This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith / Left Hand Path Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is within the scope of Left Hand Path work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Christianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Anglicanism / Baptist / Latter Day Saints High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Baptist work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance). Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Devil (Christianity), just a suggestion In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I changed it to "lore". Good call. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'.

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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 Isaiah 14:12 –15, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)?[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! Peter Brown (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Psalms has several different numbering schemes depending on the religion. Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! This explains a lot. I did not know that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle: 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)[reply]

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

@Peter M. Brown: 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)[reply]

You did see my reason for the {{cn}}, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Peter Brown (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am excited to review this GA nomination.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

•  Done The images selected are high quality, freely licensed and placed in relevant sections.
•  Done The prose style is well written as a whole, in a neutral and comprehensive manner. Most Christian denominations are covered and written in a balanced way.
•   Reliable sources are by and large used, however there is one failed verification (a nuanced one) and 4 citations missing tags, that definitely need to be addressed for this to pass.

• • This has all been checked and rechecked now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1 Samuel 2:12, the sons of Eli are called belial for not recognizing Yahweh and therefore violating sacrifice rituals should become In 1 Samuel 2:12, the sons of Eli are called belial for not recognizing Yahweh during the Slaughter offering, they were blasphemous in a priestly ceremony

• It took me a few seconds to figure what "around NUMBER" was referring to, I'd replace the term "around" birth/death years with {{circa}} to make it clear it's about years and not some other unit.

• Shemyaza is unusual spelling should be Samyaza maybe? I cannot easily verify what the source says

• Awkward phrasing eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the forbidden tree, could be rephrased like eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge

• There was a typo of monasticsm, but not sure if it's supposed to be monasticism or monism

Looking forward to your feedback and as long as you're actively working on it, happy to wait a bit longer before deciding. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi, Shushugah I am Jenhawk777 and I specialize in articles on religion. I was looking at the "remove the backlog" at GA and saw your disclaimer on how much you are able to work on this article and I thought I would volunteer to help out. This is an incredible article - but long - so if you would like any assistance, just let me know. I am available right now. Happy new year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jenhawk777 I'm a little confused which disclaim you're referring to. The disclaimer about limited time was from the person who nominated the article VenusFeuerFalle. Nonetheless, it's a very complex/technical article, so your feedback on this review and or the article itself is very much appreciated! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ahh, I didn't read that signature carefully. I thought that was you. So you don't really need me at all, you're doing fine, but I am terrifically interested in this article, so I may do a few small edits here and there. In answer to your questions above, Shemyaza and Samyaza are both used, so either is correct, which should probably be added, and the correct spelling is monasticism. Monism is a type of philosophy. If I get in the way, just tell me to piss off, and I will, no offense taken. Happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the delay, was not online for 7 days (or even longer). I will look for all the issues from now on.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now tried to edit some issues ("vague"-tags and "citation needed"-tags) and solved the problems listed above. Some did other users already (thank you very much), like "monasticism" or clarifying that the angel accopaning Azazel ccan be spelled both Samyaza or Shemyaza (I personally encountered Shemyaza more often, but, as stated above, both are valid). Regarding the section about Samuel, I am not entirely sure, but concluding from the GA review Box, I assume this section was suspected of original research, so I added a reference. Also changed "around" to "circa", using the proper template.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging reviewer Shushugah to let him know that some issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VenusFeuerFalle I understand you have asked for a second opinion. I am Jenhawk777. I write exclusively on religion and philosophy as those are my undergrad degrees, and I have some grad school in philosophy in the field of ethics. A glance at this article tells me a lot of quality work has gone into this. It's both impressive and quite fascinating. I will do a section at a time, if that works for you. I'll focus primarily on prose but I will also check content and do the occasional reference check as I go through.

While the devil played for most scholars no significant role in the Modern Era, he became more important in contemporary Christianity again. Sentence structure is awkward. I'd put 'For most scholars' at the front, and the second half needs explaining.

The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, and this one's a little thin, especially for such a long article with so much substantive content. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • And Hello VenusFeuerFalle I am glad to hear from you! If and when you have responded to any of my suggestions, I would appreciate it if you would mark them with the template  Done. It makes it easier for me to keep track. I note that you have posted reasons for not agreeing and that is certainly acceptable as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I will next time I am on this. I think I have time again on Sunday.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• accuser" or "adversary", which is used... This sentence is too long. Divide it. I suggest ending the first sentence after adversary and beginning the second sentence with "The term is used... That makes the third sentence begin with a repetition, so just change "The word" to It.
• When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser,[7] but when it is used with the definite article (Ha-Satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser: "The Satan. Try: "When satan is used without a definite article, it refers to any accuser, but "the Satan" (Ha-Satan), with a definite article, usually refers to the heavenly accuser. (Pick usually or specifically, both aren't necessary.)  Done
• The word with the definite article... Just use the word: "Satan with the definite article ... Done
• "The Satan" appears 17 times but allusion to the idea of the devil is present in more than two books. Ezekiel 28:12-19 references a "fallen angel" as an example of what happens to those who think too highly of themselves; Isaiah 14:12-17, and more in Isaiah, Habakuk, and 1 Chronicles. I don't see this in the Lucifer section, so what do you think about adding a sentence here?

Not sure if I get what you mean. Ezekiel is under the "Identified with the Devil" header. I remember removing some references to Satan, like 1 Chronicles, because there haven't been much of secondary sources mentioning them. I thought they aren't noteworthy.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The word without the definite article is .. Book of Numbers, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings). The trouble here is that there are two other words also used for "devils" and demons – sâ'îr and shêd – in Zechariah, Isaiah, Job, Habakuk, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Psalms.

The sâ'îr and shêd are, however, conceptually different than "the Devil" or "Satan". They are more nature spirits or demons of the wilderness. One might identify them with "lesser devils", but are, as far as I am aware of, not an image of "The Devil". When talking about the "demonic" or demons in general, I would agree, but since this is pretty much about Satan&Devil, I don't think we need to consider the shedim and se'irim.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Indeed, they are devils, not the devil, but does this section not mention devils? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. As far as I understood, this is about satans translated as Sata, devil, accuser etc., not about any concept of devils or demons. I may check it up again, the upcomming days, if you wish.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• * Lots of little sections are distracting to the reader and often don't show up on a telephone at all, and since a lot of WP readers use their phones, that's problematic. You might want to consider removing the next three section headings entirely and folding their content into "Satan in the Old Testament". Done

Sad, I liked them. :-(--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I know, I always feel that way too. They organize everything so neatly! I would think they would make it easier to find what you are looking for, but my last GAR had me remove all of mine because he couldn't see them on his phone and 2 out of 5 people - according to him - use WP on their phones. If you want your article accessible to those people, make few sections under other sections. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with them and you may, of course, do as you please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia is better used on PC anyways. But yes, it should be readable for everyone.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I waited for about 4 months I guess. And proofreading can take time. Maybe delay would even be partly my fault, since this will be a busy week to me. But I am sure, we make it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• God asks one of them, Satan, where he has been, to which he replies that he has been roaming... "God asks Satan where he has been. Satan replies, roaming the earth." Keep it simple when you can.  Done
• Satan replies by urging God to let him torture Job, promising that Job will abandon his faith at the first tribulation Not exactly. Satan replies by pointing out how God has blessed Job – “Does Job fear God for nothing?" – take that away and he will curse you.  Done

Not sure what exactly is objectable. I rewrote the sentence, hope this is better now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is objectionable is that this paraphrase urging God to let him torture Job is technically inaccurate. Satan never asks to torture Job. He asks to test his faith, to prove that Job is only a "fair-weather-friend". God consents to temporarily removing his blessing and protection, and the implication is that God has faith in Job. Interesting huh? Torture is never mentioned. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Satan might be mean, but he isn't that sadistic in Job. I rewrote the sentence, because on a second thought, it didn't appealed to me anymore too.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• God consents; Satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn God.[12] Add in that all his sons and daughters were also killed, and then Job's health, but that the story says he got back double what he had lost in the end.  Done
• I don't know if you might want to add this or not, but Job is considered to be the oldest book in the Bible and has evidence of non-Jewish origins.  Done

This is a really interesting info, but I think it might be out of place. It could be helpful if proper context is provided, like "Satan is arguably from non-Jewish origin", but this would probably more important for the Satan or Devil (main)-article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle As of today, it's still there: Satan requests God to test him and to let him torture Job, so Job would abandon his faith. Do you have a reference that says 'torture'? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I missed that point. I think it was rather a summary about how Satan tests Job. But yes, according to Kelly, Satan aks God to test Job, so it is not Satan causing misery, Satan "influences" God to cause disaster. Haven't noticed that. Thanks!--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an awfully long sentence: Since the satan is sent by the will of God, his function resembles less the devilish enemy of God, and even if it is accepted that this satan refers to a supernatural agent, it is not necessarily implied this is the Satan. I would divide it.  Done

• • Some parts of the Bible, which do not originally refer to an evil spirit or Satan, have been retrospectively interpreted as references to the devil.[22] We'll discuss this one when I come back. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I wondered if it might be pertinent to add a short explanation along with that lone sentence. Perhaps a reference to the fullest biblical explanation of Satan not appearing until the final book of the New Testament, the book of Revelation – whose provenance is disputed - especially since you refer to it in the next section. This is a possible reference: ^[1]

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

I don't think it is necessary, since it becomes clear when reading through the sections. But I added this nontheless, making this exposition of Satan as the devil not earlier than the Book of Revelation explicit.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• for example Hieronymus, in his Vulgate — this will be confusing for the average reader. If you want to give his name in the original languages, begin with the common name first: "Jerome, or Saint Jerome, (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος)"...  Done
• only the mystified end of a Babylonian king. did you mean mysterious? or maybe mystifying? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • However, the role of Belial is in opposition to that of Satan: while Belial, representing chaos and death, stands outside of God's cosmos, Satan roams the earth, fighting for the maintenance of the divine order and punishing precisely everything Belial stands for. You'll have to offer some real defense for this one. My Deutsch isn't good enough to decipher the full meaning of the text in the book you reference, but in any case, this claim is seemingly contradicted by your other source. Kelly's Satan: A Biography on page 41 in the footnote about Watson, and on pages 19, 36, 44, 50-51. There's also this One of the most salient figures to emerge from the Qumran scrolls is the archdemon Belial, leader of the forces of darkness. from Dimant, Devorah. "Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema." The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Brill, 2011. 235-256. And this one Tucker, Paavo. "Reconsidering Bελιάρ: 2 Corinthians 6: 15 in Its Anti-imperial Jewish Apocalyptic Context." Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 4.2 (2014): 169-185. which says Belial, who epitomizes power hostile to God. I'm thinking Theobald may not be the best source.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonna have a look at this on another day. I think I need more time to recheck the sources here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I don't see a contradiction between the sources. Maybe you could help and pointing it out directly? Maybe I expressed myself badly in the article, but Theobald seems to be in accordance with most statements. The claims usually made are: 1) In the Old Testament, Satan is not the enemy of God, but merely an angels with some sinister tasks. 2) Belial is some sort of personified evil, pretty much a devil, until the times of the New Testament (in Qumram a spirit, in the Old Testament merely an abstraction). I think this is that Theobold states too. I wonna give a short translation here: "Satan and Belial, both old-testamental roots of early-jewish/proto-christian concept of the devil, are diametrically opposed entities. The old-testamental Satan is on side with God and fights for keeping up God's laws and order. He roams he earth to punish human's offenses against God's law and even distrusts humans, when he doesn't find any flaws in them. Belial on the other hand, starts as a force of Death and Chaos, and statnds outside of God's order. The term [Belial] is used in the Old Testament as an abstraction and stands for everything what is against God and humans living together. One could say, it is this belialic behavior, Satan is looking to accuse before God." (page 34) Tell me if this helps. I think this is an important point and I would like to keep it within the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle Thanx for the ping! I've been hoping to hear from you. This is an excellent paragraph, but what's in the article is not this clear. Perhaps the summary is too brief. If you want to keep this, I would like to see you add this whole paragraph, with the quote.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wonna extent this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't comment on something, that means I thought it was good. :-) I'll be back tomorrow. With a little diligence we should be able to finish this in a week easy peasy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ... Satan and his angels are clearly in the service of God, akin to Satan in the Book of Job. Satan and his lesser satans act as God's executioners: In the first place, this is uncited, and in the second place, it is decidedly confused. The only source I can find that in any way comes even a little bit close is ^[1] and Pagels explains it quite differently than you have here.

• Try this: "Hebrew writers of the sixth century BC used the imagery of a satan to characterize fellow Israelites as dangerous adversaries they struggled against. Elaine H. Pagels writes that the story of Balaam in the book of Numbers refers to an angel who says to Balaam, "I came here to oppose you because your way is evil in my eyes." This satan, (without the definite article), is a being that is not necessarily evil. This is a messenger, one of God's obedient servants, an adversary sent for the purpose of blocking human activity that is contrary to God's will. In this example a satan is similar to the angel of death." (pages 39-41, 42)

This is not The Satan with a definite article as you have it here. This is a satan meaning only an adversary. This applies to your discussion of When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser and is part of the history of the development of the concept, but it isn't about intertestimental texts, it's about the early Hebrew. If you want to keep this, it should be moved up to Satan in the OT.

• angels of punishment are depicted in Enoch as acting to carry out punishments only after death and sentence in the heavenly court has been determined.^[2]

• That's all I can do tonight.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from the source I was refering to: "These offenders were punished with imprisonment. Azazel, the leader and chief offender, received especially severe punishment. But the children of the fallen angels and the human mothers are giants and their disembodied spirits are the demons that work under Satan for the moral ruin of man and they are permitted to work till the Judgment without hindrance. But in the Similitudes, Secs. 37-70, the author has a more comprehensive world-view; he traces evil farther back, responsibility lies at the door of the Satans (40:7). The guilt of the watchers was not due to simple lust, it was yielding to the Satans (54:6). That is to say, in this section of Enoch the origin of sin is traced back to the Satans. Other angels and men were misled by them, yet a Persian dualism does not seem implied, for the Satans are subject to the Lord of spirits. The Satans still appear in heaven, as in the Book of Job, though they do not always seem welcome (40:7). The functions of the Satans and the fallen angels are sometimes confused, as in 69:4 f. Their office is threefold: (i) They tempt to evil, through lustful suggestion, evil counsel, teaching men war and its weapons. (2) They accuse the fallen (40:7); Faunel, an angel of the presence, acts as a check on the Satans in this sinister work. (3) They, as angels of punishment, punished the condemned. For their purpose they used scourges and chains of iron and bronze and other "instruments of Satan"." ("The Doctrine of Satan: II. Satan in Extra-Biblical Apocalyptical Literature") This is also the source I used after the colons. I thought it is enough, when the colons are introduced to explain the aforementioned statement. Should I add the source before the colons?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle It's been so long, I am no longer clear on what this is about. Can you remind me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I remember, you mentioned a lack of source. Maybe I put it on the wrong place. I think I corrected that. But just in case, I quoted the part supporting my claim in the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few small grammar corrections, otherwise this section is good.

I corrected some grammar and content on the problem of evil.

creatures first, then the no comma  Done to this view, which was borrowed no comma  Done and the existence of the material world is a result remove "the existence of"  Done destruction and suffering, too. no comma, no too  Done grasp and the add a comma after grasp'  Done followed by those who adhere to his will. is a sentence fragment, it needs fixing his will whose? God's or the devils? clarify  Done restored, after no comma  Done

• I am having eye surgery early in the morning and may not get back here tomorrow at all, but I promise I will be back within a day or so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hope your surgery is fine. Don't push yourself too much. I see someone made a few citation requests. Most of them are claims followed the source mentioned a sentence previously. However, this will take some time, and this is a really busy week. But I have this in mind.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle My eye hurts tonight so I am not doing much, but I will say that if you are sure those sentences are covered by an existing citation, yet it doesn't seem clear to the other editor, just copy them and add them at the end of the questioned sentence. They'll be happy, and it won't be much extra work for you. If you are too busy, would you like me to hold off on adding anything more here for a bit? I can go as fast or as slowly as you like. Just let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle I am stopping for now as I see that most of these changes have not been made. You are overwhelmed with too much to do, I understand. Let me know when, and if, you would like me to come back to it. I cannot support this article for GA as it stands, but I do believe it can get there. There is nothing that says every article must go GA, however, so if you've changed your mind, that is perfectly ok too. Ping me if and when you want me back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{od}} VenusFeuerFalle I think we have resolved all issues so far and are both caught up to the same place now, (Augustine) so if you are interested in having me finish this, I will. I will tell you that in RL right now, I am under some stress. My mother is in the hospital and not doing well. I should be able to work on this once a day or so - it will provide a good distraction - but it is also possible I may miss a day or two. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push yourself too much. We are both busy and might miss some days. I would be happy if you finish this. But I am completly fine if you miss out some days. I cannot promise I keep up everyday either. I try, but sometimes it doesn't work. Hope your mother will recover.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will do my very best for you with the understanding that it may be hit or miss for awhile. Thank you for the good wishes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with it if it takes a little longer. I waited several months until it got reviewed, so I have no trouble if it takes a little bit longer. I cannot check everyday either, now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up rewording some of the theology myself, w/citation. Augustine can be difficult. I hope that's okay. If you don't like it, feel free to rephrase yourself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is good; I added a 'that' and a comma, that's all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

at some point, freely chosen evil add 'had' after the comma I moved names in one sentence. This section is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

No comments at all on this section except that it's very well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section is also excellent. All I did was correct one typo. Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am flying out tomorrow to the hospital and don't know if I will be back tomorrow or not, but at this rate, I will be done soon. I really do like your article! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope many people will enjoy and benefit from it. I also like the way it turns out. And since it is such a central topic on religio, I would like to have it GA so much. Hope all the best for your mother!--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just two minor citation issues, the refs for Holden (176) and Campo (6) to not correspond to any items in the bibliography—I'm assuming the full citations are missing. Bravo on the article thus far! Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for both your kind words as well as pointing out the missing books!--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some very minor changes, and there is one citation issue here as well. I know that what you have written is correct, but it does need a citation anyway, especially since it is in wiki-voice. This section is also excellent. The changes I made were very minor, and since I know you are busy in real life, I didn't even think them worth mentioning and just did them. If that's not okay, again, there will be no problems if you go back and do something else.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your minor edits are welcome and I really appreciate them. It is much easier to edit minor mistakes or improvements straight forward. I think I put the source in the end of the paragraph, but since they are split this doesn't ofc. I added the requested citation. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle

Well good then, because I have done some up through Charismatic movements. These sections have all been well done and this is going very quickly now. I am going to run the copyright check when I am finished. I may have found a site that has copied from you, but we can deal with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought I had run across some while checking sources. Go here [[1]] It says there are violations, and that's a must-fail. If they are yours, those must be fixed before any GA can be approved. You can quote, though large blocks are discouraged, or cite the web and paraphrase, but you cannot quote w/o citing. If these are not yours, we will need to post a reverse-violation tag on this article. I can go no further until these are fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage with 79% similarity seems to be copied from Wikipedia to explain their profile (the devil in that case). This happens often. Instead of writing an introduction on their own, they simply copy Wikipedia. The differences seem to be, before the article was changed during its reviews. So yeh, they copied the Wikipedia article. I don't understand how exaclty we have to procced from now on. Before we finish, I remeber there are some request tags in the article, and I would like to rewrite the lead section. it is a little bit short.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put a backwards copy violation tag near the top of the Talk page. Fill it out with the relevant data as much as you can. I'll be back as soon as I am able. My mother died and we have to close up her house and it's all been very difficult. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to read that. Take all the time you need, and thank for your ongoing support despite the circumstances. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle I'm so sorry about this delay, and if you want to see if you can get someone else to finish, I understand, but I am hoping you won't give up on me. I think it will be one more week, maybe even a little less. I am emotionally and physically exhausted and looking forward to being home soon - and finishing this review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in. Take all the time you need. Death of a beloved one is something what gets people down. This is just natural. We don't even get paid for Wikipedia (or do you? if yes tell me), so it is voluntary work. You explained the situation, you need time to recover from your lose, I will wait. Don't push yourself too much. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am finally home after over a month of clearing out my mother's house. It's been sad and exhausting and I am glad to be home and back at work on WP. It is late, so I will begin tomorrow. Thank you for being so understanding. Hopefully this will finish up quickly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Glad to read you managed all that stuff. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! I have checked to be sure that I have the power to pass this when we are done and have been told I can. I have read through the remainder of the article and have almost no comments, but one of those comments is a request for an addition: you have a section on evangelical Protestant views but no other, and I think that you need a fuller spectrum of what the various Protestant views are. They vary quite a bit. I hope you can see fit to add that in. I can help if you like. Let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle I have spent all my time online the last few days looking up sources to get rid of those dang citation needed tags. I hate those things. They are gone now. I hope to find no more! I will get back to the remainder of the review Sunday night. Easter weekend is busy. Hope you have a good weekend! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through it all at least once, some of it twice, and will go through the rest a second time, but I am not finding much to trouble with. I have made a few minor changes to grammar, but otherwise, there is nothing much left. I'll take another day or two to finish up and will then give the okay. It is good, and I have enjoyed working with you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done! It's done!! I have notified Shushugah since they never changed it to me and are still listed as the reviewer. If we don'r hear back from them within a day, I will go through getting the article declared as abandoned and me as the reviewer and I will pass it. One way or the other, you should have your GA status before the end of the week. Congratulations! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thanks for finishing the review! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind to review the hooks for DYN nominations by the way? I think this goes fast, and is always a good way to celebrate a successful GA Nominee. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle, Jenhawk777, GA reviewers are specifically prohibited from reviewing a subsequent DYK for the same article, see WP:DYKSG#H2 for further information. Jenhawk777, no need to consult Shushugah at this point; they abandoned the review, and you took over. The decision to pass or fail or request further changes is entirely up to you. Thanks for taking this one on! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK will get along just fine without me. And you are most welcome. You must have despaired at times, but you hung in there. I appreciate that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I tried three different ways to indicate on the GA1 review page, at the GA listing site, and on the article talk page, that I was doing the review, and couldn't. The bot kept erasing everything I did. Since no tag for requesting a second opinion was ever posted, I could not post that I had responded to what wasn't there. As far as I can tell, there is no protocol for abandoned reviews that have been picked up by a different reviewer. I asked Shushugah to remove their name as reviewer, since they had passed the baton to me, but they never did. You and I know it was abandoned, but as far as the bot was concerned, they remained the listed reviewer. Anything I did would have been erased by the almighty bot - again. Shushugah responded promptly when notified the review was done, and I appreciated that. The article passed, and deservedly so. I did the work. VenusFeuerFalle did the work. The article gets the glory. That's what matters after all. We contributed to raising the quality of the encyclopedia. It's all good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, didn't know that they aren't allowed to. THought it kind of goes hand in hand. Haven't read the condictions much yesterday, and didn't remembered the rule. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the unsourced statement in Devil in Christianity § Gospels 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jenhawk777 no problem and done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have its little symbol yet, does the bot have to do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for all your efforts! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amen brother! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The blue angel is arguably the oldest Christian depiction of the devil, who gathers the sinners symbolized by goats. Here, he is not the fiendish monster as known in later iconography, but granted equal presence in the heavenly court.

• ... that the earliest representation of the devil might be a mosaic in San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna from the 6th century, in the form of a blue angel? Source: Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1986). Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9429-1. p. 129
  • ALT1: ... that within Byzantine monistic cosmology, the devil became the entity most remote from God, as described by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite? Source: Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1986). Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9429-1. p. 36

Improved to Good Article status by VenusFeuerFalle (talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hooks are interesting and sourced. Don’t you think there should be more links in each hook? Thriley (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [2] is an article on the painting "Fallen Angel" describing it as a picture of Satan, while this one [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Facts in dispute:

=== Questions of Bartholomew ===

In Questions of Bartholomew, Satan is questioned and calls upon his son, Salpsan, for council.^[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Twillisjr Before making accusations, it is good to check facts. Your edit was first introduced on 18 October 2022. See this revision: [4] I reverted it as it was without a source: [5] You responded by adding a citation, which I did not check, nor did I thank you. [6];

The next deletion of the text was by 2a01:c22:84c0:2d00:58c2:c6e5:b6fa:5a4b : [7] on 23 June, 2023. In their edit summary, this editor disputed the time frame. Here is you putting it back: [8] with no edit summary and no response to the dispute raised. Here is VenusFeuerFalle reverting the same phrase: [9] giving her reason in the edit summary as apocryph doesn't equal intertestamental which is correct. Here is you putting it back again, with no explanation, no response, and no edit summary - again.[10] 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: [11]. 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 [12] especially the section titled "Be helpful: explain" found here: [13] 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: [14]. Thank you for your cooperation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]