You recently posted an answer to a young lady who said that her boyfriend joined the House of Yahweh and is advocating that Satan is a female. What I got from your answer was that Satan is referred to as male in the Scriptures! There recently was a gathering of biblical scholars to answer that question. I believe it was held in Germany. The experts came from all over the world and the conclusion was that the terminology in the scriptures is not male or female but is neutral in gender.
Also pictures painted long ago showing Satan in the tree and tempting Eve showed that Satan as half serpent also had a pair of breasts indicating that she was female. I think it is presumptuous of you to make false claims about Scriptures that you can not back up. The indication is that you are doing this just to advocate your own perverted distorted agenda.
Why did you not tell the young lady that Easter is a pagan ceremony? Or that Christmas was not the time of the birth of the Messiah but the date of birth for Tammuz. The Savior Himself told of this worship of Tammuz. Did you bother to tell her that the Sabbath was not changed by Yahweh but by a man made ruler called the pope? Did you bother to tell her that sunrise services for easter are condemned in the Holy Scriptures. Did you tell her that worship of the Queen of Heaven is condemned in Scriptures and that the Roman Catholic Church worships the Queen of Heaven? Did you bother to tell her that if everything pagan was removed from your worship you would have no basis to place your worship upon? Did you bother to tell her that the Trinity is not taught in the Holy Scriptures? Did you bother to tell her that the Rapture theory was started by a lady called MacDonald in 1800's?
I'm sure you did not but only told what you advocate as the truth which can not be backed up by Scriptures. You like the rest of the sin sick world have polluted the true worship of 'The Faith' spoken of in Jude into a lawless bunch of do gooders that think that they are destined to a place in heaven which is also not taught in Scriptures.
You state that "scholars" answered the question about Satan's gender as being neither male or female. It is unfortunate that you neglected to document your sources. However, looking back at what I wrote, I stated much the same:
Male and female are distinctions made in the physical realm. Angels are in the spiritual realm where such distinctions do not exist. Even so, the Bible uses male pronouns when referring to Satan (as well as other spiritual beings), such as in "the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). Female tenses are not used and so we should respect the designation that God has given.
I used Matthew 22:30 to back up this claim. What evidence would you like to bring to the table? A unknown painting by a unknown author is not proof. Such a painting would only express what that particular artist felt about the matter. Since the artist is not an inspired author, his or her opinion carries no weight.
You claim I spoke falsely, but you did not state in regards to what. If it is in regards to the gender of Satan, you must show evidence.
In answer to you questions about why I didn't address other topics, the simple answer is that I wasn't asked. However, you probably would be surprised by most of the answers. The church here does not celebrate the man-made holidays of Christmas or Easter (see "Observing Holidays"). We do not follow Catholic teachings, including the veneration of Mary (see "The Glorification of Mary"). We do not teach premillenial doctrine, such as the Rapture (see "Will There Be a Rapture?"). You and I do disagree about the trinity (see "Who Is God?") and about the Sabbath (see "Observing the Sabbath"). If you bother to read the referenced lessons, you will observe that proving points by the Scriptures is not one of my weaknesses. I hope you will do the same when you write again.
It was the Bible translators that put the gender pronouns into the scriptures when speaking of Satan. My Bible has the pronoun listed in Matthew 25:41 as -'prepared for the Devil and her angels' Matthew 22:30 speaks of the resurrection. So how does this tie into this at all? It says: For in the resurrection they do not repeatedly marry to beget children to preserve their lineage, for they are now Priests of Yahweh Who is in heaven."
As for the unknown artist is concerned it was Michaelangelo who painted The Fall of Man which is located on the ceiling of the Vatican's Sistene Chapel. Was he inspired? Some think so!
The actual Greek phrase is: hetoimasmenon to diabolo kai tois angelois autou
In Greek, you will find the following definitions:
hetoimasmenon (Verb singular participle perfect middle) - "having
to (Article datum singular) - "for the"
diablolo (Adjective datum singular masculine) - "devil"
kai (Conjuction) - "and"
tois (Article datum plural) - "the"
angelois (Noun datum plural masculine) - "angels"
autou (Personal pronoun general singular) - "his"
Since both the words "devil" and "angels" are masculine terms in the Greek, it is proper to translate them into English using masculine terms. One could possibily argue for a gender neutral pronoun in place of "his," but in English the gender-neutral pronouns are all masculine (as is true in many languages). It would be totally unreasonable to translate autou using a feminine pronoun as there is nothing feminine in the phrase in the original language. You did not mention the translation you are using but it is apparently a poor one designed to propagate the teachings of a religious sect. This conclusion is further supported by the quote from Matthew 22:30. The word "Yahweh" is a transliteration of the Hebrew name for God. Matthew was written in Greek. The word "Yahweh" does not appear in the Greek text. The Greek text is: en gar te anastasei oute gamousin oute ekgamizontai all hos angeloi tou theou in to aourano eisin. A literal, word-for-word translation is: [In] [for] [the] [resurrection] [neither] [do they marry] [nor] [are being given in marriage] [but] [as] [angels]  [of God] [in] [the] [heaven] [they are]. Notice that the difference from the mistranslation above. The phrase "to beget children to preserve their lineage" does not appear in the Greek text at all. The word "angels" is translated "priests" (but interestingly is translated "angels" in Matthew 25:46 -- very inconsistent!). The Greek states that it is the angels who are of God and are in heaven. This mistranslation changes the plural "they are" into a singular "who is" and applies it to God.
Though Michealangelo was a brilliant painter, he was not inspired in the biblical sense of the word. He was not a prophet of God. His painting expresses his view of the Bible, but as with any man, his view can be flawed. Hence, it does not serve as proof.