I agree that Daniel demonstrates that the Prince of Persia did not loose his status as a "prince". But "prince" has no implication of affiliation, so a fallen angel would not necessarily lose its "princely" status.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:57 amI agree that the Prince of Persia in Daniel is referring to an angelic being, but not a "son of God" because the Prince of Persia appears to be a fallen angel.
I agree that the being called the Prince of Persia was a fallen angel ( rebelling against God's messenger Gabriel) BUT that he is referred to in the same (prince) as Michael, one of the chief princes, kind of implies that just because the being rebelled, doesn't mean he has lost "status".
However, "sons of God" (unlike "prince") does have an implication of affiliation in both the OT and NT. Which is why (broken record) Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons of God" in either the OT or NT.
I go back again to John 8 where Jesus makes it very clear that the Devil (fallen Lucifer) is no longer a "son of God". According to Jesus, Children of God are polar opposites of Children of the Devil.My point is that I don't know if we can hold the view that upon rebelling, divine beings lose their status as sons of God, especially in the OT.