Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Poor Satan, so misunderstood.
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 136 of 301 (442828)
12-22-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
12-21-2007 6:45 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Right now I am only interested in your comments on the subject related to the serpent, the interpretation of Satan's ancient past, and things we've been talking about.
And the fact that you can't see that this question requires understanding the text and the context in which it was written shows that you really don't want an answer to it. You're trying to use quotations of Christian texts to justify a Jewish passage. You're trying to use a Christian persona to justify a Jewish passage. You're trying to use a claim of a person who might never have existed to justify a Jewish passage.
Genesis 3 was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Thus, there is no such thing as the devil, at least not in the way Christians think, and any claim that the serpent was anything other than a serpent are impositions upon the text.
Are you capable of justifying your statement that the serpent was the devil without invoking Christianity?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 6:45 AM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 137 of 301 (442830)
12-22-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jaywill
12-21-2007 7:13 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
It is not that I believe something extra. It is that you do not believe enough.
What an anti-Semitic thing to say.
quote:
The New Testament says the ancient serpent is Satan the Devil.
The Old Testament says it wasn't. And since the Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews, who do you think better understands what a Jewish text means?
Can you justify your claims about Genesis without resorting to Christianity?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 7:13 AM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 138 of 301 (442831)
12-22-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jaywill
12-21-2007 12:35 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
I am IMPRESSED with Jesus. I hope that I am not OBSESSED with Jesus.
The fact that you are incapable of discussing a Jewish text without trying to cram Jesus into it means you're obsessed.
Can you justify your claim that the serpent was the devil without invoking Christianity? Since Judaism doesn't really have a concept of the devil, how could the serpent possibly be the devil?
Remember: Nothing out of the New Testament is relevant. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Can you justify your claim without invoking Jesus or anything connected to him?
And you misquoted the text.
2 Chronicles 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
"Nevertheless," not "otherwise."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 12:35 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2007 7:57 PM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 139 of 301 (442851)
12-22-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Rrhain
12-22-2007 6:51 PM


The fact that you are incapable of discussing a Jewish text without trying to cram Jesus into it means you're obsessed.
I did open up a discussion on this forum where I invited people to discuss the Hebrew Bible. I put myself voluntarily under a regulation that I would not reference any New Testament Scriptures.
Can you justify your claim that the serpent was the devil without invoking Christianity? Since Judaism doesn't really have a concept of the devil, how could the serpent possibly be the devil?
I appeal to the New Testament not to Christianity or any other kind of "anity".
Maybe, then I'd understand that the serpent possibly one of many in a class of slanderers aligned against God.
Considering the foundational importance of created man getting off to a good start with God, I would assume that the evil work of derailing him would be carried out by the most pernicious of such beings. But an underling might be used too.
Your second statement above is not really according to the rabbi's teachings whose website I went to. He did believe in the devil. He objected to the idea of him being a former rebellious archangel.
Remember: Nothing out of the New Testament is relevant.
You assume that. I don't.
I told you before, the new covenant is prophesied to be enacted by God in the Old Testament. Therefore the New Testament - new covenant is relevant.
You don't believe that the new testament is the new covenant. But the old covenant and the new covenant are both relevant.
Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Can you justify your claim without invoking Jesus or anything connected to him?
This passage is addressed to the whole world:
" TURN TO ME AND BE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, FOR I AM GOD AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE."
(Isaiah 45:22)
But that is not Genesis you say perhaps?
Now when we Gentiles from "all the ends of the earth" hear that speaking, we need to know WHO is this God speaking. So it behooves us to come to Genesis and learn about Him. And low and behold we find there that it doesn't start with Abraham, but with Adam, the forefather of the entire human race.
It is not too nice for you to shew us away, saying, "Hey, this book is not written for your benefit. You're not Jewish."
Jethro the fatherinlaw of Moses was a priest of Midian. He was a priest of the one God. Jethro was not Jewish. Balaam was not a particulary good prophet. But he was a genuine prophet of this God nonetheless.
Enoch was not a Jew. He walked with God. Why can't we from the ends of the earth benefit from learning from him though we be not Jewish?
Abel was not a Jew. He offered a pleasing worship to God. Why can't we of the ends of the earth learn from Abel the principles of worship to God?
Noah wasn't a Jew. Why can't we benefit from learning about this one who found grace in the sight of God and was righteous?
Do you object to Genesis being translated into the thousands of languages that it has been translated into? If you are Jewish, weren't you a little proud that this book was seen fit to read from when men circled the globe in outerspace? Such a momentous occasion for mankind, and they were reading to the world from Genesis. I'm kind of glad you weren't at Mission Control. You might have interrupted them and said "That's a Jewish Book written to Jews. Stop reading it to the world."
Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I'm interested. Maybe if it had read "In the beginning God created Israel, the Law, Jews, Jerusalem, and everything pertaining to the lives of Jews" then maybe I'd think there was nothing there for my benefit.
I don't know how to put this to you, but this Old Testament is my book. It is my book like Rehab the harlot from Jericho became part of the congregation of Jehovah. It is my book like Ruth the Moabitess joined herself to God's people and their God. It is my book the way a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt to be saved by Yahweh rather than suffer divine judgement.
This revelation is also addressed to me. I hope one day you will make the New Testament your book too.
2 Chronicles 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
"Nevertheless," not "otherwise."
Makes no difference. I'm all for better and better renderings in translation. In this case my point still stands whether it was "Nevertheless" or whether it was "Otherwise" or "Anyhow" or "Regardless" or "Just the same".
Asa was good. But right here was a deficiency. That is the point with his "perfection".
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Rrhain, posted 12-22-2007 6:51 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2007 7:02 PM jaywill has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 140 of 301 (443100)
12-23-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by jaywill
12-22-2007 7:57 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
I did open up a discussion on this forum where I invited people to discuss the Hebrew Bible. I put myself voluntarily under a regulation that I would not reference any New Testament Scriptures.
And yet, you immediately jumped to Revelation. So let's try again. Can you justify your claim without referencing anything in Christian dogma?
quote:
quote:
Remember: Nothing out of the New Testament is relevant.
You assume that. I don't.
Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion? The passage is from a Jewish text, written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context. If you cannot justify your claim without referencing Christian dogma, what does that say about your claim?
quote:
This passage is addressed to the whole world:
" TURN TO ME AND BE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, FOR I AM GOD AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE."
(Isaiah 45:22)
But that is not Genesis you say perhaps?
I say a lot of things. For one, it shows the lie of your insistence in injecting Jesus into this as if he has anything to do with it. What part of "no one else" do you find difficult to understand? There is no "son of god."
But that said, you neglected to indicate the entire passage:
45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Note the source of evil: God. There is no one else. There is no devil because everything, including evil, comes from god.
So since god is the source of evil, the serpent in the garden cannot be the devil for there is no such thing.
quote:
I hope one day you will make the New Testament your book too.
What makes you think it isn't?
Don't presume to think you understand anything about my religious orientation.
Now, lets go back to your supposed voluntary restriction:
Can you justify your claim without referencing Christian dogma?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2007 7:57 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2007 11:48 AM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 141 of 301 (443305)
12-24-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rrhain
12-23-2007 7:02 PM


Uh ... "BIBLE STUDY ???"
And yet, you immediately jumped to Revelation. So let's try again. Can you justify your claim without referencing anything in Christian dogma?
Maybe I can or can't. But right now maybe I WON'T!
This Forum is called BIBLE STUDY, in case you didn't notice. If you want to go to the Moderators and suggest that they have a Room Called TORAH ONLY STUDY then go ahead. And maybe then I'll honor you desire to keep the New Testament out of the discussions.
What DO you mean by Christian Dogma anyway?
We believe that there is one God. Is that Christian Dogma? We believe that Israel is a chosen nation of God on this earth. Is that Christian Dogma? We believe that God gave the law of Moses to the Jews. Is that Christians Dogma?
God is the Creator and the Old Testament is the infallible word of God. Is that also Christian Dogma? Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah and other OT prophets were sent by God to speak the words of God and Genesis is the word of God too. Is that Christian Dogma that you want me to keep silent about?
So maybe I could leave the New Testament out of the discussion. But maybe because of your arrogance I won't.
Right now I suggest you go over to Jews For Judaism where it is understood that a "Bible Study" does not mean the New Testament portion of the Bible. Or ask the Moderators to open up a room dedicated to "TORAH STUDY ONLY".
Right now I am not willing to intertane your concept of leaving out the New Testament in a careful analysis of Genesis.
I might be if the questioner had a little more respectful attitude in his request. I'm usually up for a challenge if the attitude of the examiner is proper.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2007 7:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 12-25-2007 12:33 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2007 11:17 PM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 142 of 301 (443355)
12-24-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jaywill
12-21-2007 7:13 AM


a history of the devil
The New Testament says the ancient serpent is Satan the Devil.
wrong serpent. i'll give you a hint, look for the older serpent, the one before the garden, before mankind. he -- they're -- in genesis 1.
"and god created the great serpents."
these are livyatanim, dragons. legend holds that there were two, a male and a female, and god killed one to feed his new favourite children, mankind (psalm 74). the remaining one vows vengeance on god. a very poetic discription of him appears in the book of job.
the livyatan is tied to the ancestral chaos serpent in sumerian and ugaritic myths. when john of patmos looks for an image represent the devil, he picks the leviathan, the crooked piercing serpent. you can see the commonalities between job's leviathan and john's great red serpent.
now, the serpent in genesis was written as an animal. it draws from some earlier imagery that regarded serpents as unclean spirits, but this kind of idea seems to have been anathema to the authors of the torah. instead, the snake is another of god's creations, created with intelligence, who leads god's human children astray, and is punished for it. and his punishments are very literally the defining features of a snake.
however, the idea that this serpent was an unclean spirit (THE unclean spirit) quickly worked its way back into tradition in the pseudepigraphical books of adam and eve, and similar non-canonical texts, due to the similarity to zoroastrian beliefs regarding serpents. but we're not looking at those, are we? we're looking at john's imagery, drawing from leviathan in very metaphorical ways, and the text of the hebrew bible.
notice that john's serpent shows up in job as a completely separate figure from ha-satan, who also shows up in job? john revises the story a little. he begins with the traditional jewish satan, an angel of the lord, who during the end times rebels and leads a war on heaven. this is not contradictory to the jewish depiction, mind you.
this idea becomes distorted through time. it gets convoluted with enoch's fall of azazel (circa noah), and all of the various semi-related aspects (zoroastrian evil spirits to pseudepigraphical serpent-satan, leviathan, nebuchadnezzar's tower of babel, etc) and get's transported back in time to the beginning of it all by milton in paradise lost. but this is an idea that came about gradually, through the evolution of ideas and philosophies.
when you say "the devil is the ancient serpent" you mean something very different than john of patmos meant, and he meant something very different than the pseudepigraphical authors meant, and they meant something very different than the authors of the torah.
The New Testament books are the oracles of God Almighty. It is not a faulty error prone human commentary on the Hebrew Bible.
the new testament is a collection of semi-biographical gospels, one history, a bunch of epistles (very much like oral law or talmud), and one book of apocalyptic prophecy. one might consider the prophets to be "oracles" but revelation is really the only bit of prophecy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 7:13 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2007 1:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 143 of 301 (443362)
12-24-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jaywill
12-17-2007 12:22 AM


so much misinformation, so little time
Hebrew language readers of the book of Genesis have at times understood the destruction of a previous creation to that world committed to Adam. And they were not only Christians.
i've discussed this with you before. the hebrew does not support it. period. in fact, the hebrew is arranged so that the first three verses are one continuous thought, and the first verse is a dependent clause. the book necessarily starts at the beginning of creation.
the fact that some small minority of people who are capable of reading hebrew misunderstand does not make any kind of legitimate point. that's like saying creationist quotemines are legitimate demonstrations of the intent of scientific dissertations because creationists can read english. the obvious response is "not very well, evidently."
and don't mistake qabala (such as the book of zohar) as mainstream jewish thought. it's mysticisms, and frankly most of the stuff in those books would shock the living daylights out of you.
But the lie, like all most damaging and dangerous ones, contains some truth.
this is utterly missing the point. what the serpent told eve was the truth. completely the truth, too. the god of the torah continually poses tough questions to his followers, and this is the first of many tests. do i follow god, who created me? or the serpent who makes a convincing argument?
You grasp the true part only and defend the serpent. Curious. Then you go on to accuse God of lying.
god indicates (in the hebrew) that eating will directly cause immediate death. either in the form of punishment, or implying that it's poison. neither of these things happen. though it's perfectly reasonable to assume he meant it as punishment, and commuted the sentance to exile and eventual death (without the tree of life).
Exekiel 28 I take as containing instances of the prophetic past. The Eden could not be the Eden in Genesis where no king of Tyre was. It must refer to some pre-Genesis paradise.
it's called a metaphor. ezekiel uses the imagery of several influential figures in jewish folk history, charged with protection. he compares the king of tyre to the cherubim set to guard eden, as well as a few other similar things (such as aaron the cheif priest of levi). he means to say that the king of tyre is charged with the protection of his people, and has betrayed that trust.
have you honestly read any ezekiel? did you not understand that part about the bones coming back life, either? ezekiel commonly writes in metaphor, relying on the power of imagery over just saying rather boring stuff like "king of tyre, you suck" or "judah will return from exile."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jaywill, posted 12-17-2007 12:22 AM jaywill has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 144 of 301 (443443)
12-25-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by jaywill
12-24-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Uh ... "BIBLE STUDY ???"
quote:
This Forum is called BIBLE STUDY, in case you didn't notice. If you want to go to the Moderators and suggest that they have a Room Called TORAH ONLY STUDY then go ahead. And maybe then I'll honor you desire to keep the New Testament out of the discussions.
What DO you mean by Christian Dogma anyway?
While the bible is referred to the OT & NT, it is also a fact there are core differences in beliefs, interpretation and conclusion between these two scriptures. The muslims again interpret both books differently.
If ONE examine this situation correctly and honestly, the OT has a non-negotiable mandated law:
NOTHING CAN BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS.
This is not a superfluous law, but one with 100% equal validity as "Thou shalt not murder". Its proof is the seperation of christianity from its mother religion, and unending wars between Islam, the Hellenests and with Rome - it is certainly not understood by the bulk of christians today, who use it as a charge Jews were rejecters; the reverse is the truth.
This not to add or subtract means there can be no follow-up to what is God's law, making the NT a voluntarilly imposed addition from Europe, and not accepted by Jews and muslims. Its proof of veracity is only the OT view, as given by the Jewish prophets and sages, becomes vindicated by history, geography, science, maths, coherence and what the world's institutions follow. Its other proof of veracity is christianity would never have succeeded by itself - as seen with Greece who proposed what Paul did 200 years previously, and what Islam proposed 600 years after christianity emerged: it was rejected, solely because the flaunting of the OT commands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2007 11:48 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2007 3:02 PM IamJoseph has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 145 of 301 (443510)
12-25-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by arachnophilia
12-24-2007 4:58 PM


Re: a history of the devil
Arach,
Genesis says that the serpent was a beast of the field, not a sea monster from the water. Your etymology is interesting. But I think it has no bearing here.
If you're saying that the Devil as a spiritual being pre-dated the garden incident, I agree with that. He had a long ancient pre-Adamic history.
when you say "the devil is the ancient serpent" you mean something very different than john of patmos meant, and he meant something very different than the pseudepigraphical authors meant, and they meant something very different than the authors of the torah.
No I don't.
You're musings on the historical development of the imagery is interesting. But I don't think it effects at all the revelation of the Holy Spirit delivered to us through the Apostle John that the one deceiving man in Genesis is the same one in opposition against God's people throughout history up until the end times as John writes in Revelation 12.
It is the same evil being. As interesting as your supposed suggested cultural developments are, they have no bearing on this.
The prinicples of spiritual warfare have remained the same from the creation of man somewhat briefly outlined as follows.
1.) God will not unilaterally fight against the rebellious Satan alone.
2.) God will have another creature agree with God to such fighting. If a creature Satan is in rebellion God deems it to His glory that another creature agree with God against the rebellious creature Satan. The three pointe trinagle is heavier on the side of God with man AGAINST Satan, rather than Satan with man AGAINST GOD.
3.) Satan is aware of this and seeks to drive the other creature man apart from God and God apart from man.
God is holy and man has become sinful.
Satan accuses man before God, taunting God that He cannot partner with such a sinful being.
Satan accuses God before man, injecting the deception into man that God does not love or care for man.
4.) The accusation of man before God is terminated by the redemption of Christ for our sins. Christ's redeeming death for us shuts the mouth of Satan's accusations against man. Man is now positionally righteous in God's economy.
5.) The growth of God's life within man giving him the power to overcome Satan's temptations. A remnant at least of overcomers are consstituted dispistionally righteous as well as positionally righteous.
This stronger part of the totality of God's people on earth harmonize their will with God's and bring in the kingdom of God to the earth, crushing the Devil.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 12-24-2007 4:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2007 3:20 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 146 of 301 (443525)
12-25-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by IamJoseph
12-25-2007 12:33 AM


Re: Uh ... "BIBLE STUDY ???"
While the bible is referred to the OT & NT, it is also a fact there are core differences in beliefs, interpretation and conclusion between these two scriptures.
The teaching of Christ were not ideas out of the originality of a man, ANY man. Christ said that His teaching was not His but the Father's who sent Him:
Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. IF anyone resolves to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. (John 7:17)
The teaching out of the mouth of Jesus is the teaching of God the Father Who sent Him.
Jesus, coming with the teaching of His Father, said that His words would outlast the physical universe. So they are the eternal oracles of God:
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away. (Matt. 24:35)
Jesus also said that until heaven and earth pass away the most insignificant aspect of the law of Moses would still stand.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all come to pass. (Matt.5:17,18)
Speaking the words taught Him by His Father, Jesus put His words on the same level as the oracles of God in the Hebrew Bible.
"You have heard that it was said to the ancients ... But I say to you ... (See Matt. 5:21,22)
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that eveyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt.5:17,18)
And it was said ... But I say to you ... (Matt. 5:31,32)
Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients ... But I tell you ..." (Matt. 5:33,34)
Therefore Jesus placed His speaking on the same eternal infallible ground as the Old Testament. This is why we Christians insist that we do not exclude the New Testament from our study of what does the Bible really mean.
But Jesus did not just speak these great things. He acted in a manner which tended to authenticate His words. So we cannot just ignore Him.
If ONE examine this situation correctly and honestly, the OT has a non-negotiable mandated law:
NOTHING CAN BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS.
Jesus, speaking not the original opinions of a created man, but speaking the teaching of the Father Who sent Him said that He came to fulfill the law and not abolish it.
He is the final propituatory sacrifice which renders all the bulls and goats and lambs and doves no longer necesary. With one sacrifice for sins He has perfected forever those who come forward to God through Him.
And He imparts the divine life enabling man to lead the highest standard of righteousness on the earth by the law of life.
But in the nre covenant it is not by the power of the fallen Adamic nature one lives righteously. But it is by faith in the organic union of Jesus Christ the Righteous One internally, within the believer, living a mingled life with the saved.
Therefore whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens; but ehoever practices and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. (Matt.5:19)
Tnis teaching is of the God and Father of the Son of God. It is not the teaching out of some man's original creative thinking.
Furthermore this teaching, after the ascension of Christ, was passed on to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not speak His own words but those words delivered to Him by the Father and the Son.
But when He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:13)
What has been delivered to the Son originates with the Father. And what has been given to the Son is given by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.
He [the Holy Spirit] will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine and will declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I have said that He receives of Mine and will declare it to you. (John 16:14,15)
Finally, what the Apostles delivered to the world as the New Testament was not thier original ideas stemming out of their religious creativity. It was the oracles of the Father, transmitted through the Son, transmitted through the Holy Spirit, to the Apostles:
" [the gospel]... which have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven ... " (See 1 Pet. 1:12)
There are many many other verses I could use to establish this. But the bottom line is that the New Testament has its source from God. That is the same God who delivered the tablets to Moses, written by the finger of God. The Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles who gave us the New Testament, were all directly under the authority of this one God.
Jesus the Son, tells us that all authority has been placed into His hands in the universe. A crucified and resurrected Man is now on the throne of the universe commanding His people to preach the New Testament to all the world:
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age. (Matt. 28:18-20)
The teaching of the New Testament are the oracles of God. They are the oracles of God in the Bible. They were delivered to us by "Emmanuel" which by interpretations means "God with us". Jesus the man was God with us. And in the end of the same Gospel He says that He is with us all the days until the consummation of the age.
This is not a superfluous law, but one with 100% equal validity as "Thou shalt not murder". Its proof is the seperation of christianity from its mother religion, and unending wars between Islam, the Hellenests and with Rome - it is certainly not understood by the bulk of christians today, who use it as a charge Jews were rejecters; the reverse is the truth.
Every Christians will have to stand one day before Jesus Christ to give an account of his or her Christian life. It is true that a Christian can be also a rejector of the will of the Father.
Just because one is saved eternally does not mean that he or she cannot be disciplined in the next age by Christ, before the age of eternity begins. The age of eternity begins after the 1,000 year millennial kingdom.
In that time Messiah will fulfill His promises to ISrael as the capital of the earth. And during that time He will also reward or punish all the Christians who were saved during the years of the age of the grace of Christ. In the age of grace Christ Who came to fulfill the law of God was the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. He was the reality of all the types, symbols, shadows of the Levitical offers commanded by God in the Old Testament.
But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested for the putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself ... So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time to those who eagerly await Him, apart from sin, unto salvation. (See Hebrews 9:26-28)
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb. 9:14)
This scheme of the perfect human substitute for the sins of the world was hidden in God. It was not made known to other generations. It was made known to the new covenant apostles and prophets in spirit. So we Christians must study the Old Testament with the light delivered to the new covenant apostles and prophets.
" revelation .. which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in spirit " (Eph. 3:5)
This not to add or subtract means there can be no follow-up to what is God's law,
Listen to this Old Testament passage carefully:
" Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I tood them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant wich they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehovah:
I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And they eill no longer teach, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah;for all will know Me, from the little one to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will rememver no more. (Jer. 31:33)
We believe that this new covenant is the imparting of the law of life in the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus Christ into our hearts.
"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
As the resurrected Savior and Lord, Jesus became the life giving Spirit to write Himself into our beings. He inscibed the law of divine life on our hearts qwho have been regenerated by the new birth. And by his death on the cross out sins and iniquities have been judged by God and He remembers them no more.
Yes, I know that I am not of the house of Israel or of the house of Judah. Other passages teach me that this salvation will go out to the Gentiles.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 12-25-2007 12:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 147 of 301 (443530)
12-25-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jaywill
12-25-2007 1:25 PM


Re: a history of the devil
Genesis says that the serpent was a beast of the field, not a sea monster from the water.
again, wrong serpent. what i'm trying to say is that the mythology of the devil has more to do with the leviathan than it does with the garden snake in genesis, who is rather explicitly just an animal.
If you're saying that the Devil as a spiritual being pre-dated the garden incident, I agree with that. He had a long ancient pre-Adamic history.
well, this is where we get into "making stuff up" territory. the "pre-adamic history" you're almost certainly thinking of is the one found in paradise lost. not the bible, and not the inter-testemental books. genesis draws images from the ugaritic lotan, enemy of ba'al hadad, but completely deprives it of spiritual significance. this is a reflection on the philosophy of it's authors: god is almighty, and who could even challenge him? the image is further appropriated by job, who places lotan (leviathan) as the mightiest of beast, but still one of god's creations and completely at the mercy of the lord. however, the mythology stuck around in the non-biblical arena, and found outlets in the psalms.
the idea of the serpent in the garden is a completely separate source, also intentionally deprived of its spiritual significance. whereas in zoroastrianism, snakes represent unclean spirits, in judaism, the snake is just one of god's creations.
the idea here is, "our god is mightier than anyone, especially your gods." ascribing spiritual significance to these representations of other gods is, in essence, a return to polytheistic sources they come from, and a violation of the first (or second) of the ten commandments.
when you say "the devil is the ancient serpent" you mean something very different than john of patmos meant, and he meant something very different than the pseudepigraphical authors meant, and they meant something very different than the authors of the torah.
No I don't.
yes, you most certainly do. because the imagery john is referring to is that of leviathan, and not a rather commonplace garden-variety snake. your view is entirely anachronistic, drawing more from milton than your bible, even if you're reading backwards as you so often like to do.
You're musings on the historical development of the imagery is interesting. But I don't think it effects at all the revelation of the Holy Spirit delivered to us through the Apostle John that the one deceiving man in Genesis is the same one in opposition against God's people throughout history up until the end times as John writes in Revelation 12.
this is just a very, very poor reading of the bible. the opposition god's people faced throughout the bible was almost always their own. "stiff-necked people" and such. they were stubborn and eager to follow other gods, and that's why god punished them so frequently. or at least, this is the logic of the vast majority of the prophets. satan, on the other hand, makes very select few appearances -- and when he finally DOES show up, in the book of job, he is neither the serpent, nor god's enemy. he is job's prosecution.
It is the same evil being. As interesting as your supposed suggested cultural developments are, they have no bearing on this.
in other words, you're sticking your fingers in your ears, and insisting on your backwards and anachronistic reading of the text. because what you're insisting on isn't even reading genesis in light of revelation. it's reading genesis in light of paradise lost and our more recent cultural folk tales. revelation does not talk of snakes, it talks of dragons.
The prinicples of spiritual warfare have remained the same from the creation of man somewhat briefly outlined as follows.
1.) God will not unilaterally fight against the rebellious Satan alone.
2.) God will have another creature agree with God to such fighting. If a creature Satan is in rebellion God deems it to His glory that another creature agree with God against the rebellious creature Satan. The three pointe trinagle is heavier on the side of God with man AGAINST Satan, rather than Satan with man AGAINST GOD.
3.) Satan is aware of this and seeks to drive the other creature man apart from God and God apart from man.
i'm sorry, you get these rules from where?
God is holy and man has become sinful.
sin is in man's nature. having a free will of our own, we stray from god's will. this, in fact, the very first thing that man does.
Satan accuses man before God, taunting God that He cannot partner with such a sinful being.
why, pray tell, would god need assistance? satan accuses man before god because that's his function. his very name, given to him by god, is "the accuser." his function is to test the merit of man.
Satan accuses God before man, injecting the deception into man that God does not love or care for man.
you might call what satan does more along the lines of "entrapment." that does seem to involve testing faith, yes. but technically, the prosecution and defense attorneys are both employed by the state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2007 1:25 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2007 5:41 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 149 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2007 5:56 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 150 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2007 6:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 148 of 301 (443566)
12-25-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by arachnophilia
12-25-2007 3:20 PM


Re: a history of the devil
well, this is where we get into "making stuff up" territory. the "pre-adamic history" you're almost certainly thinking of is the one found in paradise lost. not the bible, and not the inter-testemental books. genesis draws images from the ugaritic lotan, enemy of ba'al hadad, but
Arach,
You may have an impressive knowledge of mythology and literature. But the things I am teaching here are not derived from my study of the writings of Milton or Dante. So I am really not interested in Paradise Lost or even ancient mythologies.
Pre-Adamic happenings I derive from the Bible.
In this discussion I have already spoken to WHY I believe that cerain utterances in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are instances of "the prophetic past". The reasons I gave were biblical.
I have never read Paradise Lost. Though I know a little about some ancient cosmologies, they are not my interest. Probably, in many ways THEY are influence by the truth of God's word RATHER than the other way around.
That is in SOME instances.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2007 3:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2007 11:49 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 149 of 301 (443567)
12-25-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by arachnophilia
12-25-2007 3:20 PM


Re: a history of the devil
Concerning spiritual warfare Arach retorts:
i'm sorry, you get these rules from where?
Arach, sit back and take a deep breath and open your mind ... listen.
These principles are derived from the EXPERIENCE of many of God's saints down through the centries. But not from experiences alone. Also they come from a careful examination of spiritual warfare as it occured throughout the Bible.
We're not playing around with toys here Arach. This stuff is real. God is real. Christ is real. The enemy of Christ and of God's people is real.
In fact the closer one gets to wanting to draw close to Jesus for salvation the more he or she will often notice how circumstances and people begin to kick up trouble of all kinds to keep one back.
The night I called on the name of Jesus and set myself to be a disciple of Jesus, that very night an old "girlfriend" called out of nowhere to distract me and pull me back into my old life style.
It was not of herself. This was activity in the spiritual realm belonging to spiritual warfare.
Someimes even when a person sets their heart on reading the Bible each night all kinds of destractions will begin to happen. There is a cosmic battle over the hearts and minds of men and women. And there are some principles that we notice in conjunction with these battles.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2007 3:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2007 11:59 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 150 of 301 (443568)
12-25-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by arachnophilia
12-25-2007 3:20 PM


Re: a history of the devil
sin is in man's nature. having a free will of our own, we stray from god's will. this, in fact, the very first thing that man does.
I agree that man strayed from God's will. However, there was a line in the sand. That line was called the tree of the knowledge of good and eveil. Whatever Adam did on this side of that line was accepted by God. Once he crossed the line and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - SIN entered into man.
Yes, it was not good even to think about eating or having a tendency to even want to. These were not counted by God as trangression. Once the line was crossed and man ate he was joined to Satan.
There are some things about this I cannot explain. But his much I am pretty sure of. And I know where to find salvation.
why, pray tell, would god need assistance? satan accuses man before god because that's his function. his very name, given to him by god, is "the accuser." his function is to test the merit of man.
You tell me WHY God commmited the creation under Adam's dominion sayiong "Let them have dominion over ..."
Why does the Creator need Adam to have dominion? Doesn't God have all the dominion.
God wants a counterpart. He really wants a counterpart to harmonize with Him and express Him. I may not be able to explain WHY He wants this counterpart. But He just does.
He created the universe in order to have this counterpart.
Probably, in the ancient past Lucifer (Latin - Day Star) served as this counterpart. Now God is making an example out of this one who rebelled and established a kingdom contrary to God's kingdom.
you might call what satan does more along the lines of "entrapment." that does seem to involve testing faith, yes. but technically, the prosecution and defense attorneys are both employed by the state.
What Satan wanted to do to Job was far beyond simply prosecuting him. Most state prosecutors do not also get involved in torturing the witness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2007 3:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 12-26-2007 12:14 AM jaywill has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024