it wasn't immediately Adam and Eve left that God placed man there. God had to wait till there was man he could take from earth and put back in the garden to keep it till his restoration plan could take effect.

The writer of Genesis saw all of this in a vision and didn't tell you what time thus happened. He simply wrote what he saw. And what he saw was that after (not time specific) Adam and Eve were chased out, Cherubim (Cherubim are humans) and a flaming word was put in Eden.

Also, you inferred that the serpent was a person, trying to say he was an angel and cannot be a man. That's another of your bias you brought again. The Serpent was not a person or a Being, it was simply the intuition speaking with Eve inwardly.

I'll end by saying that if you got out of what can be known and start spewing religious bias, you'll go astray. God expects you to know him through what has been revealed and not through religious biases.

I'll leave you a few of my videos so you'll see from other perspective. I respect your zeal to know and I truly appreciate you and your great pursuit of knowledge, but I'll ask you to open your mind and see things more openly. I hope these videos help you.
https://youtube.com/shorts/cRmZ864JHQY?si=np-WHJKcK5MmQouQ

https://youtube.com/shorts/ocrkvPhG0Lg?si=wg8JbpYd1ZrAXqtU

https://youtube.com/shorts/g0A2C-MQoBE?si=p2FvliUGbQatx2QR

You are grasping at straws with the bolded because I didn't say they were two cherubs in Eden🥱. Here is what I said.

Gabrielshow24:
It seems you didn’t actually read what I wrote—you just reiterated your delusion. By your logic, are we to conclude that the two cherubs covering the Lord’s throne were men? 😔👀 The cherub with the flaming sword was also a man? 🤨 And the cherub the Lord rode upon was yet another man? 🤨 Do you see the absurdity here?

The reader can see I didn't say two cherubs with respect to Eden🥱. It's definitely your preconceived bias that you are reading into the scripture 🥱. Now to add, you stated that Moses saw a dream and God had to wait until Man multiplied, to take of that ’man’ and place as a guard...sorry cherub...in Eden. That's even more wrong🤦🏾‍♂️.

This tales by moonlight falls short. The serpent was not intuition 🤨. Keep in mind that some verses before that, God gathered the land animals to see what Adam will name them. I guess these animals like their relative, ’serpent’ are relational concepts🤨 according to you. Do you see what is wrong with this?

After hinting you at the ludicrousness of your stance, I leave the reader to form his own conclusions. One thing is sure, you have shown that you consistently add your own eisegesis to it.

Pls, take your advice and stop ’going out of what can be known and start spewing religious bias’.

Ok that's fine. You win.

And yes, the two cherubs covering the throne are men.

That was a representation of what will happen in our time. The throne of God is our heart (God dwell in us). The two cherubs are male and female in which God will dwell.

Joel also reinforced that message that in the last days, God (the spirit) will dwell in all flesh as opposed to the way it was before - one man being the chief priest.

So, I'm very sorry I misread when you talked about Cherubim, I thought you were talking about the Cherubim in Eden.
Also, I'm not trying to win an argument with you so stop appealing to the audience. You're asking me to give an account of what I know. If this is an argument for you, I'm not interested pls. If you have anymore questions for me, I've talked about it in the video. Thank you.
You can watch everything here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcUGTqEa9uo

Gabrielshow24:
You are grasping at straws with the bolded because I didn't say they were two cherubs in Eden🥱. Here is what I said.
The reader can see I didn't say two cherubs with respect to Eden🥱. It's definitely your preconceived bias that you are reading into the scripture 🥱. Now to add, you stated that Moses saw a dream and God had to wait until Man multiplied, to take of that ’man’ and place as a guard...sorry cherub...in Eden. That's even more wrong🤦🏾‍♂️.

This tales by moonlight falls short. The serpent was not intuition 🤨. Keep in mind that some verses before that, God gathered the land animals to see what Adam will name them. I guess these animals like their relative, ’serpent’ are relational concepts🤨 according to you. Do you see what is wrong with this?

After hinting you at the ludicrousness of your stance, I leave the reader to form his own conclusions. One thing is sure, you have shown that you consistently add your own eisegesis to it.

Pls, take your advice and stop ’going out of what can be known and start spewing religious bias’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcUGTqEa9uo

Who are the sons of God, is Satan one of them?

https://youtube.com/shorts/uUGrRO2dWHI?feature=share

oridavid:
I don't understand how you concluded that the book of Job calls Satan "a son of God."

This is a false claim my friend. While I understand your assumption and why you may assume, scriptural truth must not be interpreted with our assumption.

You should watch this video, it'll help you see another perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcUGTqEa9uo

6 There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
This is job 1:6.

What is it you don't understand from it. He was among them, because he was also a son of God. Or what capacity do you think he was there? Or do you think he is a dual opposite of God?

oridavid:
Who are the sons of God, is Satan one of them?

https://youtube.com/shorts/uUGrRO2dWHI?feature=share

Check out my comment of tgis video on YouTube.
You really need to unlearn so many things. You keep muddling things up there by missing It.
Satan, devil and Lucifer are not one being. They are actually 3 different beings. They are what the yorubas call orisha. They are not God. They are the masculine and feminine aspects of life/God.
Satan is the orisha or love he air. I think he would be Olokun in Yoruba mythology.
Devil is the orisha of darkness and cross roads. I really dont know where you Christian get the idea that it is evil? He would be Esu in Yoruba mythology. Lucifer on the other hand is the he orisha of love, war and death. She would be Osun in Yoruba mythology. ...my Yoruba folks can correct me if I am wrong.

You really need to relearn

This is Enlil Aka Satan. Educate your self.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDM_mOKdJSM?si=dXsQq-0u8v7GiuWQ





This is Inanna AKA Lucifer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tncmy36_rco?si=B3mQzjdsdv6HkryY

This is Nanna AKA the devil .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F74FQoBcwKE?si=zI74f4oFueIN4nHP