Evidence for God from Science

taken from a previous thread

PaulSacramento wrote:Even the Devil was God's son

Yes, God was Satan's Father, which would make him logically God's son. Then there is the theological concept "sons of God", which shouldn't be reduced to this logical sense. This more theological concept represents, for example, those who were lost but have been found in Christ, returning to their heavenly Father to be taken back into His Kingdom.

So then, so far as Satan is concerned, theologically speaking, he is no longer a son of God, for he has been cut off due to his rebellion with no hope of return. Yet, logically, God is nonetheless his Father since there is no one else who gave him existence.

I suppose a parallel of sorts could be drawn to children who are adopted and grow up with their adoptive parents. Is the true Mum and Dad the ones by birth that they were separated from in life for one reason or another, or the ones they've grown up with?

In a sense that God created angels, God is the father of them. But I challenge you to find anywhere in scripture that says Satan was "God's son".

When scripture uses "sons of God" to denote angels, it's a term that's used collectively for angels. To then change that and use "God's son", it changes the meaning.

There is no explicit statement that The Devil was God's son.
The Satan in Job was one of God's Son's ( that is implied in his presences amongst God's Sons).
If The Devil was an angel then he was part of God's first direct creation and as such, God's son.
If The Devil was one of the "Son's of God", they he was God's Son.
If The Devil is to be associated with/ is the person in the Prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, then he was God's Son.
So...
While there is no DIRECT and EXPLICIT statement that The Devil is God's son, IF he is any of the above then he is, be default one of God's Son's.

RickD wrote:When scripture uses "sons of God" to denote angels, it's a term that's used collectively for angels. To then change that and use "God's son", it changes the meaning.

Angel is a job description, you know that.
Anyone can be an angel ie: messenger BUT when it is applied to a being from God's realm then it CAN ( not always is) be on of the Son's of God, ie: an Elohim.

There is a danger here, considering Jesus' title is Son of God, for those who aren't theologically inclined to make all sorts of misrepresentations based upon equivocating similar sounding terms which mean very different things.

There is only one Son of God, so does that then mean we who are in Christ aren't also sons (and daughters) of God? No, we understand different senses are intended. So far as Christ is concerned, such is a title which points to His divine identity (to those who understand Christianity). So then, in the sense that Jesus is the Son of God, then no one else is the "Son of God".

If we then look to a different second understanding of God's children, such are said to be those who follow God, we're adopted and become children of God in Christ. (Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5)

You're not going to find in Scripture Satan is God's son, because such is theologically incoherent in terms of how Scripture often means "father". Scripture tends to talk in terms of "father" as the one we follow. (John 8:42; 1 John 3:10) Who is our father, Satan or God? Who are we going to follow. You see, very different understanding of "father" here. In this sense of the term, no one except those found in Christ are children of God, and adopted in Christ at that (since all of us have turned away in unrighteousness).

So then, we can take a look at even a third understanding. Clearly, we can all see in some worldly sense how everyone in the world are God's children. Since God is ultimately creator of us all, and according to Christianity we all bear God's image, so in such a sense God is Father to all (though many don't wish God to be their father and turn away).

I'm not sure why people would get their knickers in a knot if someone referred to all people as God's children. Clearly, the sense they mean such is the third way above (sense #3). Likewise, if a Christian says only those in Christ are God's children, clearly they mean sense #2. And further still, only Christ is the Son of God (sense #1).

So then as for Satan, with PaulS's comment, clearly I understand he is making some reference to the most general sense that Satan was created by God to be a most beautiful angel. If we transfer sense #3 to angels as well, even fallen angels like Satan, then Paul is indeed correct in this sense if such is what he means. But, most definitely not true in senses #2 or #1.

So where do your thoughts lie Blondie?

Theologically speaking, in terms of inheritance and belief, NO, Satan is NOT God's son.

As a created being and,possibly, one of the Elohim, one of the "sons of God" then yes, he is a son of God.
This is not a Mormon view since Christ as Son of God is given with a qualified - monogenus ( one of a kind) that makes it clear that there is no other Son like Him, ie: God the Son.

Satan, being created by Jesus ( " all was created by Him, through Him and for Him"), can't be his brother and, probably, would look upon Christ as his creator.