1. if the Church Fathers were part of the deception, we'd basically have no Christianity left. These guys literally learned from the apostles or their direct students. Like, Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John himself. Polycarp too. If they got it wrong from day one, then Jesus failed at establishing his Church, which contradicts his promise that "the gates of hell won't prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). 2. Job 1:6 literally says "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." That's definitely God's court, and "sons of God" in Hebrew refers to spiritual beings, not humans. Plus, this adversary has power to afflict Job with supernatural disasters - not really something a human enemy could pull off. 3. Jesus talks about Satan as a separate being constantly - "I saw Satan fall like lightning" (Luke 10:18) wasn't him talking about his own desires falling. And when Peter tries to stop him from going to the cross, Jesus says "Get behind me, Satan" - he's not calling Peter his fleshly desire, he's saying Peter is being used by the adversary. 4. In all honesty, I've never heard this argument. I'll have to think about it, and ask for guidence. But Genesis 3 clearly has Adam, Eve, AND the serpent as three separate characters having a conversation. Hard to have Adam talking to Eve while also being the serpent talking to Eve, you know? Plus, Revelation 12:9 straight up identifies "that ancient serpent" as the devil and Satan. I'm going sleep now, but the Orthodox position is that if we can't trust the earliest Christians who literally knew the apostles, then we can't trust anything about Christianity at all. These weren't random dudes making stuff up - they were martyred for these beliefs they learned directly from Christ's own disciples.

Oof. I'm gonna need to sit at my laptop to address this as I would disagree with most of what you wrote above.

I do not agree that we are in "Satan's Little Season." I can dig up some podcast references on this, and I think that one in particularly put the complete kibosh on that notion for me. 1. What is your issue with the Book of Enoch? I have very little issues with the first of the four parts, since that is directly quoted by Jude and Jesus direction in cannon scripture. I do have quite a lot of issues with the gnostic BS in Enoch 3/4. I am still poking at 2. 2. I very much disagree, as my understanding of the Hebrew words used do not refer to a Human, though, as you have correctly stated that "Ahshatan" is a job title, and NOT specifically a particular being, much like the very misunderstood title "angel" (which simply means messenger, with a few caveats and addendums). However, I have never once in all my reading ever come across the notion that this was a Human. I am curious as to how you have come to this conclusion. 3. Nope. 100% disagree. It seems that you have completely missed out on the parts of the OT that explicitly state that God gave authority to various other beings (little g gods is my best understanding) who then failed to govern rightly. This is explicitly stated in the OT. (I will find the exact reference later, if you don't know it already.) There is, consistently and throughout the OT and into the NT, one specific being who has been trying to usurp God and throw wrenches into his His plan. You really should look up the "Serpent Seed" framing of the entire Biblical narrative. This one idea/thread brings so much focus to many of the lesser understood parts of the Biblical narrative, and it is a shame that it has some rather unsavory adherents that twisted it into things like racism and eugenics, as when taken in a proper Biblical context it explains a heck of a lot about evil in this world. But to answer your specific question: God had given authority to other gods, and one of them, specifically, was referred to, by Jesus, if I am not mistaken, as "The god of this world." So . . . Why in the world would that being NOT have the authority to give to Jesus everything in his authority? Granted, I think that is a bit silly to do, but, hey . . . I do not take the Adversary entirely seriously all the time, even if he is serious business. Also, Jesus had not entered his position of Ultimate Authority at that time, though I am sure that this could be debated. And, your position also ignores the temptations' purpose. If this was NOT another being tempting Jesus, then it completely undermines Jesus' purpose. If that is the case, then there is no point in believing in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I will have to percolate on your final sub-bullet of that point. The first thing that pops into my head is relating to "the flesh" which is definitely "within" as you say, but, that does not mean that there is no external evil, as 1 Peter 5:8 says "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." So, you, specifically, Niel, have an adversary looking to devour you. Unless you want to argue with Peter, which, even an idiot like me might not exactly want to do . . . 4. Absolutely not. Point blank, this is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read from you and is not at all justifiable in any context within the Biblical narrative and is only possible if you ignore, well, everything else in the Bible. Since you were so short with this one, I don't even know where to contextually begin with this, other than that is not actually even possible if you dig into the Hebrew, even a tiny bit.