> I don't see where getting the conclusion that Michael is not an angel

Michael is identified as an archangel in Jude 1.9 and Rev. 12.7. The term "archangel" is never used except in the singular, which could imply there is only one such being. In Daniel 10.13, 21; 12.1 we read that Michael is a special protector of the Hebrew nation. This is a different role than we see in any angel. Every other time we see an angel (except in Revelation), he is nothing more than a messenger. This leads us to the conclusion that he is a being of a different order than an angel. He seems to have specific powers that angels do not and a special role that does not belong to angels. But I'll admit we know very little about these things.

> In Job Satan is able to summon weather storms and influence human armies to do his evil will,

"The satan" in Job is a role (an accuser; a challenger) or function, not a personal name. It is always used with the definite article "the," and never as a name. This "accuser" is never identified as an angel. He is not bad as such, nor does he oppose God or act as leader of demonic forces. He's more like a court prosecutor (since Job is basically a record of a court case evaluating God's policies). The challenger serves as a watchdog agency meant to raise questions of accountability, and these challenges are intended to promote the general good by putting potentially questionable policies and decisions under scrutiny.

You have accused the satan of summoning weather storms and influencing human armies to do his evil will. We learn from the book that the accuser is submissive to God and can do only what God allows. He is using all the resources at God's disposal (though notice that he has no source of evil inside of Job from which to act) to create this suffering. An Israelite audience would readily recognize all the disasters that overtake Job because they are among those delineated in the covenant curses for disobediences (Dt. 28.31-35). They are viewed as acts of divine judgment.

By the way, I don't take the book of Job to be historical, but a literary, philosophical, and theological treatise on how God works in the world. But that's another discussion. Therefore I take these descriptions as literary devices to magnify Job's suffering in the eyes of Job and his friends. They are not statements of the power of Satan.

> Ps. 103.20; 2 Pet. 2.11

It doesn't take much of a stretch to view angels as more powerful than humans (see also Joshua 5.14). We are rather weak and vulnerable as a race of beings.

> This is impossible even for the strongest human

Yes, but we need not view this angel as going from soldier to soldier killing them all in hand-to-hand combat. The angel of death at the Passover was able to fly over the Egyptians and kill them presumably with spiritual power. If God has endowed this angel with the power to kill, we don't need to think of him as a warrior but as an empowered agent of God's judgment.

> But to claim it is talking about a man is absurd at the least.

I never claimed it was talking about a man. You must have misunderstood.

> Scripture says the devil can mask himself as an angel of light.

Yes. The idea here is that Satan is a deceiver. Since Satan can mimic something good, even the coming of an angel is no unconditional guarantee that the message that he brings (including miracles or prophecy) is genuine revelation. Testing the spirits is always essential (1 Jn. 4.1ff.).

This observation that Satan masquerades as an angel of light makes no suggestion that once was an angel of light or, in fact, any other sort of angel. It is true that the NT authors show awareness of the existence of fallen angels (2 Pet. 2.4), but nowhere do they suggest that Satan was once among them, much less the leader of the rebellion.

This verse is not a discussion on the attributes of celestial beings; rather, it is informing us that Satan is known for his deceptive qualities as an illustration of the deceit of false apostles.

> So demons clearly retain all their power than they possessed before their rebellion.

You seem to be confusing beings here. Demons are nothing more than beings that create chaos. They are never identified with Satan, evil, or as specifically anti-God. Fallen angels, however, are a different kind of being. Fallen angels are identified with Satan, evil, and seem to be specifically anti-God.

> Revelation 12

There is no reference to demons in Rev. 12, only of the devil's angels, which we can properly identify as fallen angels. These are different from demons. The devil has angels under his command (Mt. 25.41).

> so angel is merely any umbrella term for a supernatural being regardless of whom they serve.

Agreed. They are messengers—subservient beings who do the bidding of their master.

> Nowhere is Gabriel identified as an archangel, and nowhere did he say so himself, so this claim isn't leading where you think it is.

You are right, I made an error. It is the book of enoch that says such, and I mixed it up with the canonical bible and Gabriel's address to Daniel and Mary.

> Michael is an archangel, not an angel. He is powerful, but he's a different being than an angel. We don't know how many archangels there are, and we don't know much about their powers or roles.

I don't see where getting the conclusion that Michael is not an angel. He is chief among the angels, hence the name archangel. But angel isn't a race of beings, it just means messenger.

> Angels are just messengers. Their message is either accepted or rejected. Talk about resisting an angel is like talking about resisting your mail carrier. Angels are just messengers.

This is an understatement. In Job Satan is able to summon weather storms and influence human armies to do his evil will, just to prove a point. If SAtan can do that, what's a mere man to him, and how powerful are God's angels if Satan needed God to remove the hedge of protection of angels that he couldn't go through as Psalms 91:11 defines. David recognized how powerful angels are Psalms 103:20 "Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word." They are mentioned as being superior in strength and capability than humans 2 Peter 2:11 "Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord." Peter knew all about angels, he rescued by one, and in impossible circumstances, by human standards. In 2 Kings 19, it says the angel of Lord killed 185,000 Assyrians in their camps, in a single night and never woke a single person. This is impossible even for the strongest human, assuming there were 12 hours in a night, that's killing an average of 1 person every 0.2 seconds. Let alone do it stealthily while moving through a camp. Angels can kill a person in the blink of eye, they are not your mail carrier as you say.

> Michael, not Gabriel. And no one really knows what/who this "Prince/King of Persia" refers to. The strongest theories are an angelic being or a demonic being. But since it's not explained, identifying him is all guesswork.

Then what's your arguing about. Because no where does state things explicitly. But to claim it is talking about a man is absurd at the least.

> Since Michael is described as "one of the chief princes," we can possibly assume that this "prince of Persia" was a similar type (in status and power) of spiritual being.

Michael is called a prince, and this sets the precedent for prince of persia. He is a being of the caliber of an angelic prince.

> Not angels necessarily. Angels are a particular kind of spirit being, but this "prince of Persia" could also be anything else. He seems to be of a higher order (and greater power) than an angel.

Scripture says the devil can mask himself as an angel of light. So demons clearly retain all their power than they possessed before their rebellion. In Revelation 12 they are called "the devil's angels, so angel is merely any umbrella term for a supernatural being regardless of whom they serve.

> Now we already know Gabriel is an archangel, he said so himself.

Nowhere is Gabriel identified as an archangel, and nowhere did he say so himself, so this claim isn't leading where you think it is.

> So is Michael, these are powerful angels in their own right.

Michael is an archangel, not an angel. He is powerful, but he's a different being than an angel. We don't know how many archangels there are, and we don't know much about their powers or roles.

> So no man has power to resist an angel.

Angels are just messengers. Their message is either accepted or rejected. Talk about resisting an angel is like talking about resisting your mail carrier. Angels are just messengers.

> Yet the prince of Persia and the King of Persia were powerful enough to keep Gabriel at bay, and make him call for reinforcements,

Michael, not Gabriel. And no one really knows what/who this "Prince/King of Persia" refers to. The strongest theories are an angelic being or a demonic being. But since it's not explained, identifying him is all guesswork. Since Michael is described as "one of the chief princes," we can possibly assume that this "prince of Persia" was a similar type (in status and power) of spiritual being.

> So they must be angels of some sort.

Not angels necessarily. Angels are a particular kind of spirit being, but this "prince of Persia" could also be anything else. He seems to be of a higher order (and greater power) than an angel.

When Gabriel comes to Daniel about a brief delay he tells Daniel this Daniel 10:13

"But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia."

Now we already know Gabriel is an archangel, he said so himself. So is Michael, these are powerful angels in their own right. According to Psalms 8:5 man is made weaker than Elohim, or the plethora of angels and supernatural beings and God. So no man has power to resist an angel. Yet the prince of Persia and the King of Persia were powerful enough to keep Gabriel at bay, and make him call for reinforcements,
that's no man!

So they must be angels of some sort.

Do with this what you will

Yeah, I'm realizing that I was probably reading the comments of propaganda/ignorance. I really appreciate you answering/informing me!

It's the vast majority of scholars. Pick one and investigate, and you'll see that what I'm saying is true. Check out Calvin, Luther, Walton, Webb, Oswalt, or any you choose.

> Because the kind of descriptions of the people in those chapters cannot fit a human being.

Of course they can. Most modern scholars believe that Isaiah is using a well-known mythological tale as an analogy to the failure of the king of Babylon's rebellion and arrogance. The idea that the king would deify himself was common in the ancient world. The arrogance of the king of Babylon (like most ancient kings of powerful empires) is well-known. Isaiah poetically represents such arrogance ini common images of stars, sacred mountains, and divine councils. There's nothing in the text of Isaiah's brilliant poetry that can't refer to humans.

"The morning star" (Heb. helel) is a perfect title for a pompous king, especially for Babylon, which was a predominantly astrological culture. "Son of the dawn" is from Canaanite mythology where an exalted figure is dashed to the lowest depths. Babylon was a vast empire that collapsed quickly into ruin. The king sought to take his place in the divine council ("I will raise my throne above the stars of God), just as arrogant as the builders of the Tower of Babel (which doesn't refer to Satan).

I see no problem at all with taking this text as a poetic reference to a pompous line of kings. There are problems, however, with taking this as a reference to Satan.

• From a contextual standpoint, Isaiah speaks against many nations and people groups. It's out of context to see this one as something different from that.
• The OT shows very little (if any) theological understanding of Satan. There's every reason to see the author's intention as deriding the nations, not as giving of Satanology.
• The text is more clearly about the pretense of human pride than it is about a character we know (almost exclusively from NT teachings) as Satan.

Those scholars who are they? Because the kind of descriptions of the people in those chapters cannot fit a human being. True there's no verse saying this is Satan. But it cannot be a human that's beyond a doubt.

I think it's most fair to respond that you heard wrong. It is strongly and deeply regarded by scholars nowadays that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 don't refer to Satan at all, but instead to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But even if these texts did refer to Satan, there is nothing in them to even slightly suggest that that Satan rebelled against God because humankind had free will. This "possible reason," therefore, is totally falsely manufactured and fictional, and therefore incorrect. No paradox exists because the foundational situation is erroneous.

I've heard one of the possible reasons satan rebelled against God is that mankind had free will...isn't that a paradox?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm legitimately confused how this is supposed to work