The Nature and Positions of Satan and His Demons

word up, been there seen "them".

dont go silently.

what do u think?

what do u think

Most of the attention in this study is given to Satan, not to his underling demons, because he is representative of all demons in his nature and goals. It must be understood, however, that the vast majority of all demonic activity is carried out by Satan's underlings, not by Satan himself. In common conversation, when it is said that Satan did a particular work, it almost always means that he was in charge of the work, not that he actually carried it out himself. It is like saying that Hitler killed six million Jews. It is understood that he, personally, did not do the killing, but that he gave the order for it, and that the hands-on work of killing was actually carried out by others under him in rank. Unless Scripture specifically identifies Satan personally as the one carrying out a specific activity, it should be assumed that that activity is carried out by one or more of his underling demons.

[link to www.biblestudyproject.org]

The Book of Isaiah, says that "someday, he'll meet him not as a man."

what do u think

He who dies for our sins...

Has given us all we need to take back our BIRTHRIGHT!!!

It is up to us...

Once we get it...

This is the second coming!!!

This is what SATAN is trying to do!!!

Keep us from our BIRTHRIGHT ...

Right on !!!

If, SATAN was helping us...

We would not be in this mess!!!

This is why was can win...

If, we believe in what is absolute!!!

…12Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. 13"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. 14"Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future."…

Persia. The other variant, "prince" instead of "king," has the support of all the versions. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days. That is to say, during the whole of Daniel's fast. The angelology of later Judaism is a very complicated, not to say confused, subject. The angelology of one age is not that of another; and the angelology of the Jews in one country is not that of the Jews in another. The Jews themselves understood that the Babylonian captivity did a great deal to develop the doctrine of the angels; the Jewish tradition was that they brought back from Babylon the names of the angels. Not only had their residence in Babylon defined the Jewish ideas as to the names f the angels, they began to have clearer ideas of their functions. They reached the idea that every race had its guardian angel. This view is expressed in Deuteronomy 32:8, according to the Septuagint, "He set bounds for the nations according to the number of the angels of God." To a similar purport is Ecclus. 17:17, "To each of the nations he appointed a leader, and Israel is the portion of the Lord." There seems, however, a preparation for this in Isaiah 24:21 (comp. also Psalm 29:1; Psalm 106:9). As independent of revelation there is a strong inherent probability that there are races of beings of intelligence and might vastly superior to man, there is nothing inherently improbable in these intelligences being employed by the Almighty in furthering his providential scheme. Men are instruments of God; is it not at least not improbable that, if there are angels, they, too, co-operate with God in the working out of his great purpose? That every nation should have an angelic prince over it is not more extraordinary than that every Church should have a special angel over it (Revelation 1:20; Revelation 2:2, etc.). That there should be conflicts between these angelic princes is simply to say they are finite. Hitzig's reference to Revelation 12:7 is not to the point, for there is no indication of warlike opposition here. By the indications here, we might judge that the opposition of the Prince of Persia was to the coming of Gabriel to reveal to Daniel the purpose of God. We know nothing of the means employed in the opposition, or of the reason of it. Keil and Kliefoth have the idea that Gabriel was striving to influence the King of Persia, but was hindered in his efforts by the "Prince of Persia;" this is scarcely berne out by the context. But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came t

What Do you guys think