What if Jesus was a satanic agent?

lol

lol you forgot the read the NT; scanning websites run by cranks doesn't count as having read it.

 

You are becoming obnoxious. If you don't mind, I know better than you what I have read and what I haven't.

 

Oh ffs, some folks here are either just trolling or simply just that ****ing stupid that they don't even see the conjunction between state sponsered religions that praise the value of being poor / owning nothing.

 

This is simply your worldview and beliefs in play. You are trapped by them. You have posted that you believe that you have a direct link to the one true god of the desert rat f religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And that this tingle you get along your spine* when you feel this connection is proof that you have been provided with special knowledge of things that are simply not objectively true, and I can prove it with two very simple facts.

The two greatest populations on Earth are those of India and China. Populations do not enlarge among humans without love, without loving one another. These two populations have not succeeded in attaining this status due to any of these three insanely belligerent religions. India is Hindu and China is Confucian. Thus, Hinduism and Confucianism have succeeded well beyond measure of the one and only precept that is clearly of the most value to civilization from the NT and the teachings of Christ, imo: love one another.

*You are not the only person on Earth that feels this connection to god, or God, or Yahweh, or the Brahmin Atman....

 

I think that all religions are variants and perversions of the true religion. Similarly all humans go back to the originals. Reason also would conclude that there can only be one God. And there is only one name given under heaven whereby mankind are saved. I don't see it as entrapment, but as reality, which is either to be acknowledged or shunned. And so it seems to me that to breathe to live and to look to see are good things considering the alternative. There is only one life. And though people have various beliefs, it doesn't preclude an alignment or the bringing of order from chaos. That one plus one equals two is true. And wherever it is introduced, it takes hold because it is true. So mankind then becomes a prisoner of the simple truth. But rather than limiting us, it sets the stage for expansion and freedom. Jesus Christs gospel of repentance is like that. He was put to death for it. So he sealed his gospel with his death. And rather than his death doing away with his gospel, it draws all men to him because all men would that he should be silent and not speak the truth. Then men see that he spoke the truth and laid down his life in closure. They see that they put him to death because he taught to love and forgive and put away pride and all less than divine motivations. It was his lifes mission. He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, or chosen before the creation in the great plan of salvation concluded in heavenly halls.

 

The problem is people imagine and depict that God very differently. There is no one agreed concept of God.

Not for those who believe in reincarnation. There are many documented cases of people recalling their past lives.

Yeah, I hear that all the time - repent, repent, repent! But what's the point of repenting if it doesn't do any good? I mean if you are headed for a cliff, repentance would save you from falling down. But if you are still to fall anyway, what good it is if you fall with your butt forward?
In that sense, what is the point of repenting if God won't cancel the Apocalypse and the Tribulation? However, if a repentance "en masse" would turn things around and cancel all bad things described in the Apocalypse, repenting makes sense.
The question is: Is God ready to cancel the Tribulation and the Apocalypse if ENOUGH people repented?

 

Sometimes all you can do is to do as good as you know, and trust that all things will work out.

 

Yeah, I guess.
In the case of Christianity this looks like "repent of your sins, hoping Jesus will "harvest" you and place you in a nice afterlife".
Christianity is a death cult ... and may be that's a good thing. May be our journey in the material (physical) world is really coming to an end. In that case Christianity is vindicated.

 

Well, we eat, drink, take vitamins and exercise so as to live and not to die. But that doesn't make our time around the dinner table a death cult performance. We also go to the bathroom and take showers to rid ourselves of the bad. Repentance is how we cleanse our hearts, minds and souls of the bad. Life is a gift, a means of acquiring a temple for our spirits in preparation for eternity. It also goes to the importance of the concept of a resurrection and a reunition of our spirits with an immortal body. On the one hand it all seems kooky. But on the other it makes sense that our lives are a transition in Gods plan for our eternal happiness. Either way, we are here in transit, learning and gaining experience. Be thankful. God is a good person.

 

Well I meant that in the sense of that "This is the end" Christian movie, where one of he dudes was not raptured until he "repented" and gave up his selfishness or something. The unraptured, of course, were left to utter chaos and destruction here on Earth.
About that repentance thing. The real meaning of it is "to turn around", "to change your ways" and not necessarily feel sorry to the extent of ripping your hair out.

For example, if we don't "repent" of "climate change", there is a catastrophe coming. If we repent, i.e. "change our ways" and stop plundering the Earth and trashing the environment, may be we can survive.
The same goes for religion - if we repent of following "doomsday" religions, may be can live longer on this planet. But if we perceive the world as "disposable", there is no point of repenting and trying to save Nature and habitat.

God is a person? Wow, that's something new for me.

 

There it is -- YHWH is the demi-urge ... forget which early Christians had this ideology .. and I believe correctly so.

Ha - Satan transliterally (with the intended pun on literally .. ) means The Adversary .. as in it is a Title, not a name .. as just as in English .. Hebrew does not put the definite Article in front of a Name .. People do not say " The James has arrived to the party" .. we say "James has arrived to the party"

This Job Title .. given to one of Gods apparently numerous sons -- is one the Tester does .. at the behest of God .. not rebelling .. acting only within his Father's will - although questioning his Judgement.

This Ha-Satan Fellow has quite the array of God-Powers - if this is the same "Son of God" who tests Jesus .. as we are led to believe this God is also Chief God over the Earth ...as the Synoptic Gospels would have us believe .. Ha Satan is thus 1) a powerful God indeed but 2) an agent of the Most High ..

So while not shedding too much light on who the Devil might be .. at least we know who it is Not !?

 

Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

but .. I thought that Jesus was 1) God and 2) God was Good ?

So the claim that Jesus is God must be false.. Right

and -- #2 Very Important in convo about "Satanic Agent" - what is the Name of this God that you claim is a good person ?

 

All the time, not just sometimes

 

God the Father is a good person because of all that he has done and thought in his heart to do for our eternal happiness. Jesus as his agent, glorified him. I don't know the Fathers name. I only know his spirit as that is how he knew me. His spirit is divine. So I refer to him as God or Heavenly Father.

 

It is the damned definition of a death cult. And whether reality is cyclic or linear, each lifetime most assuredly is of finte duration.

 

That's true. But sometimes it's more difficult than at other times. So you have to remind yourself or be reminded by another that the principle applies, even when it doesn't seem to evince any particular advantage, or appears meager to the challenge at hand.

 

I never meant to imply this is an easy thing to do. And sometimes it isn't even an easy thing to call the difference.

As to the results of our individual calls and actions, we can only include as much analysis about the expected outcome as we can, which is very limited for most of us. So faith does play an essential part, even though folks like Richard Dawkinsmay contest the meaning of this word in this context, it's pretty clear to me that everyone lives to a largeextent according to things equivalentto faith: i.e. flying is safe.

 

But... Jesus told His followers to believe in ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAD SPOKEN.....
which includes Isaiah chapter forty five.....
where Jesus predicts that He will raise up modern leaders like King David... who will organize the
massive STING OPERATION that will bring down what Sir Winston Churchill called The High Cabal......

and former Atheist and near death experiencer Rabbi Alon Anava terms The Eruv Rav....

Although President Trump's four hundred or so Christian advisors had a lot of misconceptions......
and in my opinion he would have gotten far better answers out of former Satanist John Ramirez and his buddy near death experiencer Kevin Zadai Th. D......
none the less..... world events are moving on perfectly toward the fulfillment of every word in Isaiah chapters forty two, forty three.... forty four... forty five.. and forty six....... which will lead to the fulfillment of every world in Ezekiel chapters forty to forty eight......
......
.......

and the gifted Prophet Kim Clement did indeed explain critical aspects of how this will all take place.....
.....
Two President, dealt with by Spring and CANCER DEFEATED within two years.

These predictions from way back in 2007 are now more relevant than ever in 2024!!!!!!!!!

Bill Gates repenting...... and opening some sort of Financial Gates for the Bride of Messiah to go to all the world... is a shocking prediction..... Bill Gates has been a very, very, very bad boy!!!!!!!!




Everybody from India knows how awful Bill Gates really has behaved.....
his plans to force farmers in India to go with GMO plants.... was one of the worst ideas that any wealthy person has ever had in the history of this earth!

154 farmers, daily wagers die by suicide daily: NCRB report
Overall suicide rate in 2022 up by around 4%

 

Speak for yourself. You are not a we. When you try to refer to yourself in the plural you simply inflate your ego precisely because you compensate for insecurity.

Next, you have yet with anyone let alone me pointed out any passage you claim they or I did not read let alone misrepresented in meaning.

I need two posts to answer you and illustrate how you try hide your ignorance as to the topic I mentioned with insults.

I start by arguing nowhere in the Old Testament did the term "son of God" make the son one with God and so the Jews who followed the Old Testament would have never used it in that manner.

So I responded to the above and he poses as having the only true meaning for all passages of the NT he shows his meaning did not come from Judaism or the Old Testament which necessarily is flawed as the origins of Christianity let alone its terms did not just magically create new meanings from the same earlier metaphoric references. That would make no sense. For the meaning to change, the metamorphic references would have to first change.

Next, Jesus and his followers and the Jews of his time would have spoken Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek. However the language of the oldest New Testament manuscripts are, in fact, in Greek which when they translate Armaic and Hebrew would have huge gaps in translation easily distorting the original meaning when restated in Greek or for that matter Roman.

As well the passages of the New Testament are not directly from Jesus but "according to what he said" which means they are what is called hearsay. Because they are not direct they too are subject to distortion in meaning for each and every layer removed they are and all you have to do is play broken telephone to understand that.

In original Armaic and ancient Hebrew the word ‘son’ is used in many different metaphorical ways depending on its context in the Old Testament. Iy never had any one fixed literal one size fits all meaning as you claim it must have in the New Testament.

You clearly are unaware the word for ‘son’ is בֵּן (bēn) in Hebrew and another word for sone could be יֶלֶד (yě∙lěḏ), meaning child, and Hebre might use the word זֶרַע (zera) (offspring).

In the Old Testament language of Hebrew the term son is fluid not static and fixed to but one meaning and so for example changed in meaning depending on its metaphoric reference to have these among other meanings:

1. literally to refer to physical descendants. For example, ‘he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch’ (Genesis 4:17). Here Cain names his biological son Enoch;
2. as a broader term of association. The plural ‘sons’ at times refers to youth or young men (Proverbs 7:7) and children. For example, ‘in pain you shall bring forth children’ (Genesis 3:16);
3. as a form of intimate address for younger companions, students or listeners to whom the one speaking stands in the relation of a father., such as in ‘My child, if you accept my words and treasure up my commandments within you…’ (Proverbs 2:1);
4. to express that the one speaking regards the one addressed as subordinate, For example, ‘‘Is this your voice, my son David?’ David said, ‘It is my voice, my lord, O king.’’ (1 Samuel 26:17), or that the speaker is calling himself subordinate (2 Kings 16:7);
5. for belonging to a certain class of individuals. For example, ‘son of Adam’ refers to being part of the human race (Ezekiel 2:1). It also refers to belonging to a certain social, national or ethnic group. For example, ‘Sons of Israel’ refers to the Israelite people (Genesis 32:32);
6. for belonging to a certain time or age. For example, ‘Son of a night’ refers to something that is one night old (Jonah 4:10);
7. As being characterised by a certain attribute, state or condition'
8. בֵּן חַיִל (bēn ḥǎ∙yil), literally means ‘son of strength’. It refers to a brave soldier, i.e., an elite fighting soldier (2 Samuel 17:10);
9. בֵּן בְּלִיַּעַל (bēn beliy∙yǎ∙ʿǎl), literally means ‘son of wickedness’ or ‘Son of Satan’ and refers to a wicked or rebellious individual (Deuteronomy 13:14);
10. עֳנִי בֵּן (ben oni), literally means ‘Son of poverty’, and refers to an oppressed individual (Proverbs 31:5);
11. מוּת בֵּן (ben maut), literally means ‘son of death’, and refers to a death-row inmate (Psalms 79:11);
12. אָדָם בֵּן (ben adam) means ‘Son of man’ refers to a person of person of low social class (Psalms 49:2).

In the Old Testament Use the term "son" has also been used many ways in reference to kings, judges and prophets of God which is also important when Christians begin to use it in the Pagan sense to mean Jesus and God are the same.

In the Old Testament God referred to King David as ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.’ (Psalms 2:7). None one gave that the meaning it is given by Christians to say it means Jesus is God.

In the Old Testament God was also said to make these references when talking about about judges, prophets and kings:

‘I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;’ (Psalms 82:6).

It was also used to refer to a people who were to do the will of God on earth, when he described the tribe of Israel or Ephraim as:

‘Is not Ephraim my dear son?’ (Jeremiah 31:20).

The term "son" was also used to describ a righteous individual: ‘for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him.’ (Wisdom of Solomon 2:1.

Im summary, in Hebrew the term ‘Son of God’ as used by Jews would have meant an individual, subordinate to God, who had been given a divine mandate – in his case, being the Messiah and so the ‘Son of God’ as Jesus referenced it meant as referring to himself as a prophet (navi) or messiah (mashiakh). Both those terms denoted human beings.

In fact there are no words where Jesus in Hebrew or Armaic said he was divine. In his use of the word SON but that term in Hebrew among many meanings could refer to the "Messiah" never described as God or a God but as being a human sentg to carry out prophetic duties.

Jews only had references for "God" as being a singular one of a kind concept not shared not a ‘Son of God’ in any sort of polytheistic fashion. This is why Jews, Armaic and Hedbrew used the construction ‘Son of God’ with the personal name of God (Yahweh), BIUT NEVER JOINED IT UP WITH THE TERM ‘Elohim’ used to describe God as a unique spiritual entity by itself. No Jewish construct divides up the God itself into any other category. You can have portions or particles of this God remove themselves from the God to be their own essences but NOT at the same time as being Elohim.

That is what I said. I never said the NT said that. I said Judaism would have said that and original Christians did NOT refer to Jesus as God until AFTER the NY was written in Greek and added the new meaning Jesus is now God.

‘The Old Testament often uses בֵּן (ben) and בַּר (bar) for beings which belong to the divine world or sphere, but they are combined with other words for God, never with the name יהוה (Yahweh), rather with אֱלֹהִים (Elohim).’

That clearly went zip over the head of who I addressed.


In fact Biblical scholars of Christianity and Judaism agree that the term ‘Son of God’ in the Old Testament refers to the affiliation of ANY human being with God, either in being granted temporal authority through divine mandate, or in being righteous,carrying out the Law of God, and being characterised by piety.

So to take the above and assign the term "Son of God" to only mean it refers to Jesus being God (one and the same) is NOT a concept original Christianity used.

That was my point the person above could not understand.

 

In fact the Old Testament has 5 and the New Testament have 5 "sons of God" references: (see: https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...the-sons-of-god-were-they-angels-or-people/__) which were never used to mean Jesus was the only son of God.

More to the point, even if we look at the New Testament, the Hebrew term בֵּן (bēn – son) is usually found translated as the Greek word υἱός (huios) but its meaning still depends on reading the metaphoric reference for it to get the context of its meaning-no you do not remove the words "Son of God" and give them a stand alone, one size fits all meaning ignoring the metaphoric context in which it is used.

Here are examples of how the metaphoric reference creates the meaning associated with "SON" or "SONS" of God and how many different meanings they can have not just in the Old Testament as I stated in an earlier response but in the New Testament as well that continues to use the metaphors the same way they were used in the Old Testament:

1-Jesus was said to have granted two of his followers (both brothers) the title of ‘sons of thunder’ (Mark 3:17), but that is a metaphoric reference to their zeal or intensity in following the words of Jesus;

2-Jesus is said to have declared an unrelated follower as the ‘son of Mary’ (John 19:26-27), and in this metaphoric reference he was likening his followers to being members of his spiritual family, a collective reference for his followers he also stated whe he said, ‘For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’ (Matthew 12:50);

3-Jesus was said to have referred to allJ ews as ‘sons of the Devil’ (John 8:44) and then to have denied their ‘sonship’ of the prophet Abraham in the spiritual sense, (he never denied they were his physical descendants or he was a Jew), when he stated ‘If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did "(John 8:39);

4-Jesus was said to have referred to wisdom as being justified by her children (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35).

5-Further Jesus was said to have illustrated he was indeed aware that the word "son" could be used to define a son as being inferior to his father when he rejected the title ‘Son of David’, clarifying he was not subordinate to David. (Mark 12:37).

More words according to Jesus:

6-‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Matthew 5:9)

7-‘But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven;’ (Matthew 5:44-45).

In fact the vast majority of Christian theologians teach that the term "the sonship of God was something that could be attained through good deeds and so the term denoted becoming holy, purified, and godly."

In fact in Judaism, teekam olem is the above, the concept that when you do good you are healing the world by passing on the energy from God given to you but equally so, if you do negative or bad, you injure the world or engage in what Christians deem sin or evil. That is what I originally said.

What I said was the person Jesus by Christians is not said to have been born a ‘Son of God’ but rather became a ‘Son of God’ by his deeds and being declared a son of God by Baptism.

This is now crucial to understand, there is only a single place in all four Gospels where Jesus (as) explains the use of the term ‘Son of God’ in relation to himself. One place.

This explanation of coursefound in the Gospel of John, which states that Jesus (as) proclaimed that he was one with the father, upon which this story line (gospel) says when he said this "the Jews" tried to stone him, stating that he had blasphemed by calling himself God and then Jesus is said to have replied:

‘Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:34-36)

The person I respond to ignores the first two comments. He ignores Jesus actually said anyone who believes in God is his son (and daughter). Nowhere does Jesus respond and say " I am the only Son of God, none of the rest of you are.." he actually says we are all sons of God if we follow him. So reinventing that phrase to mean only he is claiming to the one and only son of God and it makes him one with God is not what it said but that concept of being sent as God's son different from all humans is in fact an unoriginal pagan construct.

This is precisely why he died engaging in blasphemy because he never said he was God or the only son of God. In fact argued the OLD TESTAMENT definition of what sons of God meant when itreferred to certain human beings as gods and specificalluy the Book of Psalms, where it is stated:

I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.’ (Psalms 82:6-7)

As I have repeatedly stated Jews never interpret texts literally; weunderstood them as being metaphorical – a term applied to human beings who had been given a divine mandate.

In fact Jesus used the term "son of God as a metaphor and not in any way affirming his own divinity which is why he said:

‘Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works…’ (John 10:37-3

Read the above. He refers to THE WORKS not himself.

Nowhere was he said to have told anyone he was literally God he challenged people to define him by his deeds and actions.

Bottom line, when Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God he never ever stated this also meant no one else doing the same good deeds could not call themselves sons of Gods as well. That prohibition of anyon else using that term never came from any words of Jesus.

So please provide me the words where Jesus said, only he was the son of God, no one else.

Why is it three of the four Gospel writers omitted any reference of Jesus (as) using this important term for himself, and the one time the phrase is used it never states he was the ONLY son of God.

Now it is also said Jesus may have described himself as the ‘son of man’, but that is an Old Testament phrase, which most importantly does not refer to a divine figure, but ben adam, i.e., Adam the first son of man and like all descended from him flawed.

Jesus in fact in the NT most often uses the titles ‘son of man’ and ‘the son’, NOT the term ‘Son of God’ precisely to avoid it being misunderstood as him being the only son of God. When Jesus uses the term the metaphoric context is always in the sense of him being an example of how we all are a son of God by carrying out good deeds or what the Old Testament refers to as the ‘Servant of God’.

Again I repeat nowhere in the Old Testament is the term Messiah used to describe that entity as divine.

Christians have removed Old Testament passages to claim they mean they predicted the coming of Jesus but those are subjective interpretations and not based on any words that say that but instead are imposed that meaning.


In Judaism we can say a ‘servant’ of God makes us his son or daughter...the term in the Old Testament is עֶבֶד ebed, meaning slave, servant, or worshipper and is meant to mean we are humble and there is a bigger meaning of life rather than just to serve ourselves.

In fact my original words were a gross simplistic interpretation of the Kaballah a mystic tradition of references to God as an infinite source of all.

The original Greek term Son of God , huios tou theos also means ‘servant of God’:

Bottom line: there are NO original words of Jesus (as) in his native tongue to compare the Greek texts against.

In fact given how Christians avoid so many literal translations of the NT passages its interesting they ignore part of the John passage and give it a literal fixed meaning ignoring how "Son of God" was actually used everywhere else in the OT and NT

Do Christians believe since Jesus is also referred ti as the ‘Lamb of God’ in the Gospel of John (John 1:29, 36) no Christian really thinks that Jesus was a literal lamb?

At one point he was referred to as the ‘son of Joseph’ (Luke 4:22). Well if you read that literally was there then a virgin birth?

Christians who read Jesus is God in passages also read anything else they want into what passages mean and if you agree with them you are going to heaven, if you don't you go to hell. That is a classic recipe of hatred and intolerance and yes if you turn Jesus into God then one must ask, does that turn Jesus into the very thing Satan tried to become and was hurled out of heaven for if you accept the stories literally?

What if Jesus was in fact Satan claiming to be the ‘Light of the World’ (John 8:12), ‘The Bread of Life’ (John 6:35), ‘The Living Bread’ (John 6:51) ‘The Resurrection and The Life’ (John 11:25).

If all of that is literal in meaning is that not how Satan describes himself as well?

The difficulty with metaphors is that there are no qualifying words telling us that we are dealing with something that is not literal and so in this topic you end up having some self proclaimed know it all telling us what we must believe.

My ideas are unoriginal and are better stated at:

https://www.reviewofreligions.org/3...-son-of-god-examining-the-historical-context/

 

The more you try bluff your way through this thread with insults the more you show your inability to discuss the subject matter. You fool no one with the affected attempts at insults. Either debate the topic or move on. Continue to insult people with nothing to say to the subject and I will report you. Grow up. Either debate the topic or move on.

 

Sorry mate - but this response makes no sense. Just because a person does a few good things .. does not necessarily make that person good. You have to weigh the good against the bad .. and you have not done so. You now state you do not know the name of this God you are referring to .. so how can we list these good and bad deeds .. such as to make an assessment ?

For Example - you would not call Lord Jealousy a "Good Person" .. by any reasonable definition of the term.

Is the God named Jealously the God you are referring to as "Heavenly Father" .. as goes the prayer taught to us by Lord Jesus "Hallowed be thy Name" - but you don't know the name .. so can't be a very hallowed prayer now can it .. A prayer with no address put into the mail.

A) If you don't know the God you are praying to and B) Ha Satan -- the tester ... Chief God over the Earth -- with great powers -- including the power of deception - and one of the minions of decepticons has eyes for you ... how do you know that this divine spirit is not from Ha Satan ..one of the minions ..

The fact that you do not know the name of the God to which you pray "Hallowed be thy name" is perhaps where you need to begin your search.

When the beloved minions show up at your door friend ... -- did you think they will be adorned with red cape, horns and a Tail ? .. that the Snake is actually going to look like a Snake ? The greatest deceiver -- A God, Chief God over the Earth , with Tremendous God Powers.

Is that what is going to happen ? .. but You Know .. Don't know the Name of this God or what this God looks like but, you are going to recognize when you see right !!

You forget that I banged on the door .. and it was opened .. Met this Grande - nameless faceless entity you wish to confuse with "Spirit" .. a man made construct with no solid definition .. no foundation on which to rest one's faith.

but that is not how it works in the Earthly realm --- those recognition glasses only work in the heavenly realm .. and on this distinction rests your first mistake / error .. little deception for which you have fallen. and we are just getting started

 

My answer is my answer. Don't over think it.

 

Not an unexpected response .. and great thought stopping technique .. .. screaming implantation ! har har..

"Don't Think" -- that's classic friend Let me trouble you no more would not want to exercise any of those demons ... in a thread about Satanic Agency !

but on second thought, how is it that you do not know the Name of your God ? .. or is it that you don't want to tell us because the God you worship is not Lord YHWH. Is it the Adversary ? or perhaps that nasty God named Jealousy ..

Do you not know the Hallowed name of the God of Jesus Injeun ? .. Our Father, who art in heaven ?

 

I agree with most of your commentary on the use of "Son of God" in the NT --- I am curious about the use of the term "Son of Man" .
Disagree with your commentary on the use of Sons of God in the OT. a term which almost never refers to Humans .. and certainly not in Psalm 82 .. nor Job .. nor the "Sons of God" that come down from heaven and take wives of Earthly women.

All referring to "Sons of God" = the divine kind of Son .. offspring of God and God .. according to Abraham and the Israelites at least.

And Yes .. this means that Ha Satan we see in the NT --- the spritely spirit who tests Jesus in the Desert .. Also a God .. Son of God .. and rather powerful one at that .. Chief God over the Earth .. and an impressive array of Godly powers.

Oh .. and lest we not forget .. all those divinities in Deut 32:48 .. What ? What divinities .. oh .. sorry .. did they get Edited out of your Bible ? or do you have one of the good copies where the divinities are still there .. lest we not forget the big amount of Pious fraud and artistic license directing the Text towards Monotheism.