Talk:Devil in Christianity

Old Nick
Why is the devil called Old Nick in English? (wiki refers to this article when looking for Old Nick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.25.212 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this in the Satan article
I don't think we need two articles for this, having it all in one would make it more complete. This article isn't huge for it not to be in there at the moment, assuming there's any of this not in there. Sticky Parkin 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Disputes section of the article
The disputes section is not inappropriate arguing between members, but contains issues that do come up in theological discussions about the devil. It is a matter of common teachings against Biblical evidence, and is something that must be considered when discussing the devil. It does NOT matter if one agrees or disagrees with one side or the other, the content should remain. No real argument for removal has yet to be presented, just disagreement with what is in there. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are currently no references to show that a) these are actual disputes or b) they are significant disputes. The first one looks like original research (the Bible is a primary source and can't be used as a reference) and the second one is simply a quote backing up a commonly held Christian position. Please find references for the relevance of these or remove them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

False
It is a common misconception that Satan is depicted as the Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.72.3 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)



Relevant image
Here's a redrawing of the arms which were attributed to Satan in some forms of medieval European tradition... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Who Speaks English Rewrite This?
"Some Christian concepts of the Devil include Lucifer, which traditionally gives a name to the Devil. The name, Lucifer, is translated from the Latin, meaning loosely, "Light Bringer" (analogous to the Greek, Phosphorus) and is also used symbolically to mean the "Morning Star", (i.e. Venus), which held some significant meanings for Babylonians as mentioned in Isaiah 14:12. Since the time of Origen, Lucifer is not used to refer exclusively to the "king of Babylon", but rather solely (or additionally) makes reference to Satan before he fell, while he was yet uncorrupted, but powerful and glorious and an angel of God." GeneCallahan (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Gene. Done, and dragged all the other scattered info on Lucifer (which has its own article) in as refs in the same section. Someone who speaks English, and someone who can actually cite references, could go over the entire article with a scythe. For an article about Christian teaching on... there's (with the exception of a few areas) almost no sourcing to actual Christian teaching. No Augustine, no Luther, no Billy Graham, no Pope John Paul II, just Wikigraffiti. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I've done is try and move everything into boxes - there was/is a massive amount of duplication, all of it unsourced (as is the way with duplication)

Contents: * 1 Sources of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by topic * 2 History of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by time * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church = Christian teaching on.. by group * 4 Characteristics = [dubious heading? stuff that didn't fit, yet] * 5 Theological Disputes = Christian teaching on.. by more than 1 viewpoint * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) = [stuff that needs moving out to...] * 7 References

The contents tree breaks down: * 1 Sources of Christian teaching o 1.1 Old Testament + 1.1.1 The Serpent (Genesis 3) + 1.1.2 Job's adversary (Job 1) + 1.1.3 David's satan (2 Sam 24. & 1 Chron. 21) + 1.1.4 Jeshua's Satan (Zechariah 3) + 1.1.5 Azazel + 1.1.6 Isaiah's Lucifer (Isaiah 14) + 1.1.7 Cherub in Eden (Ezekiel 28) o 1.2 New Testament + 1.2.1 Gospels = mess + 1.2.2 Acts & Epistles = mess + 1.2.3 Revelation = mess o 1.3 Extra-Biblical Material = is there more? * 2 History of Christian teaching o 2.1 Patristic Period  = totally lacking sourced material o 2.2 Gnostics o 2.3 Middle Ages o 2.4 Cathars o 2.5 The Reformation  = totally lacking sourced material * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church o 3.1 Roman Catholic views o 3.2 Eastern Orthodox o 3.3 Evangelical Protestants = totally lacking sourced material o 3.4 Latter-day Saints o 3.5 Unitarians and Christadelphians * 4 Characteristics o 4.1 Rebel = relevant, but where? totally lacking sourced material o 4.2 Possession = probably needs link to          o 4.3 Black magic = probably needs link o 4.4 Christian tradition = ? * 5 Theological Disputes o 5.1 Hell o 5.2 Sinfulness of angels * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) * 7 References

Does this structure cover most possible sourceable content on the subject Christian teaching on... In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page rename?
Devil (Christianity), just a suggestion In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut comment about the Screwtape letters
I cut the following about the Screwtape Letters from the Anglican and Episcopalian section
 * However C. S. Lewis in his Screwtape Letters is informed by a view that the devil is real and literal.

Here's my justification: The Screwtape Letters is a work of fiction. The presence of the devil in a work of fiction has nothing to do with the author's actual beliefs. If we were to argue that all of C.S. Lewis's allegorical writings were indicative of actual views, then we might as well claim that the Chronicles of Narnia is informed by the view that Jesus took the form of a lion at some point. IF Lewis believed in a literal personification of evil, AND if that information deserves mentioning in the article, it seems like it would be better to find the information from his nonfiction. eldamorie (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably a fair point, and per WP:PSTS a secondary source describing Lewis' reasons for writing the book would be preferable. Given Lewis' importance however, in English literature on this topic perhaps second to Milton, it'd be nice if there was something... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I spent some time with JSTOR (which is unfortunately the only database I have access to at the moment), but I was unable to find anything about Lewis' reasons or perspective on the book. In fact, I was unable to find any concrete statements on whether or not his belief in the devil was literal or figurative. I noticed that apparently, current editions include a preface by Lewis commenting on his motivations - if anybody has access to this it would at least provide a source for his views. It looks like Mere Christianity might be helpful also. eldamorie (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "recent", but my 1970s paperback (ISBN 0-02-086860-X) has a "Preface to the paperback edition" which makes it clear that although he did believe in devils in a somewhat Christianly orthodox way, he used them in the Screwtape Letters as a literary device, not really as an accurate portrayal of his doctrinal beliefs. The sentence above is rather unfortunate, since Lewis makes it clear that he believes in "devils" (plural) much more than in "the Devil"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the word "history"?
The last sentence of the opening paragraph reads as follows "Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology." The word 'history' implies historical events rather than previously written literature. It gives an unnecessary bias towards the POV of the existence of the Devil. A more appropriate term would be 'literature' or 'stories', which both seem more like the appropriate term in this context. Permafry42 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "lore". Good call. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i saw a vision on a person On the top of his head was a halo of satans horns circling around  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.67.147 (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When? Citation needed here:
Second sentence:

"Satan" later became the name of the personification of evil.

When is this "later" ? When was this concept clearly defined? Since the Jews didn't, and still don't to this day, believe in Satan or hell as the Christians do, then Jesus must have introduced it somewhere. Where and when? Darius 1 522-486 BCE made the official religion Zoroastrianism of the Persian area, which first introduced the concept for a personification of evil to the Jews, but it obviously didn't take. I think this is HIGHLY important as this is one of the cornerstones of all Christianity and to have no citation is pretty bad. Darrellx (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We would need a reliable source to say something in the article, but off the top of my head, the Book of Enoch and some other second temple literature that was rejected by what would become mainstream Judaism popularized the idea of Satan as a personification of evil. Also, the Book of Tobit (the author of which would have considered himself a devout Jew) features Ashmedai, from the Persian "Aeshma Daeva."  Judaism hasn't remained static for the past 2300 years.  No religion can remain static and survive for 230 years, let alone 2300.
 * And this isn't exactly a cornerstone of Christianity -- Satan isn't exactly the focus of any creeds, and the New Testament says very little about him. Christianity's (diverse) views on Satan do often distinguish post-classical Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions, but most of its core tenants had to be normal among certain branches and sects of second temple Judaism or else the religion simply would not have gotten off the ground.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Darrellx -- actually, Christianity received most of its Persian influences through Judaism. The ideas of heaven and hell (as opposed to the vague shadowy Sheol of the Bible) and angels as actively doing good (as opposed to being mere messengers) were introduced into Judaism by direct or indirect Persian influence, and there are more influences in some of the Jewish apocrypha... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Christianity is thousands of years older that Judaism consequently it can not possibly inherit anything from a relatively new ideology. You are confusing it with Catholicism and offshoots which IS/ARE Judaism. Judaism/Catholicism is 180 degree opposite to Christianity. Since these are confused, some aspects warranted to be highlighted: In Christianity, the Creator loves everybody equally - in Judaism/Catholicism Yahweh (God) chooses the Jews to be HIS favorites. Hence the Creator is universal while Yahweh is a tribal god. This can not possibly be 'reconciled'. Christian teachings in Akkadian times - 2700 BC - was referred to as US-TAN meaning 'old teaching'. 'Utnapistin' in Gilgames means UT-NAB-IS-TIN: 'the way of the old teaching of the Sun'. In the word CHRISTIAN -> CRSTN one can immediately see: COER-ISTAN that is the 'old teaching of the circle' where the circle is the representation of the Sun. (In Sumerian texts a circle is a deity, three circles mean The Creator.) They all revolve around the same world-view. Regarding SATAN; it has two syllables, two words joined - agglutinative language. SA: bad, rotten, TAN (as above): teaching. IE: bad teaching. Sure, one can look at it as 'adversary'. Suddenly has a meaning... Both (and all above) are 'Sumerian' words. Need to study Sumerian.(From Deimel, Labat and others of the time for the later from the University of Philadelphia ... may not be entirely accurate, so to say. But wait! There is more! Some extra: they understood, the Creator created the Sun to keep us alive so the Sun is representing the Creator's love. Since it is circular the circle represents the Sun. Since yellow gold is similar in color to the Sun, a golden ring is exchanged in the wedding ceremony meaning 'my love is eternal like that of the Creator's'.

Anonymous "Christian" websites = "Some theologians"?
The section on the "Sinfulness of Angels" begins with the sentence "Some theologians believe that angels cannot sin ..." That proposition is supported by references to two anonymous "Christian" websites (one apparently run by a guy named "Phil" since he is hawking his newest book on the Rapture on the home page) with catechism-like ansewrs to the question. Are these really sources that an encyclopedia relies on? Are these people really "theologians"? Why not just quote statements from televangelists? AnthroMimus (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Definition of 'theologian': A person who thinks and talks A LOT about things he has no idea about. But that doesn't make anybody an expert on a subject. The Christians' world view is to make life livable. Jesu's teachings can be summarized: Stop Being An A**hole! THEN we might just be able to live together. As far as religions and their propaganda go: one is just as good as the other.

John Milton in Paradise Lost
Can we get a citation for this section, specifically the proclamation made in the sentence: "He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others."Ta2dLibrarian (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Lucifer
I have rewritten the beginning of the Lucifer section, the text preceding the mention of Aquila of Sinope, to improve its organization. The previous version started out by mentioning a Babylonian myth of a "heavenly being" evicted from heaven for being overly ambitious; it then turned to the Old Testament prophecy, which has a similar story in, going on to note that Christians picked up on the idea. Then back to the Babylonians (aren't we through with them?) mentioning that, in their tradition, angels fell for being too interested in human women.

My revised version moves from the Babylonians to the prophet Isaiah then on to the Christian take on the matter without backtracking. It also avoids the awkward and ungrammatical phrase "Unlike in that" — "unlike" is an adjective requiring a noun or pronoun but no candidate is obvious. ("That" won't do because it's the object of a preposition.)

Peter Brown (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The John Milton Paradise Lost section
Greetings, Has someone a source for this claim "Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace."? It seems there have been indeed differences between both figures, however not to the extent claimed by the section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is unclear about Aquina's quote?
The following passage is marked with a tag "not specific enough to verify": "An angel or any other rational creature considered in his own nature, can sin; and to whatever creature it belongs not to sin, such creature has it as a gift of grace, and not from the condition of nature. The reason of this is, because sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that rectitude which an act ought to have; whether we speak of sin in nature, art, or morals. That act alone, the rule of which is the very virtue of the agent, can never fall short of rectitude. Were the craftsman's hand the rule itself engraving, he could not engrave the wood otherwise than rightly; but if the rightness of engraving be judged by another rule, then the engraving may be right or faulty." Is this quote merely too long or too unprecisely--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)?
 * The Summa Theologiae is a massive work, comprised of 3125 articles. The complaint is not that Aquinas is unclear but merely that the part, quaestion, and article have not been specified, rendering verification difficult. Peter Brown (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Still missing?
Greetings, apart from formatting the sources, is there anything important missing? --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: I think the lead-section might be expanded though. Summarizing more of the article, than just the most important points of the devil.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

How is it about Captions? Is the devil captalized? Per MOS:ISMCAPS titles such as Messiah or God should be. Does the same apply to the Devil/devil? I was quite inconsistence with captilazation before.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would further list a section about theological disputes: There could be a section about disputing Lucifer's affilation too. (Cherub, Seraph or neither).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The dark lower air between earth and heaven
Many religions contrast light and darkness, but I don't know of any that view the lower air as dark. On a clear night, the stars are visible; dark air doesn't block our view. Is there some religious tradition in the early middle ages that considers the air close to the ground as being dark? The ninth of the plagues of Egypt is recorded as darkness so thick that people could not see each other, but there is no suggestion that it was limited to the lower atmosphere and anyhow it only lasted three days. Peter Brown (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. In that case it is rather confusing. I remember the book describing it as such. It seems to originate from the Ancient Greek tradition assigning Daimons to the air between earth and heaven (upper air). Maybe the term "dark" is too metaphorical to be used. I will look up what exactly the source states and rephrase this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peter Brown (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the objection, Medieval thinkers could see the starts. Yes, but following the Platonic cosmology, Christian thinkers seem to that earth is impure and heaven pure and spiritual. Therefore, the closer something gets to the earth, the more thick their matter becomes.I might try to rewrite this part, since it is probably confusing for readers, who are not into Platonic cosmology.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas on the devil's rank in the angelic hierarchy
I must have erred in copy-editing. I attribute to Aquinas the view that "the higher an angel stood the more likely he was to become guilty of pride", which implies that the seraphim, who rank the highest, are the most vulnerable, but also the view that "the seraphs' characteristic love for God makes them unable to sin". These views are surely incompatible; Aquinas could not have held them both. Somebody please straighten things out. Peter Brown (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding this matter, I rely mostly on the secondary sources. As I understood, he just contradicted himself (have seen something like that in Muslim sources about the Islamic Satan's affilation too). I want to have a look at it again and try to find original passage and check if I misunderstood the source or they have been mistaken.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems there was a minor mistake during copy-edit (thanks for your ongoing efforts supporting me by the way), but still something odd. I read into the primary source regarding this matter, and I think Aquinas is kind of "inconclusive". It seems he clearly rejects that Satan was a seraph, but a cherub instead. But later writes about "the highest angel", who leads other angels into sin. Maybe he implied that this must be the highest of those angels able to sin? Secondary literature seems to be inconclusive about this matter too. I hope I managed to write this section in a way, it does not blame Aquinas for being contradictional. I am pretty sure, he means "the highest of the lower order". He further quotes parts of the Bible to underline that certain angels are related to the demonic (the rulers for example) but others not.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Belial in Psalm 41?
I don't see the word בְּלִיַעַל anywhere in this word-by-word discussion of Psalm 41:9. Perhaps another verse is intended? Peter Brown (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes the author gives some references to psalms, but the verse numbers are wrong. It is not 41:9 but 41:8. Similar, the source speaks about the term "belial" in 18:5 but it appears in 18:4.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Psalms has several different numbering schemes depending on the religion. Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks! This explains a lot. I did not know that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Too much about heterogeneous traditions?
I wonder if this might be too much for a Devil in Christianity article and should be moved into the main article instead? "After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there are still remaining parts of Bogomil Dualism in Balkan folklore. Before God created the world, he meets a goose on the eternal ocean. The name of the Goose is reportedly named Satanael and claims to be a god. When God asks Satanael, who he himself is, the devil answers "the god of gods". God requests the devil to dive to the bottom of the sea to carry some mud then. From this mud, they fashioned the world; God created his angels and the devil his demons. Later, the devil tries to assault god but is thrown into the abyss, lurking on the creation of God and planning another attack on heaven. This myth shares same resemblance with Pre-Islamic Turkic creation myths, as well as Bogomilite thoughts."--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "the main article". I advocate leaving this text where it is. Peter Brown (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant the Devil article, by "Main article". Well, the "Devil" article is still messy. If others are fine, I agree with keeping it here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lede
I see problems with the final paragraph of the lede as written. You have written it as the following: "Scholars considered heretical by Catholics, Christian Orthodoxy and Protestantism repeatedly asserted that the devil was partaking in the creation of the world or even the creator deity himself. Marcion, Valentinus, and later the Cathars and Bogomiles adhered to this belief. This view is rejected by all established Christian denominations."

First of all, the structure of this paragraph is like this: 1. scholars assert thing, 2. the big boys of Christianity reject it as heresy. 3. assert 4. reject. This sets up the impression that there are these rogue scholars out there who are "repeatedly" trying to push some kind of false belief. There are countless millions of Christians who are familiar with that exact structure: it's the religious diatribe. Thus they may be given the impression that the scholars are obnoxiously wrong, and that Wikipedia is subtly trying to push this view. You might say "well I didn't really say that the scholars were wrong, maybe all these mainline authority figures were wrong." This is true, you didn't write that. But no matter how unintentional, readers may be given that impression anyway, especially given the charged nature of words like "heresy" and the subject of the devil in general.

Secondly I take issue with just opening with "scholars". Which scholars, really? I'd reckon that most readers will assume that "scholars" means "modern scholars", because that's how the word is normally used throughout Wikipedia. Further, I'd reckon that most readers will assume that scholars means specifically "scholars of Religious studies" and not theologians trying to advance a particular theological point of view. Finally, the flow of the paragraph implies that the Cathars and Bogomiles are scholars, which is a bad implication because they were not generally scholars. BirdValiant (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair point regarding the ambiguity about the term scholar. Good someone points out possible misunderstandings.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Brüggemann
I don't what the ciation tag for Brüggman is asking for. I have never seen a citation needed to verify an author's opinion or a scholar, who needs to be verified by another scholars claim. I am wondering if there is a confusion. This is not Brüggman's view ont he devil, it is their evaluation/analysis of Protestants' works.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You did see my reason for the, available as a tooltip? It reads "Source needed for the claim that Brüggemann represents a majority view." I am not seeking verification that Brüggemann actually held the view attributed to him concerning Luther's practice or that it was correct but rather that"...most protestant preachers ... merged the anthropomorphic devils into only one unit of evil [and] argue that Luther himself merely used these anthropomorphic devils as stylistic devices for his audience ..."This is not to dispute Brüggemann's claims but this unreferenced assertion concerning "most protestant preachers".


 * Peter Brown (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, this was Brüügeman's claim. I do not know how likely it is, I will check it up.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I got it. You dispute that Luther's position is in contrast with the majority of Protestant teachers. I see. Yes, good point. Probably, if we take all into account, they would be both on equal, but this is more in contrast twith Luther's contemporaries (at least within Bruggman's context). I will rephrase it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There are two claims here, and either may be false while the other is true. One is that most Protestant preachers merged the devils into one. The other is that they viewed Luther's apparent support of a multiplicity of devils as a mere stylistic device, not to be taken seriously.  —  Peter Brown (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub are not the same!
Okay the bible often makes reference to Lucifer and Satan. And during these references they make them the same being. But in truth they are not. There are 7 princes of hell and both Satan and Lucifer are in the seven. So that being said they are 2 different beings it states it clearly. So with that in mind in the bible those are 2 different conversations with 2 very different beings. So what the Christian god can't tell the difference or is this misinformation purposely spread by the Catholic church? SlayerofGods (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In the section of Early Middle Ages we have: "Although theologians usually conflated demons, satans and the devil, medieval demonology fairly consistently distinguished between Lucifer, the fallen angel fixed in hell, and the mobile Satan executing his will". I think this makes clear that some sources distinguish between Satan and Lucifer.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The Bible often makes reference to Lucifer? In the King James translation, the only such reference is at Isaiah 14:12. And what is 's source for there being seven princes of hell, with Lucifer and Satan being two of them? In Islam, there are, but this article is limited to Christian thought.


 * Peter Brown (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Satan doesn’t actually do much in the New Testament
I am removing the unsourced statement in that "The New Testament records several accounts of the devil working against God and his plan." No examples are provided, and instances are hard to find.

At Luke 13:16, in connection with his healing of a crippled woman, Jesus calls her "a daughter of Abraham whom Satan had bound eighteen long years." At 1 Thessalonians 2:18, Paul wrote "... we wanted to come to you ... but Satan hindered us." Are there enough other examples that we can say that there are "several" of them? I doubt it.

Luke 22:3 and John 13:2 say that Satan inspired Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus, but this is not a case of Satan acting "against God and his plan" as it facilitated Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection which were very much in accordance with God's plan.

The Bible quotes above are from the World English Bible, which is in the public domain,

Peter Brown (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I will look it up, as soon as the review goes on. Maybe there will be more objections during the review, and I prefer to do many things in a short time intervall, rather than a lot of small things over a long period. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * VenusFeuerFalle I have rechecked the discussion on the review page, and it looks like I also had some trouble with this concept under the 'Lucifer' section. You were going to add more detail to further explanation, but it looks like you removed it entirely instead. There is some about it that I added under 'Belial', but I am thinking there is an important transition in concepts between the Old and the New Testament that you should call attention to in the 'Gospel' section by referring back to those Old Testament concepts that no longer seem to apply - and aren't there anymore. I would like to see those two things added if you agree.
 * Also, did you get my message in the 'I'm back' review section? I would like to see some mention of liberal and/or moderate Protestant views added as well. Evangelical is all there is right now and that's less than 30% of Protestants last I looked. I will go on with the rest of the review anyway, and I can help with these if you like, but I will want to see something. There is very little else to be done I think. Almost there! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the comment under the "I'm back " section. I am also not sure who exactly remoeved what from the Lucifer section. Yes, there is a transition between the concepts int he OT and the NT. I am not sure, however, if I find sources adressing this specific issue on focus on the NT. As far as I know, referncing to the earlier sections would be kind of Original Research (maybe I am overly catious about that?). But I will look out if I find something about, Belial, Accuser-Satan and so on. But yes, I completely agree, especially since the OT section seems to be more extensive than the NT one, and the main focus should rather be NT I think. I further agree with the protestant view. I haven't found much more, I concluded for myself, obviously the devil doesn't play an important role today. But if this isn't the case, I wonna make more research about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) edit: Okay, I found some literature, which might improve the New Testament section, and also deals with older concepts, such as Satan and Leviathan, are transfered to the New Testament. But I won't insert them today, I need to rest now. (it is late in Germany).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * VenusFeuerFalle Ach du lieber! Du bist Deutschlander?! I lived in Wiesbaden when I was a teenager, and that is almpost all the German I remember! Great place Germany! Oktoberfest is the #1 greatest holiday of all time anywhere in the world! God I miss the food and the beer, but also the Deutschlanders were really nice. I loved it there. Don't worry about the CN tags. I have already fixed one and just got online to do the other and found this, so I needed to respond and say Guten Morgen so when you get up tomorrow you will find that fixed with well wishes. Sleep well - uh let's see - gut schlafen? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * VenusFeuerFalle I have spent hours fixing those stupid tags that I hate so much, but I think they are all now sourced with accurate page numbers. I had to change some text, which I hope is okay. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The books I found are: "Deliver Us from Evil: Interpreting the Redemption from the Power of Satan in New Testament Theology" by Richard H. Bell. p. 10. It contains a reference about "diabolous" mentioned 37 times, that Satan is used as a proper name throughout the NT, and what NT witnesses do not necesarily speak about the devil explicitdly, the idea about the devil is often implied. "Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students" offers a chapter about how Satan, Belial, Demons became the Christian Devil on a chapter starting at page 145, and finally "Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students" by John Christopher Thomas speaks about the devil throughout the NT. I think I find time to examine this in more detail and would add the missing stuff then, on Monday. I don't have the mind for that today, and Sunday is busy. You don't need to overly exhaust yourself, although I really apprecaite your aid, I proposed the GA afterall. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I am a German of Turkish Anatolian origin. But I live in the north, so it is more rain than mountains and Oktoberfest. The citations are kinda annoying at least when added during a review (I always wonder why they haven't been added during the loooong time waiting for the review, instead of during the review, but they are important though. So, yeh.) Thanks for your help. I want to contribute my sources, as soon as I am able to focus again. These days are more busy than expected. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * VenusFeuerFalle So I guess that means you speak Turkish, German and English? Holy Toledo my friend! That's impressive. I do remember lots of rain. The weather was the one thing I did not like about Germany. I now live on the Gulf of Mexico where it is warm and sunny for most of the year. YAY! The content you mention - ""diabolous" mentioned 37 times, that Satan is used as a proper name throughout the NT - is in the article now. It's part of what I added already.  Feel free to add your sources accordingly. "how Satan, Belial, Demons became the Christian Devil" sounds worthwhile. Moving stuff around and adding some myself satisfied my need for those additions I requested, so they are no longer necessary. I am not exhausting myself at all. I know you nominated this for GA, and it is your work, but I am now emotionally invested in wanting to see you - and it - succeed. It isn't citations that are annoying, it's tagging that's annoying. It's like a drive-by - they shoot and leave. I know it's wikipedia policy, and it may be a good one, but it's still annoying! :-) Yes, Easter weekend with family over tomorrow and a big dinner, which I am cooking, so it is busy for me as well. Check out the edit history Monday, and I will finish commenting on the rest of the article. There is very little left.  It's all good. Have a great weekend! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My Turkish is limited to daily activities and smalltalk, and some basic academia stuff. But I took inspiration from the Turkish Wiki to start Wikipedia. I started, because on German Wiki there has been an article about Iblis with many mistakes. I also read stories about Iblis on English articles, lacking substancial backups, but the German one was straighforwardly wrong. Stating that the Quran entails a story about Iblis, once a jinni called Azazil, was allowed to guard the entrances of heaven but read that some servant of God will betray God and when Iblis curses him (himself without knowing). By that, he curses his own future and leads to his fall. I mean, such as story exists in some Sufi circles, but isn't really prevailent in Islam. Also there is much confusion here. The idea that Iblis was a guardian of heaven, depicts him as an angel, not a jinn. The jinn variant, portrays him as the grandfather of jinn, analogue to Adam -> humans. Worst of all, the name Azazil doesn't even appear in the Quran at all. I was unsure how to imrpove an Wikipedia article back then, and found a pretty acceptable example of a better Iblis-article on the Turkish Wiki. I largely translated this article for the German Wiki back then. I also started learning Middle Persian btw, but stopped, because it was offline and Covid numbers increased again in North Germany. And yes, it is mostly rainy or cloudy here, something I really don't like and often kills the mood. Hopefully, I can get out here after finishing my degree. Back to the topic, okay, so I can take the numbers from the list. Thank you very much, it was quite frustrating to search for the numbers. I don't even remember where I found them in the first place. I keep this in mind and try to to procceed tomorrow, slightly depending on whether or not, I have to work when. (Since it is tutoring, I am uncertain of they want to attend despite holy day). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Shushugah
Please change the nomination template to GA! Right now you are the only one who can. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * no problem and done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have its little symbol yet, does the bot have to do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks for all your efforts! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup exactly! I assume you mean the one on the article page itself? Only the talk page itself needs to be updated. Bots/caching takes care of the rest. At the end of the day, satanic rituals seem a lot more straightforward than Wikipedia botomation 😈 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amen brother! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
Right, I should correct this. A link is much better. Sorry for the delay, I haven't seen any notification of a reply to the nomination and just checked it today.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should ping, cause you probably didn't got a notification either. @Thriley--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Image revert
Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth I have reverted your revert of the images added by RileyXeon because the reasoning used for those reverts is incorrect. These images are indeed specifically designated as images of Satan. is an article on the painting "Fallen Angel" describing it as a picture of Satan, while this one explains the Doré is one of 50 such illustrations he did of Satan falling. While it might be good to distribute them more in the article, there is no reason to claim they have no place in it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Bartholomew
Some user(s) recently added repeatedly the Gospel of Bartholomew. Unfortunately, it was added under the "intertestamental"-header. As a New Testament apocrypha, it is not part of the formation stage. Next, it adds nothing to the article, since it is not important for the formation of the Christian devil. If it is, it must be shown and confirm to WP:GA (especially 3.b. stating: " it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"), since this is a GA article. It can't accept unnecesarily trivia. (see also: WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:1S) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Facts in dispute:
 * === Questions of Bartholomew ===
 * In Questions of Bartholomew, Satan is questioned and calls upon his son, Salpsan, for council.
 * If you ctrl+f you will not find “apocrypha” elsewhere. If you don’t like the section title lacking apocrypha, change it. If you think it belongs elsewhere, put it elsewhere within the article. Family line? Whatever you can do with it but delete. Children delete, adults improve (articles). Twillisjr (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Twillisjr (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Twillisjr Sorry, I find VenusFeuerFalle's reasoning sound and applicable and pretty much irrefutable. You don't offer any counter arguments, instead choosing to make condescending remarks about children and adults. Well, on WP adults delete and are mature enough to take it with some grace because they have lived long enough to know that no one is right all the time. I suggest a deletion of the off topic info and an apology to your fellow editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to go back on the “thank” I received for providing this with a citation initially. What is in dispute is its time period, not the content. Twillisjr (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * How did you come to that conclusion? ("What is in dispute is its time period, not the content") VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Twillisjr Before making accusations, it is good to check facts. Your edit was first introduced on 18 October 2022. See this revision:  I reverted it as it was without a source:  You responded by adding a citation, which I did not check, nor did I thank you. ;


 * The next deletion of the text was by 2a01:c22:84c0:2d00:58c2:c6e5:b6fa:5a4b : on 23 June, 2023. In their edit summary, this editor disputed the time frame. Here is you putting it back:  with no edit summary and no response to the dispute raised. Here is VenusFeuerFalle  reverting the same phrase:  giving her reason in the edit summary as  which is correct. Here is you putting it back again, with no explanation, no response, and no edit summary - again. In the next edit, it is reverted, again, and your participation on the Talk page to discuss this is requested.


 * So my response to all of this is this: first off, do some important reading that your comment makes necessary: . Follow this policy. It is neither helpful nor productive to comment on other people. Keep the discussion to content. Present reasoned arguments with good sources. Whoever makes the best most well-sourced argument wins these disputes generally, not whoever makes the snarkiest comment on their fellow editors. That kind of behavior can eventually get you banned from Wikipedia.


 * Next, memorize this one especially the section titled "Be helpful: explain" found here:  You consistently leave edit summary blank. Stop doing that. WP is a cooperative venture. Editors work together or they don't stay long.


 * So far, I fail to see any actual discussion of the merits of keeping this text, no response about its time frame, and no response to the claim that it does not qualify as intertestamental. If you are unsure what that means, WP has an article for you: Intertestamental period


 * That lack of response gives the win automatically to VenusFeuerFalle and 2a01:c22:84c0:2d00:58c2:c6e5:b6fa:5a4b . The text is reverted. If you replace the text again, it will be the third time, and I will report you for Edit warring: . Thank you for your cooperation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

FA?
Would this article also meet the FA (WP:FA?) criteria? If not, waht should be done to improve it further? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)