Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Poor Satan, so misunderstood.
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 166 of 301 (444783)
12-30-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
12-30-2007 7:20 AM


Re: An interlude..
1) That before Adam ate of the fruit he was amorality. That is: he no concept of right and wrong to apply to his choosing. That is: he was a consequential being omly and only had the consequences of his choice to weigh-up in his choosing ("surely die" vs. "be like God")
I don't have too to say about this at the moment. But this picture is one of the things which convences me that the Bible is a divine book. I don't think any human being has the wisdom to portray this picture.
Adam was immediately under God's rule. He was also innocent and he had within him by God's creation an emmergency break system. He did not need to use it yet. But that break system was his human conscience. In case something went wrong, God prepared an this break system within man - the conscience to at least restrict man from plunging uncontrollably into rebellion against God.
The subtlety of the enemy of God was to seduce man to be independent of God. The Devil did not seduce him to do something "bad" as much as to do something independent. In an attempt to do something independent from God man fell under the authroity of Satan's kingdom of revolt, rebellion, and independence from God. This revolt, rebellion, and independence from God is a dynamic withdrawl into death.
At this time I don't have much to say about the word "amoral".
2) That on eating of the fruit he became a moral being. That is, he acquired a conscience. The conscience being that of God which would immediately go to work to counter the effect of the sin that had simultaneously entered Adam.
That is true. Immediately man goes to work to repair the breach between he and God. It is as if man can break the relationship. But he cannot fix it. God created man and established a relationship. Man is able to damage that relationship. But he cannot fix it once it is damaged. It requires God Himself to fix the damaged relationship.
Man does not believe this. Man must be convinced of this. Man can damage the fellowship with God. But once the fellowship is damaged it requires God to repair it.
Redemption is purchasing man back from another owner. By the fall of man man became legally owned by the law of God. Satan's possession of man is illegal. The Bible speaks of God delivering us from Satan by His power. He must bind the strong man and by strength, deliver us from the evil power with God's greater power. But with the law of God, we must be bought back. We must be legally paid for. We have come under the law of God.
The Bible says that Christ has redeemed the believers from the curse of the law.
Justification, is to be made right with God according to His standard of righteousness. That is not made right according to our standard but God's standard.
Reconciliation is the action of God to remove the enmity between God and man. Reconciliation makes two who have become enemies become friends again.
These themes - Redemption, Justification, Reconciliation, with Atonement are developed throughout the rest of the Scriptures.
Man has damaged his communion with God. And the Bible tells the story of what God must do to bring man back to Himself and back to the eternal purpose of God - which is to dispense the divine life and nature into man.
Now one word about "becoming like God":
Becomming like God in itself is not the problem. If God did not want in some measure for man to be like God He would not have made man in His own image, or given man dominion, or put man before the tree of life. So simply becoming like God is not the problem.
I am convinced that God wanted man to be like Himself.
The problem was to be like God as an autonomous, self existing and independent creature. Every life is dependent. Man too was created dependent upon God. The fall of man was to become "like God" in being independent and totally self governing and self existing.
Some posters here want ot insist that Satan has nothing to do with this. I strongly do not agree. Satan did not come after as an afterthought. Satan preceeded the rebellion of man. It is not the other way around.
The arch angel led the way of rebellion and captured humanity to join him. Some posters are vehement about denying this. To them Satan has nothing to do with man's error in Genesis. But it is just that a fuller disclosure of this enemy of God which seduced man away, is not revealed in greater details until latter in the whole revelation of the Bible.
OFF TOPIC PORTIONS - Please Do Not Respond to the off topic portions of this message or continue in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 12-30-2007 7:20 AM iano has not replied

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


Message 167 of 301 (444791)
12-30-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by iano
12-30-2007 7:10 AM


Re: Uh ... "BIBLE STUDY ???"
iano responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Not according to Judaism. And who would know better about the god of the Jews than the Jews?
Adam perhaps? He wasn't a Jew.
What makes you think he wasn't? He appears in a book that was written by Jews for Jews. How can he possibly be understood except in a Jewish context?
quote:
He certainly would have known about God in a unique way that only one other Jew I can think of could match or exceed.
You think Enoch doesn't share Adam's knowledge of god? What about Elijah?
Oh! You were trying to make a comment about Jesus, weren't you!
You need to stop trying to impose your Christian dogma upon Jewish texts.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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 164 by iano, posted 12-30-2007 7:10 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jaywill, posted 12-31-2007 1:59 AM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 168 of 301 (444830)
12-31-2007 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Rrhain
12-30-2007 9:32 PM


On "Imposing Christian Dogma"
Rrhain,
"And he [Abraham] believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6)
Please tell me what is particularly "Jewish" about this. A man believes God and God accounts that belief as righteousness.
Where is your "Jewish" copyright on this ? If anywhere in the world someone believes God, and God accounts that belief to that man or woman as righteousness, is that believer "imposing Christian Dogma" onto the Hebrew Scriptures?
Now Jehovah said to Abram ... And I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you I will curse; And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. (See Gen. 12:1-3)
If the nations seek to be blessed through the blessing which God promised them through Abraham, is that to impose "Christian Dogma" on the Hebrew Scripture?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 12-30-2007 9:32 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2007 3:54 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 169 of 301 (444842)
12-31-2007 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by jaywill
12-31-2007 1:59 AM


Re: On "Imposing Christian Dogma"
jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Please tell me what is particularly "Jewish" about this.
That it was written by Jews, for Jews. Thus, it isn't a reference to Jesus.
quote:
Where is your "Jewish" copyright on this ?
When you start to say that Jewish texts are predictions of Jesus, you've crossed over.
quote:
If the nations seek to be blessed through the blessing which God promised them through Abraham, is that to impose "Christian Dogma" on the Hebrew Scripture?
When you think it's a reference to Jesus and the Christian god, yes.
The god of Genesis doesn't know Jesus from Adam.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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 168 by jaywill, posted 12-31-2007 1:59 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jaywill, posted 12-31-2007 6:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 170 of 301 (444860)
12-31-2007 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rrhain
12-31-2007 3:54 AM


Re: On "Imposing Christian Dogma"
That it was written by Jews, for Jews. Thus, it isn't a reference to Jesus.
The Gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew.
The Gospel of Mark was written by a Jew.
The Gospel of John was written by a Jew.
Some 13 of the 27 New Testament epistles were written by a Jew.
Peter's epistles, James' epistle, Jude' epistle, John's epistles were written by Jews.
The book of Hebrews was most likely written by a Jew.
Only Luke and Acts were not written by a Jew in the books of the New Testament.
And the Ultimate author of the entire bible is God. That God created me and redeemed me on the cross of Calvary. I call that God "Father" and I sure won't return to blindness.
I will not and cannot return to spiritual blindness , not for Rrhain or for anyone else. I found God in Christ and Him only will I serve forever.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
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 AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2007 3:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 171 of 301 (445806)
01-03-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jaywill
12-26-2007 7:03 AM


Re: a history of the devil
We do not have God delivering to Adam 613 laws. We do not see God delivering the law of Moses to the created man. We see a much simplier picture.
you missed my point. we are given those laws. it's all sin. man strayed from god's will -- this is simply one example where he jumped at the chance to do so. the bible, btw, is filled with examples, from start to finish.
When he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil sins and death entered into man.
so eating of the tree -- disobeying god -- itself was not a sin? it seems to me that man had the capacity to deviate from god's will before he ate from the tree. otherwise, he would have obeyed god and not eaten from the tree. right?
Whereas you may reject the Apostle Paul's teaching, we Christians cannot do without it and Paul writes:
"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned ... (Rom.5:12)
For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous.
And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound; but where sin abounded, grace has super-abounded ... (Rom. 5:19,20)
you are misrepresenting the apostle paul. he is contrasting adam's effect on mankind with christ's. and to be fair to adam everything else about mankind entered the world through him too, didn't it?
There is a logic to your suggestion that there was a potential for Adam to sin. But going beyond into speculation about this will cause some confusion and lose of the truth which we clearly have.
the point i mean to make is that the tree did not give adam free will, nor did it give him sin. adam sinned when he ate it, because he disobeyed god. and he had to have had that capacity to disobey god all along. any other view really needlessly complicates the story.
but satan just isn't in the story.
We have a clear parting of ways at this point. This is the initial cosmic depature of the human race from the paradise of God and from the eternal purpose of God.
No underling was responsible for this. It was Satan who opposed the will of God.
er, no, it was adam who opposed the will of god. you have clearly misunderstood the very purpose of the story! read it again more closely. god asks adam if he ate of the tree, and adam says "the woman you put here made me do it." god goes to the woman and asks her, and she says "the snake tricked me!"
see, the will of god here, which he so plainly expressed, was that adam was not allowed to eat of the tree. adam broke that rule, not the serpent, and adam is punished along with the serpent and the woman. "the devil made me do it" just does not cut it with god -- that's the moral here. adam is responsible for his own actions.
Any thought that it was just a naughty snake and Satan comes along latter to join the mischief I will not accept.
why not? it's just pure dogma that it was anything else. look again at the punishment he's given:
quote:
upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
slithers along its belly, licks the ground. gosh, that sounds like a snake doesn't it? it doesn't talk about casting demons into hellfire, or falling from heaven, or any of that sort of thing. it talks about the qualities that define a snake. perhap it means a snake.
This was a pivotal point in the history of the univese. Just like the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it says that Satan entered into Judas to do the job right himself. So also in this pivotal junction it was the main enemy of God who came to derail God's eternal purpose.
wait, let's review that last one. satan entered into judas to... ensure that christ was crucified, sealing his own fate? wow, this satan guy must be a real idiot. if i were him, i woulda tried to keep christ alive, and not turn him into a ready sacrifice that would mean i would be completely powerless from then on.
Just because he is not pinpointed as Satan in that story does not conceal him.
ah, another case of the "not quite inspired enough" bible, is it then? they meant to say this rather important point, they just forgot?
You acknowledge that the 600 plus commandments of the law is not revealed there in Genesis. You should see the reasonableness of saying that everything we know about the Devil is not covered there either.
er, but you see, your own logic betrays you. the mosaic covenant was not given to adam. he was given one or two things to follow, and that was pretty much it. adam himself was not held to laws he was not given, correct? those laws were moses' people and time. it's not like this is stuff we were supposed to know, and it applied to adam too.
why, if something was important to the story of adam, would it be left out? heck, when milton goes to tell the same story, he makes it very very clear who he thinks the serpent is. yes, we'll keep coming back to paradise lost. because that's where this information is revealed.
The Bible is written that way. Genesis doesn't tell us about the ten commandments or the priesthood. God provides more details in subsequent books.
right -- in order. there were no ten commandments and no levites in adam's time. but if there was a devil, and one who rather significantly impacts the story, wouldn't it be nice if it said "the devil" instead of "snake"? i mean, that's one word not 613 individual laws that would take several books to fill in.
In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 He provides some poetic prophetic utterances which expose the ancient history of a main rebellious angelic creature. This one became Satan.
look, you keep bringing these up. those just aren't about satan. period. you'll know something in the bible is about satan when it uses the name "satan." sounds simple enough, but seems to be pretty hard to stick to. do i really need to break down isaiah 14 and ezekiel 28 again, and point out what they're really referring to?
Of course from eternity to eternity God is triune
the rudimentary foundations of trinitarian belief are only barely expressed in the new testament, and certainly are not in the old. like it or not, this is a new idea, and it's a mistake to pin the god depicted in the old testament with the personality and motivations of the god of the new. it's probably even a mistake to do it across textual sources within the old testament, actually.
and is the divine "Us" who said "Let Us make man ...".
there are many different interpretations of that, and quite a lot of them are consistent with the jewish idea of one and only one god.
It is evident that in God''s providence He is using Satan. I do not object to the thought of God using the Devil like a mad dog on a leash. However, there is nothing friendly about the relationship.
they seem to get along rather cordially in job. you know, the book that's in the bible, as opposed to the stories you make up in your head.
I mean I stop short of any suggestion that Satan is a cooperating attorney simply and obediently doing God's work as a counter arguer. That is as if Perry Mason and the district attorney are on pretty friendly terms.
i can't say i've watched perry mason, but i don't imagine that if he ran into the other attornery on the street, they'd knife each other.
Satan is a murder. Exodus says that God will have war with Amelek continually because he is "a hand against the throne".
Satan is the original "hand against the throne". His challenge to God's authority is not friendly. His murders are not friendly. He would have torn Job limb from limb in hatred.
you have zero biblical evidence for any of this. none that satan was against god's throne (except in the future tense), and none that he would have harmed job in hatred. yes, he probably would have -- remember here that he struck down job's children with god's blessing.
He sought to set his own throne above that of God. He would be like the Most High.
still, no biblical evidence. revelation reports that satan will rebell during the end of times, if you take it literally.
Satan brings accusation against God that God plays favorites with Job. You see to Satan's way of thinking God who loves man, should be in total rejection of man. He cannot stand that God still loves this sinful creature. God would not give up this fallen man.
....er, no. read it again. satan says that job fears god "for nothing." that if god would take away all that job has, job would blaspheme. that's accusation on job's character, not god's.
You should notice this about Job - It is very firmly entrenched in the concept of man that if he does good God will bless, if he does bad God will punish. This was the repeated argument of Job's three "comforters".
actually, the book is an argument against that belief. job's friends represent the wisdom movement, a philosophy that finds voice in books like jeremiah.
In other words their understanding of God was filled up with the knowledge of good and evil.
and they are quite clearly wrong:
quote:
And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: 'My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job hath.
Job 42:7
The answer for the question of why Job is suffering is really never given in the book of Job. God puts Job through this outragous trial only to spend a few chapters scolding him that he really doesn't know ANYTHING.
that doesn't sound like an answer to you? notice, btw, that after chapter 2, satan is no longer mentioned. god himself takes responsibility for job's suffering. so i think your idea of who's on what side might need a little rethinking.
the classical hebrew understanding was that god created all things, all blessings and curses, and that satan was merely an angel (or one of the "sons of god" that job mentions) who carried out the task of testing men for god. you can find quite a lot of evidence for this point of view if you simply read the old testament a little more.
quote:
i form light, and i create darkness.
i make peace, and i create evil.
i am Yahweh: i do all these things.
isaiah 45:7


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 12-26-2007 7:03 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2008 10:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 172 of 301 (445897)
01-04-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by arachnophilia
01-03-2008 11:23 PM


Re: a history of the devil
you missed my point. we are given those laws. it's all sin. man strayed from god's will -- this is simply one example where he jumped at the chance to do so. the bible, btw, is filled with examples, from start to finish.
I am a little short on time and weary. And it has been awhile since I read this discussion. So if my comments don't exactly correspond to yours excuse me.
All I can say about the creation of man account is that the law of Moses is not there. What is there is a commanding God and a responsible created man. In the initial stage we see man directly in touch with God and able to respond responsibly to God's command.
I don't think that we understand a great deal about this stage of human life. It is on the otherside of the fall, which we have NEVER known. Man is innocent yet neutral.
At this point, I at least, am hesistant to say I know a lot about what this was like. We've never been there Arach. It was the unique station of the very first created human beings which we have never known.
Me:
When he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil sins and death entered into man.
You:
so eating of the tree -- disobeying god -- itself was not a sin?
Like I said. I have not followed this thread lately. But I believe that of course it was a sin for man to eat when God said do not eat.
it seems to me that man had the capacity to deviate from god's will before he ate from the tree. otherwise, he would have obeyed god and not eaten from the tree. right?
He may have indeed had that capacity. But God says when man is guilty and when he is not. I think He has the authority in the matter.
Now, Adam may daydream about that tree. He may ask about the tree. He may argue about the tree. He may gaze at the tree. He may write a song about that tree. As long as he does not EAT of the tree he is not a trangressor.
Eating of the tree was crossing the line into trangression. On the abstaining side of eating of the tree - Adam was innocent. That is what I see at this time.
The argument that somehow philosophically or pscychologically he was aleady guilty, I don't think, comes into play here. We see more of that in the New Testament where Jesus makes His teaching more penetrating than the letter of the law. In essence "You're already an adulteror if you look on a woman to lust after her." "You're already a murderer if you're angry with your brother without a cause."
I don't think that kind of moral penetration is at work in God's command "Do not cross the line into taking the action to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Me:
Whereas you may reject the Apostle Paul's teaching, we Christians cannot do without it and Paul writes:
"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned ... (Rom.5:12)
For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous.
And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound; but where sin abounded, grace has super-abounded ... (Rom. 5:19,20)
You:
you are misrepresenting the apostle paul. he is contrasting adam's effect on mankind with christ's. and to be fair to adam everything else about mankind entered the world through him too, didn't it?
I'll have to think about some of this. But I don't think I am misrepresenting Paul's teaching.
There are TWO key men in the universe - Adam and Christ. The first man Adam did a specific something in disobedience to God and plunged us all into the realm of sin and death.
The second man Jesus Christ did a specific something in utter obedience to God, and if we believe in Him, we are transported into a realm a position by which we are judged justified and righteoues by God.
Jesus is called "the second man." Jesus is also called "the last Adam". He concluded one stage of humanity and initiates a new stage.
The act of Adam was his disobedience of God in eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For years as a Christian I did not think that there was anything particular about the fruit which was important.
Eventually, slowly, I said - "Wait a minute. The way Paul talks and indeed the way even Genesis talks, something changed in Adam himself when he ate."
Though I don't claim to understand it too well now, I am pretty sure that the actual eating of that fruit constituted the first man and woman with something horrible in their bodies which they passed on to all thier descendents.
How the physical fruit and the evil nature of the evil spirit that operates in man coordinate together, I do not fully understand at this time.
The act of obedience on the part of the second man, Jesus, was His death on the cross on behalf of our sins. I do not believe that that is a plan which arose out of the imagination of any human being. I think that that is a plan divinely established by Someone Who has the ultimate authority to establish such things and say:
"Listen This is how this is going to work. Here is a blank check for everybody. If you draw from it - you are paid up and you do not owe Me. "
In terms of eternital redemption and eternal life, this is the procedure. This does not mean that a believer is not responsible after she has been saved. Nor does it mean that God cannot discipline or punish a believer after he receives this eternal redemption.
It does mean that the justice which is due each of us for our real guilt has fallen on Another - the spotless Lamb of God - the Son of God.
I don't believe that such a scheme has arisen from the imagination of a human being - neither Paul or Luther or Calvin or Wesley or anyone else. I think the plan has a divine stamp of originality upon it.
Now we do know that sacrifice to a god is as old as mankind has been doing religious things. But I think this is man perverting something, or warping something, or tragically imitating something which has its origin in God. The Bible says that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So the earliest humans must have had some indication that sacrifice was involved in reconciliation to God.
I think that the sacrifices of Abel and Cain were the earliest examples of two people carrying out something divinely communicated as having some future relevancy to the salvation of the human race.
Me:
There is a logic to your suggestion that there was a potential for Adam to sin. But going beyond into speculation about this will cause some confusion and lose of the truth which we clearly have.
You:
the point i mean to make is that the tree did not give adam free will, nor did it give him sin. adam sinned when he ate it, because he disobeyed god. and he had to have had that capacity to disobey god all along. any other view really needlessly complicates the story.
I think I can agree with you that he had a capacity. Here is the point which I think you miss entirely:
There was a REBEL in the universe. There was a HEAD DISOBEYER. There was one Original Superintendent of ALL disobedience who had an opposition party against God.
Man, with whatever "capacity" we may agree he had, was neutral between this HEAD DISOBEYER and God. Man was innocent. Man was even "very good". Man was not at odds with God, blessed of God, and favored by God. But he was in some way neutral.
He was placed in a position to choose which head he would be under. He chose to be under the head of the rebel, the serpent.
The crucial questions is "Whose SIDE are you going to be on Adam?"
I don't think speculations about "capacities" to err or sin, potentialities to sin are important. Speculations about these seem to me to be attempts to be smarter than God and improve upon His way of governance.
So with the assistance of the New Testament and Pauline insight it is hard for me to think of the serpent as not cardinal in this cosmic beginnings of the God / Man relationship.
If man wants to understand how to get back TO paradise he has to understand how and why he got OUT of it to begin with. This involves two WHOs. God and Satan.
As a Christiand we are interested in practical salvation. More than that many of us are interested in what is God's eternal purpose to begin with quite apart from the whole question of the sin problem.
Speculations about the potentiality of Adam to sin, the capacity for Adam to sin, are philosophical excursions not perntinant to the practicalities of being reconciled to God was we see taught in the Bible.
Okay, so we say "Well, actually Adam was a sinner the moment he even entertained the idea of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Philosophically interesting perhaps... but not important.
but satan just isn't in the story.
I have argued much that this serpent is Satan in some way. No one who responds to me agrees.
Okay, let's say that Satan in the New Testament teaching is not in Genesis. What does that do for us?
Some will respond "Well, for one it keeps Christian gospel out of the Hebrew Genesis. So we're happy."
You still have the original man, led astray from God and expelled from paradise. You still have a man the first human parents of all of us, led into an advasarial relationship with his Creator, by some weird neighberhood serpent, the whereabouts none of us have a clue (WHY it should even be there in a paradise garden).
So, the Bible teaches that "A" snake of some insignificance, led the human race away from God and out of paradise.
That's all.
It doesn't change that we're evidently sinners when we did not start out to be according to the Bible. It doesn't change that we have the problem of death.
Other than give some people some kind of sense of having chased Christians off of their cultural and theological "turf" as it were, a don't see what it really does for anyone.
Me:
We have a clear parting of ways at this point. This is the initial cosmic depature of the human race from the paradise of God and from the eternal purpose of God.
No underling was responsible for this. It was Satan who opposed the will of God.
You:
er, no, it was adam who opposed the will of god. you have clearly misunderstood the very purpose of the story! read it again more closely.
Sure. I've read it hundreds of times. I hope to read it a thousand more times. I love the word of God. It feeds me. It gives me light.
god asks adam if he ate of the tree, and adam says "the woman you put here made me do it." god goes to the woman and asks her, and she says "the snake tricked me!"
see, the will of god here, which he so plainly expressed, was that adam was not allowed to eat of the tree. adam broke that rule, not the serpent, and adam is punished along with the serpent and the woman.
These are the lines of authority being revealed. The man was created first. God gave instructions to the man. Though we are not explicitly told I think that the man gave instructions to the woman.
The snake didn't have a leg to stand on. Whatever instructions were given to the serpent we are not privy to from reading Genesis.
I think that ANY instructions / commands given to the serpent were given PRIOR to the story. Probably quite a bit prior to the story in the ancient pre-Adamic world. Anyway, the serpents presence, knowledge of the way things go, "insight" if you want to call it that, are all rather mysterious. Details are added latter in the unfolding revelation of the Scripture.
"the devil made me do it" just does not cut it with god -- that's the moral here. adam is responsible for his own actions.
There is NOTHING in my interpretation which suggests that God ignores what man has done because man says that the Devil made him do it. Nothing in my interpretation justifies Adam in his error. IF that is what you are objecting to.
Nothing in Pauline theology suggests that Adam is excused because, after all, the devil made him do it. If you want to disagree with me could you do it over something which I actually taught ? That is if you're implying that a Satanic temptation of man EXCUSES man from responsibility before God.
I am not comedian Flip Wilson slyly saying "Oh. the Devil made me do that!" *Laughter* *Applause* ha ha. Okay?
Is there ANYTHING in Romans suggesting that Paul is saying sinners are not under condemnation because of the excuse that the Devil made them do it? I hope we don't have to come back to this objection.
Me:
Any thought that it was just a naughty snake and Satan comes along latter to join the mischief I will not accept.
You:
why not? it's just pure dogma that it was anything else. look again at the punishment he's given:
upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
Here again is the difference we have. Is Genesis the beginnig of a long list of divinely revealed writings constituting a whole revelation from God to man? Or is Genesis and isolate specimen of random writings in the national Jewish scap book of religious ideas?
I say that the God who spans the centries, used a number or writers over 1600 years to unfold the most significant things about our existence and His eternal purposes.
No I don't think I am "reading junk into Genesis". I think that gradually, in stages, God is unfolding to us revelation of profound matters. Sometimes He did so in words which a fourth grader can grab in essence. He allowed things to occur and told us of them in terms that the widest number of people could get.
The simplicity of the account can be misleading. Okay. Let us go back in a time machine and pretend that some Hebrew young boy and girl here Genesis read to them at home or in the temple or in a synogogue. We are now say three or four thousand years ago.
Perhaps when they read about the serpent the Spirit of God used it in this way. They saw the deception of this subtle creature and they resisted the temptation to disobey one of the commandments of the law of Moses.
That is good enough for their stage in God's move. They are not held responsible for anything else by God. The wisdom which the Holy Spirit brought to them from those pages is appropriate for where they are in history. They are to keep the law of Moses.
Maybe their rabbi taught them that the tree of life was to Torah. That is not bad. For that time in the history of God's move that is not bad.
Now, the living Spirit of God is still convicting the hearts of men and women by illuminating the words of the Bible. We are now on this side of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. His new covenant apostles speak of:
"the economy of the mystery .. which throughout the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things." (Eph. 3:9)
"Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, that is, the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept in silence in times of the ages." (Romans 16:25)
" ... the mystery of Christ, 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)
On this side of God's move through history ... on this side of the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Christ the holy apostles and prophets enlighten to us something deeper than was seen before in Genesis and the other books.
The apostles and prophets of the New Testament are said to be "holy". That means they are not common. The priest of Jehovah had a turbin about his head which read "HOLINESS TO THE LORD". That means that the priest was consecrated and set apart from all that was common to the unique and holy God.
The teachers before the New Testament age, if they were truly of God - were holy. And the people needed to heed what the holy priests taught. Now on this side of the death and resurection of Christ the apostles and prophets of the new covenant are also "the holy apostles," and "the holy prophets."
It is not their original ideas that they are pushing. I am speaking of the canon of the New Testament. I listen today to Romans because Romans is the canonical writing of the holy apostles.
Listen. The New Testament saints did not bestoy authority on the books. They RECOGNIZESD authority of the books.
The canon of the New Testament is not an authoritative list of books. It is a list of books which are authoratative.
So I believe Romans on Adam and Revelation on Genesis because they are the oracles of God delivered to us by the holy apostles of the new covenant.
You argue " But jaywill, the legitimate understanding is that understanding that they had in the days of Hezekiah, in the days of the Babylonian Captivity. That is the legitimate understanding of Genesis." I fully understand your position.
But on THIS side of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus I need the revelation of the new covenant holy apostles. A deeper layer of understanding has pierced by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The ancient serpent is indeed Satan, the Devil, who decieves the whole inhabited earth.
slithers along its belly, licks the ground. gosh, that sounds like a snake doesn't it? it doesn't talk about casting demons into hellfire, or falling from heaven, or any of that sort of thing. it talks about the qualities that define a snake. perhap it means a snake.
I agree that those things are not spoken about in Genesis. I fully agree that Genesis silent on thise details.
But Genesis also is silent on the ten commandments, the priesthood, etc.
Genesis means something like "the BIRTH" - Right? It is the beginning. It is the truth of God in SEED form. It is the initial seed of the total revelation - the Genesis.
Further development and disclosure of not only Satan but also the law of God wait for OTHER writers to communicate to us. The revelation is gradually unfolded over time. What would you know about the law of God having only Genesis without Leviticus and Exodus?
We don't stop there. We disciples of Jesus believe that chain of revelation continues with the books from Matthew to Revelation.
Me:
This was a pivotal point in the history of the univese. Just like the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it says that Satan entered into Judas to do the job right himself. So also in this pivotal junction it was the main enemy of God who came to derail God's eternal purpose.
You:
wait, let's review that last one. satan entered into judas to... ensure that christ was crucified, sealing his own fate? wow, this satan guy must be a real idiot. if i were him, i woulda tried to keep christ alive, and not turn him into a ready sacrifice that would mean i would be completely powerless from then on.
I was refering probably to Luke 22:3:
And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot and was of the number of the twelve. And he went out and conferred with the chief priests and officeres as to how he might deliver Him up to them. (Luke 22:3,4)
Nothing in the record indicates that Judas knew the consequences of what he was about to do. If by "sealing his won fate? Wow" you are refering to Judas, I only wonder if you read the gospels.
Taking about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Judas probably thought that he was doing a "good" thing according his knowledge of good and evil. Anyway, I think he afterwards hanged himself when he realized that he betrayed an innocent man.
if i were him, i woulda tried to keep christ alive, and not turn him into a ready sacrifice that would mean i would be completely powerless from then on.
I am not quire sure what this little bit of cure sarcasm is meant to mean. However, Peter did true everyting to keep Jesus alive. And had not Jesus healed the very man whose ear Peter had amputated with the swing of a sword, he may have very well gone to death with his Master.
When Jesus healed the attacker (and I think Peter was not aiming for his ear, but his head) that was too much for the disciples to handle. Jesus said that this was all happening for the fulfilment of Scriptures.
When the disciples saw that the commitement of Jesus to the Scripture was stronger than His commitment to His, and probably their lives also, they forsook Him and fled from the mob into the night. Jesus only cared for the completing of the will of His Father as prophesied in the Scriptures, even if it cost Him torture and death.
He did that for you and I. But I don't really understand your comment about keeping Jesus alive, powerlessness, etc. You don't need to explain it.
Me:
Just because he is not pinpointed as Satan in that story does not conceal him.
You:
ah, another case of the "not quite inspired enough" bible, is it then? they meant to say this rather important point, they just forgot?
The significance of this sarcasm kind of escapes me also. You don't need to explain yourself here either.
Me:
You acknowledge that the 600 plus commandments of the law is not revealed there in Genesis. You should see the reasonableness of saying that everything we know about the Devil is not covered there either.
You:
er, but you see, your own logic betrays you. the mosaic covenant was not given to adam. he was given one or two things to follow, and that was pretty much it. adam himself was not held to laws he was not given, correct? those laws were moses' people and time. it's not like this is stuff we were supposed to know, and it applied to adam too.
It sounds like you're saying that I am not being consistent.
I have no comment on this right now.
why, if something was important to the story of adam, would it be left out? heck, when milton goes to tell the same story, he makes it very very clear who he thinks the serpent is. yes, we'll keep coming back to paradise lost. because that's where this information is revealed.
I never read Paradise Lost. I have no comment on it.
Me:
The Bible is written that way. Genesis doesn't tell us about the ten commandments or the priesthood. God provides more details in subsequent books.
You:
right -- in order. there were no ten commandments and no levites in adam's time. but if there was a devil, and one who rather significantly impacts the story, wouldn't it be nice if it said "the devil" instead of "snake"?
I think that God deems that the true seekers will keep reading and keep learning from other books of the Bible.
Fellowship from the godly saints is a help also. Commentaries from men who have deeper experiences with Christ are very helpful. I learned how to benefit from fellowship and learning from those who have gone before - selectlively as my own spiritual experience encreased.
i mean, that's one word not 613 individual laws that would take several books to fill in.
As I said. Perhaps it was good enough centries ago that readers just understood the trickery and deception of anyone trying to get you to think God didn't say or mean something.
As I said before. The new covenant apostles and prophets revealed more revelation to us which was hidden from the past generations in God. That is not sayint EVERYTHING was hidden. Far from it. That is to say the the latter things related to His new testament economy were hidden from the generations before the advent of the coming of Jesus.
Me:
In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 He provides some poetic prophetic utterances which expose the ancient history of a main rebellious angelic creature. This one became Satan.
You:
look, you keep bringing these up. those just aren't about satan. period.
I think you do not know the truth concerning this - period.
you'll know something in the bible is about satan when it uses the name "satan."
Not necessarily. Satan is only one title for this being. Since his activities are varied (yet all evil) his designations are also varied.
sounds simple enough, but seems to be pretty hard to stick to. do i really need to break down isaiah 14 and ezekiel 28 again, and point out what they're really referring to?
No. But I think what you could do is consider the example of Jeremiah. The prophets said some things which the people paid perhaps not too much attention to before the a certain captivity. When Jeremiah the holy prophet came along he dove into those writings and studied them. God revealed to Jeremiah the relevancy of those words and what it meant to the duration of how many years he should expect to be captive in a foreign land.
He responded to this God revealed wisdom with prayer for the fulfillment of he prophesy. The widom he gained effected his life. His prayers no doubt effective to God. The main point is that Jeremiah went back and obtained wisdom from God appropriate to the circumstances of God's people at that time.
He did not ADD verses to the Hebrew Bible. He received spiritual wisdom from passages which were already there which others probably thaught were not terribly significant.
Joseph also had a dream. He saw the sun and the moon with the twelve stars bow down to him in homage. As a young man Joseph probably could not interpret that vision very well even though it was truly from God. After some years in an Egyptian prison and his ascension into a political position in Egypt he probably had deeper insight into the meaning of the that divine dream.
It is all about life. It is all about spiritual life. It is about the encrease and the growth of spiritual life. Some things were hidden from the generations of the past. Somethings about the details of Joseph's vision were hidden from him until the appropriate time.
God did not wait to give Joseph that vision until the day before his father and brothers bowed down to him in Egypt. For His own reasons God gave that sketchy vision to Joseph as a young lad. In fact the dream got him into a lot of trouble.
God told the Jews some things which latter generations received deeper comprehension of. The light is available to them and to you and I. You're rejecting it. I am receiving it.
Me:
Of course from eternity to eternity God is triune
You:
the rudimentary foundations of trinitarian belief are only barely expressed in the new testament,
The creed is not formally developed. But the facts of the Triune God are all OVER the New Testament.
I would advize you not to test me on this. The fact of the three - one God are all over the New Testament.
and certainly are not in the old.
Here again I would not agree that there is no indication of the mysterious three-oneness of God in the OT. The strong hints of this are there also.
ie. "Let Us make man in our image according to Our likeness"
like it or not, this is a new idea, and it's a mistake to pin the god depicted in the old testament with the personality and motivations of the god of the new.
Such "pinning" was unmistakenly done by Jesus Christ Himself in His words, teachings, and deeds.
You would have to start your blame on Jesus. It is with Jesus that the utter identification of Himself with Yahweh of the Old Testament gets its roots in the New Testament.
We disciples are only teaching what Jesus was teaching.
It is you who does not want to believe that this man is God.
I hope and pray that you'll have a change someday. That is change as in repentence as we all did who confess that Jesus is Lord.
it's probably even a mistake to do it across textual sources within the old testament, actually.
and is the divine "Us" who said "Let Us make man ...".
there are many different interpretations of that, and quite a lot of them are consistent with the jewish idea of one and only one god.
Those are not my only reasons. I have others in Zechariah - you have Jehovah of hosts as both the one sent and the sender. It is very mysterious and I think it is a window into the Triune nature of God.
And one of the strongest examples is the [b]"child born"{/b Who is called "Mighty God" and the "Son ... given" Who is called "Eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6.
This should signal to us centries before the birth of Jesus that there was something profoundly mysterious about the nature of Yahweh.
Me:
It is evident that in God''s providence He is using Satan. I do not object to the thought of God using the Devil like a mad dog on a leash. However, there is nothing friendly about the relationship.
You:
they seem to get along rather cordially in job. you know, the book that's in the bible, as opposed to the stories you make up in your head.
I think that the "cordiality" is due to God being slow to anger in control of the situation and knowiong that Satan is a big liar.
As for stories that I made up in my head - I have been interpreting Genesis. I have convictions about the meaning of certain things. When I am not sure about a certain aspect of what I think happened I usually give heads up to the readers on this forum that the following is just my opinion that I am not that sure of.
I think if you are honest you should recognize that I do this. Your comment that I am making up stories is an insult to me.
What else is new? I have not appealed to Milton or Hollywood. I accompnay my explanations with text to the point of exasperation of those who like to call me "Bible Thumper".
Making up stories is a false charge. If you want to say you think my interpretations are not valid - that's different. As it stands I NEVER participate in this forum without having one and often two or three Bibles open to double check that what I am explaining has some textural backround.
And with this last comment. I think I want to stop writing now.
i can't say i've watched perry mason, but i don't imagine that if he ran into the other attornery on the street, they'd knife each other.
God's dispute with Satan is over legalities and procedures and truth. From God's side it is not a wild brawl. Certain claims have been made by the most intellegent of all of God's creatures and God will take the time to allow the true nature of things to be revealed.
His glory has been insulted, His name blasphemed, His governemnt attacked, His plan temprarily spoiled.
God will methodically demonstrate for the universe that this liar, his demons, rebellous angels, and rebellious human beings have no ground to act or speak as he has. And for eternity future another rebel like that will never again arise:
For as the new heavens and new earth, which I make, remain before Me, declares Jehovah, So will your seed and your name remain.
And from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh will come to bow down before Me, says Jehovah,
Then they will go forth and look on the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; for their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched;
And they will be ab abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:22-24)
the classical hebrew understanding was that god created all things, all blessings and curses, and that satan was merely an angel (or one of the "sons of god" that job mentions) who carried out the task of testing men for god. you can find quite a lot of evidence for this point of view if you simply read the old testament a little more.
This enemy of God also seeks to kill the followers of God. He seeks to mix the faith with the worldly pagan things so that it will be diluted and ruined. He also opposed the Lord Jesus Christ at every step.
He also tries to capture some people by concealing himself so that they do not believe he is important or exists. And other types he tries to insnare on the opposite side with an unhealthy interest in his existence.
He always seeks to blind men to the fact that Jesus is the Lord. He has blinded you into realizing the truth of the New Testament. He seeks to keep you securely in the ranks of those who are in the process of perishing:
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who are perishing.,
In whom the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine [on them].
For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake. Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. 4:3-6)
Satan, the god of this age, has blinded your thoughts and veiled your mind. If you remain in this blinded condition you will perish.
You should therefore seek the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ and tell God that you are willing to have the veil removed from over your mind but you need the help of God.
There is a danger that the veil will grow thicker and thicker, darker and darker. You will come to the Bible in spiritual darkness. And you will leave it in even greater darkness because you are in revolt against the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ who is the God incarnate according to the promise of the prophets.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2008 11:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 4:17 AM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 173 of 301 (446199)
01-05-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by jaywill
01-04-2008 10:52 AM


Re: a history of the devil
Like I said. I have not followed this thread lately. But I believe that of course it was a sin for man to eat when God said do not eat.
indeed. then you have to admit that man had the capacity to sin (ie: free will) before he ate of the tree. otherwise, he could have done no such thing.
The argument that somehow philosophically or pscychologically he was aleady guilty, I don't think, comes into play here.
that is not the argument. the argument is that "sin entered into man when adam ate" doesn't quite mean what you think it means. that was, indeed, the first sin -- but it did not create the capacity to sin, or put sin in mankind's heart. it was already there from the beginning. we were created with the tendency to think on our own, and that sometimes leads us astray from god.
there is no devil in genesis 3 that takes adam by the hand, and forces a piece of fruit down his throat. adam is aware of and responsible for his own actions. god gave him a direction, and a snake made an argument, and he chose to disobey god. the whole point of the story is that mankind is responsible for their actions, and cannot simply shift blame.
There are TWO key men in the universe - Adam and Christ. The first man Adam did a specific something in disobedience to God and plunged us all into the realm of sin and death.
by means of expulsion from the garden. don't forget that this is the specific punishment given to adam. he will die because he will no longer have access to the tree of life. we are subject to death because we are not in the garden. though you could argue, in a metaphorical sense, that christ is the tree of life.
The act of Adam was his disobedience of God in eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For years as a Christian I did not think that there was anything particular about the fruit which was important.
Eventually, slowly, I said - "Wait a minute. The way Paul talks and indeed the way even Genesis talks, something changed in Adam himself when he ate."
yes -- his eyes were openned, and he was like god. the bible, the serpent, and god all agree on this aspect. not sure how you could have missed that, or thought it meant something else. this is somewhat like the prometheus myth. man stole something that belonged to the gods, and made man more like gods than like animals.
but the tree itself granted neither free will, nor sin, nor death. it simply granted knowledge. adam had the capacity to disobey, or he wouldn't have eaten. adam sinned when he ate it, not after. and adam's death came slowly, as a result of the tree of life being forbidden to him.
There was a REBEL in the universe. There was a HEAD DISOBEYER. There was one Original Superintendent of ALL disobedience who had an opposition party against God.
this is simply not held up by the story itself. in fact, there is no such reference to satan disobeying god at all, in the old testament. and only one such reference (in future tense) in the new. there is some element of an angellic rebellion prior to the story of noah and the flood, but you'll find that all the explicit references are completely absent. why?
because in hebrew mythology angels do not have free will. only man is granted with that. angels are extensions of god, his eyes, ears and hands on earth. they do what he says, and only what he says, because they can do nothing else. they are like puppets.
I have argued much that this serpent is Satan in some way. No one who responds to me agrees.
there's probably a reason for that. have you ever considered that maybe you're just reading it wrong?
Okay, let's say that Satan in the New Testament teaching is not in Genesis. What does that do for us? ... Other than give some people some kind of sense of having chased Christians off of their cultural and theological "turf" as it were, a don't see what it really does for anyone.
shouldn't accuracy count for something? if we value this book so much, shouldn't we try to care about what it actually means, and not what we'd like it to mean?
The snake didn't have a leg to stand on.
*rimshot*
Whatever instructions were given to the serpent we are not privy to from reading Genesis.
I think that ANY instructions / commands given to the serpent were given PRIOR to the story. Probably quite a bit prior to the story in the ancient pre-Adamic world.
...well, no. the serpent is a created creature, like all the others brought to adam. adam is older than the serpent. we are not told what instructions are given to the serpent, if any. though, it's safe to assume that none were. read the text very carefully -- adam is given dominion over all creatures. if the snake was smart to begin with, it seems like it was adam's job to tell it what to do, not vice-versa.
Anyway, the serpents presence, knowledge of the way things go, "insight" if you want to call it that, are all rather mysterious.
not really. i mean, there was a tree of knowledge in the garden, wasn't there? the snake seems to be speaking from personal experience.
There is NOTHING in my interpretation which suggests that God ignores what man has done because man says that the Devil made him do it. Nothing in my interpretation justifies Adam in his error. IF that is what you are objecting to.
Nothing in Pauline theology suggests that Adam is excused because, after all, the devil made him do it. If you want to disagree with me could you do it over something which I actually taught ? That is if you're implying that a Satanic temptation of man EXCUSES man from responsibility before God.
yeah, it kind of does though. you say it doesn't, but it's still an excuse. and the same excuse that adam got an earful from god about. the devil cannot be blamed for man's problems. we are quite capable of screwing up on our own, and we have to take ultimate responsibility for our actions.
Is there ANYTHING in Romans suggesting that Paul is saying sinners are not under condemnation because of the excuse that the Devil made them do it? I hope we don't have to come back to this objection.
no, there really isn't. that's sort of the point. i don't believe any devil is mentioned in that chapter of romans. paul is certainly not placing the blame there, not even enough to name him. he places it squarely on the shoulders of adam. just like genesis does.
Here again is the difference we have. Is Genesis the beginnig of a long list of divinely revealed writings constituting a whole revelation from God to man? Or is Genesis and isolate specimen of random writings in the national Jewish scap book of religious ideas?
if it's divinely inspired, wouldn't it make more sense to actually pay attention to what it says, with meticulous attention to detail? as i've pointed out, even reading genesis in light of revelation, you're doing it wrong. you have to read genesis in light of the "divinely inspired" works of the books of adam and eve, paradise lost, or the book of mormon to get that the snake in the garden = satan = fallen angel.
i've researched the history of thise idea in detail. those are the sources. though "adam and eve" is not quite the same. it says that the serpent began as an animal and became the devil. it's really, honestly, not until milton that your story comes up. and the book of mormon gets it from milton.
I say that the God who spans the centries, used a number or writers over 1600 years to unfold the most significant things about our existence and His eternal purposes.
and was one of those writers milton? no?
No I don't think I am "reading junk into Genesis".
just... do this one thing. try to forget everything you think you know about the book of genesis. find a good translation, and read it for the words on the page. literally. and ignore what you've learned in church about what it's supposed to say. when you're done with genesis, feel free to move on to other books of the bible.
Listen. The New Testament saints did not bestoy authority on the books. They RECOGNIZESD authority of the books.
it is likely that they had portions of an already established canon, yes.
The canon of the New Testament is not an authoritative list of books. It is a list of books which are authoratative.
i think you fundamentally misunderstand what the bible is. to begin with, it's hard call some of the things in the new testament "books." i think this very post is probably longer than galations, for instance. the appropriate term is "letter" or "epistle."
You argue " But jaywill, the legitimate understanding is that understanding that they had in the days of Hezekiah, in the days of the Babylonian Captivity. That is the legitimate understanding of Genesis." I fully understand your position.
evidently, you do not. the legitimate understanding of genesis is the one that is representative of the text itself, based solely upon the things that it says, regardless of time frame. we can look to interpretative works to see how other people understood the text, yes.
your views regarding the personhood of the serpent are not representative of the text. they aren't even representative of the interpretative works you claim to base this conclusion upon. if we were discussing paradise lost, your conclusions would be correct. in that story, the serpent is indeed the devil. yes, it really will keep coming back to this book.
now, since we are discussing biblical works, revelation points to a different serpent, and one that appears in genesis 1, not 2 and 3. that position is consistent with the imagery john of patmos uses, and the ideological history of the judeo-christian tradition up until about 300 ad. your position is consistent with judeo-christian tradition after about 1650 ad. now, if want to argue that god revealed his secrets to john milton in 1667, be my guest. but i don't think that's your position.
The ancient serpent is indeed Satan, the Devil, who decieves the whole inhabited earth.
the ancient serpent is the one older that mankind, created on the day before man:
quote:
‘ —, - ’—
v'y'bara elohim et-ha-taninm ha-gdolim
"and god created the great serpents."
genesis 1:21
but your bible probably says something different, so you've never noticed a great serpent in genesis 1. now look at revelation:
quote:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 12:9
a great serpent. from the greek megas. large, big, massive, huge. the hebrew gadol means the same thing. it's not talking about a garden snake, it's talking about a dragon.
I agree that those things are not spoken about in Genesis. I fully agree that Genesis silent on thise details.
But Genesis also is silent on the ten commandments, the priesthood, etc.
those details were not important to adam's story. if that serpent is the devil, that's pretty damned important.
Genesis means something like "the BIRTH" - Right? It is the beginning. It is the truth of God in SEED form. It is the initial seed of the total revelation - the Genesis.
actually, the title of the book is b'reishit, "in the beginning." inventing stories that came before the beginning is to ignore the meaning of the text. there was nothing before the beginning, by definition.
Further development and disclosure of not only Satan but also the law of God wait for OTHER writers to communicate to us. The revelation is gradually unfolded over time. What would you know about the law of God having only Genesis without Leviticus and Exodus?
We don't stop there. We disciples of Jesus believe that chain of revelation continues with the books from Matthew to Revelation.
that's fine. it's just that the bible -- including the new testament -- does not say what you think it does.
Nothing in the record indicates that Judas knew the consequences of what he was about to do. If by "sealing his won fate? Wow" you are refering to Judas, I only wonder if you read the gospels.
no, not judas. satan. what was his purpose in making judas betray christ? correct me if i'm wrong, but the standard christian teaching is that christ's sacrifice broke satan's hold over man. why would satan, being a subtle fellow, work actively towards his own end?
ah, another case of the "not quite inspired enough" bible, is it then? they meant to say this rather important point, they just forgot?
The significance of this sarcasm kind of escapes me also. You don't need to explain yourself here either.
meaning that however inspired you think the bible is, god apparently did a really rotten job of saying what he means. especially the bits about including important details about who the characters really are.
I never read Paradise Lost. I have no comment on it.
on the contrary, quite a lot of your comments have been on paradise lost. perhaps you're not aware of that fact, as you have not read it. but i assure you, they are.
but if there was a devil, and one who rather significantly impacts the story, wouldn't it be nice if it said "the devil" instead of "snake"?
I think that God deems that the true seekers will keep reading and keep learning from other books of the Bible.
even assuming that, wouldn't it be nice if some other book in the bible said that? that's really the problem here. it's not like the position is unsupported by just the book of genesis. it's unsupported by any book before 1667 that i can find. and i have looked, very very hard.
As I said. Perhaps it was good enough centries ago that readers just understood the trickery and deception of anyone trying to get you to think God didn't say or mean something.
i think you are perhaps misunderstanding the whole of the old testament here. don't feel bad, it's quite common. if there is one solid theme in the whole of the OT, it's that man wanders away from god. there need not be trickery involved, let alone any evil spirits. just someone who comes along with something new for the bored hebrews. the OT is very much about human nature, not divine influences. if we are to read genesis in light of those books, that's the reading we should head towards.
In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 He provides some poetic prophetic utterances which expose the ancient history of a main rebellious angelic creature. This one became Satan.
look, you keep bringing these up. those just aren't about satan. period.
I think you do not know the truth concerning this - period.
i know what you think, but the bible does not support what you think. period.
if we are to "interpret scripture with scripture" we should actually look at the events and imagery those verses reference. isaiah 14 talks about a king who want to sit in heaven. have we heard another story in the bible like this? i have, and it's in genesis 11. coincidentally, in the very same place. how about that.
ezekiel 28 makes reference to a cherub in the garden of eden. was there a cherub in the story in genesis 3? yes! at least two of them, actually, and they're at the end. they guard eden from adam and eve. and that fits the protection theme that ezekiel 28 is talking about.
look, it helps to have read and understood genesis before reading things that reference them. what you're doing is starting with the cultural knowledge of what milton said, reading the prophetic works and interpretting genesis with your flawed assumptions about them. in reality, you should read genesis first, and interpret the works that reference in light of genesis. not vice-versa. and leave milton's position right out of it. if you pay attention to the wording and event of the stories in genesis, the stuff after it makes a whole lot more sense.
Not necessarily. Satan is only one title for this being. Since his activities are varied (yet all evil) his designations are also varied.
eh, no. like god has one name, satan has one name. there might be more cryptic ways of referring to him, and the NT does prefer the greek for "liar" yes. but in general, it's not a good idea to go looking for cryptic references and simply assume that they must be about satan.
The creed is not formally developed. But the facts of the Triune God are all OVER the New Testament.
I would advize you not to test me on this. The fact of the three - one God are all over the New Testament.
we've had threads on this before. it's just not. this is another case of you starting with a modern interpretation, reading backwards, and then pretending that because the text can be used to vaguely support your idea, that's what it MUST mean.
Here again I would not agree that there is no indication of the mysterious three-oneness of God in the OT. The strong hints of this are there also.
ie. "Let Us make man in our image according to Our likeness"
that's what this was in reference to. there are at least a dozen different interpretations of why god sometimes speaks in plural.
I think that the "cordiality" is due to God being slow to anger in control of the situation and knowiong that Satan is a big liar.
...yeah, i meant the other way around. satan is remarkably friendly towards god.
As for stories that I made up in my head - I have been interpreting Genesis.
as i understand it, the christian method of interpretation seems to have a lot in common with divination, and generally very little in common with the text. i would highly suggest that if one is interested in interpretation, they should take an academic class on the bible, and not rely on the voice in their heads. because those voices... lie.
I have convictions about the meaning of certain things.
yes. and i am asking you to re-examine your convictions. i understand that this is not an easy task. but if satan has a home today, it's in the minds of fundamentalist christians. they're the ones that speak his name more times in conversation than it is written total in the bible. they're the ones that look for him everywhere, and find him behind every corner and under every stone. "satan" is proclaimed from the christian pulpits, and used to instill fear in congregations.
that's not christianity. it's not following christ who died so that we may live, and who told us to not be afraid. that's not even fear of god, that's fear of the devil. the greatest lie the devil ever told isn't that he doesn't exist, but that he is all-powerful. stop perpetuating this myth. if you truly believe you are saved by christ, then satan has been defeated and is powerless.
Your comment that I am making up stories is an insult to me.
it's not. it's from someone who has been in your position. i've been to many, many fundamentalist churches. i believed the whole spiritual warfare thing for a long, long time. i tell you as a brother in christ that it's in your head, and you are making it up. and your life will the simpler the moment you truly trust christ and stop paying satan your respects.
What else is new? I have not appealed to Milton or Hollywood. I accompnay my explanations with text to the point of exasperation of those who like to call me "Bible Thumper".
and yet your points here regarding the personhood of the serpent are completely unsupported. you may not be entirely aware of it, but you are appealing to milton and hollywood. because that's the only place the story you tell can be found.
His glory has been insulted, His name blasphemed, His governemnt attacked, His plan temprarily spoiled.
take job. satan, with god's blessing, tried to lead job astray. that's his job.
This enemy of God also seeks to kill the followers of God. He seeks to mix the faith with the worldly pagan things so that it will be diluted and ruined. He also opposed the Lord Jesus Christ at every step.
again, this is just not in the bible. or even in your own examples -- how does ensuring the sacrifice of christ oppose him?
He also tries to capture some people by concealing himself so that they do not believe he is important or exists.
then i suppose christ preached satanism when he told us that god takes care of us?
And other types he tries to insnare on the opposite side with an unhealthy interest in his existence.
so maybe you shouldn't go looking for him everywhere you can find him in the bible.
He always seeks to blind men to the fact that Jesus is the Lord. He has blinded you into realizing the truth of the New Testament. He seeks to keep you securely in the ranks of those who are in the process of perishing:
look, this is the kind of paranoia that i'm concerned about. especially this:
Satan, the god of this age,
i don't care what paul says. if you think he meant that satan is really god of anything you are in some serious trouble. no. other. gods. you, like many others, use passages like these to condemn others and hide from the outside world. neither of those the actions of christians -- and calling satan a god, even in lowercase, is ascribing him far more authority than he deserves. god has all the authority. all of it. none in heaven nor on earth have authority but through him.
There is a danger that the veil will grow thicker and thicker, darker and darker. You will come to the Bible in spiritual darkness. And you will leave it in even greater darkness because you are in revolt against the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ who is the God incarnate according to the promise of the prophets.
this is another excuse to ignore what the bible says. it's the "cracker jacks bible." you need the special decoder ring of the holy spirit, right? what an ineffective book, if you have to understand it before you read it. what's the point in even having it, then? i'm sorry, i'll just go on reading the words on the page, and assume that it means what it says and not something else that's "veiled" and only those special people with the gift of prophecy can read the words of the prophets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2008 10:52 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 11:00 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 12:54 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 178 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 10:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 174 of 301 (446224)
01-05-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by arachnophilia
01-05-2008 4:17 AM


Re: a history of the devil
indeed. then you have to admit that man had the capacity to sin (ie: free will) before he ate of the tree. otherwise, he could have done no such thing.
He was not a transgressor until he ate. That is what Genesis wants us to know. That's what concerns me most.
that is not the argument. the argument is that "sin entered into man when adam ate" doesn't quite mean what you think it means.
Where was the sin in Adam before he transgressed? Point it out.
Not potential, not free will, not capacity. Point out the sin in Adam before he transgressed.
that was, indeed, the first sin -- but it did not create the capacity to sin, or put sin in mankind's heart.
Apparently, Genesis doesn't want us to worry about that theory.
It wants us to know that Adam, the first man fell out of fellowship with God after he transgressed. He felt condemned and ran to hide himself. That is what the writer wants us to know.
That's what I care about.
it was already there from the beginning. we were created with the tendency to think on our own, and that sometimes leads us astray from god.
Again, Genesis wants us to see that the ancestor of us all transgressed when he ate.
You may say that you don't care about what the Apostle Paul says. I think that is your lose.
there is no devil in genesis 3 that takes adam by the hand,
We've been through that. We don't agree.
and forces a piece of fruit down his throat.
Nothing is said about forcing. That's you.
adam is aware of and responsible for his own actions.
That is true regardless of whether there is Satan there or not.
Saying Satan was there is not equal to saying that Adam was not responsible.
god gave him a direction, and a snake made an argument, and he chose to disobey god.
I agree.
the whole point of the story is that mankind is responsible for their actions, and cannot simply shift blame.
I agree with this also. Doesn't prove none existence of Satan in Genesis.
That is just what you prefer to gather from the account with nothing else. Saying that Christian theology's putting Satan there negates man's responsibility is your false dichotomy.
[qs] Me:
There are TWO key men in the universe - Adam and Christ. The first man Adam did a specific something in disobedience to God and plunged us all into the realm of sin and death.
You:
by means of expulsion from the garden. don't forget that this is the specific punishment given to adam. [qs] If you fail to grasp that the writer is retelling the story of the origin of mankind then you're reading is superficial.
Eve was the mother of us all. There were no other people left in the garden. The story is about the parents of all mankind. And if you think it is just a story about an individual couple which has nothing to do with the rest of the human race then you miss the point of Genesis. Don't blame Paul.
he will die because he will no longer have access to the tree of life. we are subject to death because we are not in the garden. though you could argue, in a metaphorical sense, that christ is the tree of life.
That is a theory. I don't agree with it.
Where was the warning that if Adam refused, failed, or neglected to eat of the tree of life he would die?
It is a theory. I don't think it is correct. I have given much thought to it. I am willing to musee on it further. But I don't think Adam was created to die if he failed to eat of the tree of life.
Adam need the life of God because that was God's purpose to indwell man. It was not God's purpose only because Adam might become a sinner and die. It was God's purpose regardless.
However, we see no command to eat of the tree of life. So I think the innocent man who was created "very good" and with a natural everlasting life was placed before the divine life of God. He had the option to cooperate and receive the life of God. If he did not he was still innocent and very good.
But if he ate of the forbidden tree he was ruined to take in the life of God. He must die, which the tree of life could overcome. But God would not have man mixed with two elements - the divine and the Satanic.
If you think about the two trees very carefully and how they seem mutually exclusive, you may come to the conclusion that I have.
If Adam could not have the TWO trees as food then it MUST be that Adam had at no time PREVIOUSLY eaten of the tree of the LIFE. He could not have BOTH. He could have one or the other. So the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have been the first one which he ate of.
Once he fell into transgression - he had to die.
Once he fell into transgression, he could also not partake of the divine life of God. Not until a redemption was accomplished.
yes -- his eyes were openned, and he was like god. the bible, the serpent, and god all agree on this aspect. not sure how you could have missed that,
Sounds like a false charge. I didn't miss the consequences of Adam's eating of the tree.
or thought it meant something else. this is somewhat like the prometheus myth. man stole something that belonged to the gods, and made man more like gods than like animals.
I have thought about that. However, I believe that there is nothing higher than God Himself. Nothing can transcend God. Nothing is higher or surpasses God Himself. God is the Ultimate Reality.
Anything really belonging to God is of His life. It is off Himself.
I find very difficult any interpretation that lead to the idea of something God is dependent on which man can steal. That makes the knowledge of good and evil higher than God.
Think about it. How could the Ultimate Reality and the ground of all being - self existent - self existing I AM THAT I AM, be jealously guarding some special fruit which if man obtains he will give Him competition.
I do miss that God said that the man has become as one of US, to know good and evil. But I think at this stage of human history this is the way it has to be told that the finite mind of man can understand.
I see your point. And I have thought about it. But I don;t think this is like the mythology of the stolen whatever it was from the gods.
RATHER, I think that that mythology has its vague rememberance of what happen in Genesis, as it was passed down FROM Adam and Eve themselves to their descendents.
They embellished the story. They adopted it to local needs and cultures. And thus we have various vaguely similiar myths from cultures around the world. The primal memory of man probably has its origin in the actual history as Adam spoke it to his children.
Surely, Adam told probably thousands of people exactly what had happened to them, the first humans created by God.
And once again. You will ignore the Apostle Paul. But I think that is your lose.
but the tree itself granted neither free will, nor sin, nor death. it simply granted knowledge.
I never said that it granted man free will. So that is not relevant.
It certainly was the source of them dying. And to me that sin entered is final because the Bible says so. You have a piece of the Bible. I have the whole Bible.
I think also there is another discussion about SIN and sins. And I have another way of arguing your case for you based on the nature of the millennial kingdom when Satan is bound for 1,000 years.
You think I haven't thought about all this. In the 30 years plus I have studied the Bible, I have thought about these things and more.
At this time what I see concerns what was the fall of man. And in that revelation it is not capacities or capabilities which are the issue. It is the act of disobedience of Adam that caused us to be constituted sinners.
Your needs may be different from my needs. This is what I need to know. I think this is what the Bible is saying also, that I need to know.
I am going to skip ahead now to other comments.
there is no such reference to satan disobeying god at all, in the old testament.
Why does the Angel of Jehovah rebuke Satan in the book of Zechariah? Is it because there is no insubordination on Satan's part?
and only one such reference (in future tense) in the new.
False, as demonstrated in the above question.
If you want to make a case that everything that Satan does is under God's sovereign control and providence, say as in Chronicles or Judges. I would agree with that. I call that like having a mad god on a leash.
But Satan is still a rebel and a transgressor.
Anyway Jesus said that Satan was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies. That's all I need really. However, befor Jesus said it, the evidence confirms it in the OT.
Now in one of the books you have a lying spirit stepping forward to do something for God. And five times the prophet Samuel tells us that Saul was hounded by a evil spirit from God. It is just like the prophet is saying "Yes, you heard me right - and evil spirit from God."
So I sympathize a little bit with you wanting to portray an evil spirit as just amiably doing favors for God. But these kinds of passages in Job, Samuel, and Chronicles, I think, only underscore that God is the ultimate Governor and nothing can take place unless He providentially allows it to happen.
So what happens to Job, Job BLAMES on God not on some enemy of God.
I have to leave theology for a bit and run some errands.
My posts are getting too long anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 4:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 11:03 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 10:57 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 175 of 301 (446227)
01-05-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by jaywill
01-05-2008 11:00 AM


Re: a history of the devil
Correction:
and forces a piece of fruit down his throat.
Nothing is said about forcing. That's you
Romans does say that sin nature is a driving force. But it does not say that man is therefore NOT responsible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 11:00 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 176 of 301 (446246)
01-05-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by arachnophilia
01-05-2008 4:17 AM


Re: a history of the devil
yeah, i meant the other way around. satan is remarkably friendly towards god.
Yea, he wants to get Job to curse God right to His face. Real friendly.
as i understand it, the christian method of interpretation seems to have a lot in common with divination,
Divination uses physical objects.
and generally very little in common with the text.
How come they call me a Bible Tumper around here if I don't refer to the text of the Bible very much?
i would highly suggest that if one is interested in interpretation, they should take an academic class on the bible, and not rely on the voice in their heads. because those voices... lie.
I hope the instructor would not be the type of fellow when others don't agree with him he accuses them of hearing voices in their heads.
yes. and i am asking you to re-examine your convictions.
No, I ain't throwing away the Gospel of that's what you mean.
i understand that this is not an easy task. but if satan has a home today, it's in the minds of fundamentalist christians.
Which is it? Satan is or Satan isn't?
Make up your mind.
they're the ones that speak his name more times in conversation than it is written total in the bible.
An exageration or a lie. Or maybe you're a veteran of some way off group of snake handling people or something. That's not the Bible's fault.
What are you, a child of Jim Jones' Jonestown eager to blame Christians for the rest of your life?
they're the ones that look for him everywhere, and find him behind every corner and under every stone.
Ridicule is such a comfort.
"satan" is proclaimed from the christian pulpits, and used to instill fear in congregations.
What's a pulpit? We don't have any where I meet.
that's not christianity. it's not following christ who died so that we may live, and who told us to not be afraid.
You mean like "Greater is He that is within you than he who is in the world" (1 John 3:4)
Careful, you're skating a little close to the New Testament there.
You know that's a no no.
that's not even fear of god, that's fear of the devil. the greatest lie the devil ever told isn't that he doesn't exist,
but that he is all-powerful. stop perpetuating this myth.
Huh ? I mean HUH?
Can you quote me where I said he was all powerful?
I thought I said God couldn't be defeated. I thought I wrote that the little snake is going to the lake of fire.
Check back over my posts. Didn't I quote Revelation 12 that they overcame the accuser Satan by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony and they loved not their soul - life unto death? Sure I did.
if you truly believe you are saved by christ, then satan has been defeated and is powerless.
AMEN. Exactly! This is the truth which must be subjectively applied.
You got my attention on that one!
Me:
Your comment that I am making up stories is an insult to me.
You:
it's not. it's from someone who has been in your position. i've been to many, many fundamentalist churches.
YIKES !!! Been there - done that ?? Who would dream to dare to argue with a X Christian ?
i believed the whole spiritual warfare thing for a long, long time. i tell you as a brother in christ that it's in your head,
What is all in my head ?
You call me your brother in Jesus Christ, and you tell me that spiritual conflict is all in my head ?
Look. I don't know what your backround is. I don't know if you were brought up in Sweet Daddy Grace's Church or sat at the feet of Reverend Ike (" I'm gonna teach you all to LOVE money " ).
I have had experiences too. I have met with all kinds of Christian groups from one side of the spectrum to the other. I have met with groups from "YOU BETTER SPEAK IN TONGUES" side to "YOU BETTER NEVER SPEAK IN TONGUES" side.
I've worshipped in totally intellectual Presbyterian Social Gospel think tanks. I have met in Charismatic and Pentacostal groups supposedly casting out demons all night with a loud racket.
I bet I could match you experience for experience in the gamut of styles of worship. There is very little you could tell me that would be a shock to me. I have seen a lot of things.
I am still a disciple of Jesus. I never threw out the baby with the bath water. And I never got to a place where I decided that spiritual conflict doesn't exist - period.
If you want to talk about excesses - that's one thing. But moving to an extreme position that "all spiritual warfare is just in your head" is a position I won't be taking - "brother in Christ"
Now if you want to get away from discussing the serpent and talk about how much Jesus is the Victor, the Lord, the One Who defeated the Devil, and how we are more than conquerors and have overcome the world and the devil - I'M ALL FOR IT.
You want to have more positive talk about victory in Jesus? I'm all for it. You lead the way and I'll be right with you.
But please don't tell me spiritual warfare is all in my head .... dear "Christian brother" and expect me to take you seriously.
I'm sorry if you were brought up at the feet of Kathrine Kuhlman or A. A. Allen. I feel for you if you spent years with Father Divine or Sweet Daddy Grace. But I'm not throwing out the New Testament just because I have religious wounds to lick for the rest of my life.
and you are making it up. and your life will the simpler the moment you truly trust christ and stop paying satan your respects.
I have participated in many subjects in this Forum. In many of them I spoke about the glories of the Lord and Savior until the total annouance of both participants and moderators.
In THIS particular thread I have had to do some discussing of the Devil. It does NOT mean that I am in love with the subject or have nothing else to talk about.
Besides, my whole dealing with the subject on this thread has been as a foundation to demonstrate why Christ should be praised RATHER than the Devil pitied.
and yet your points here regarding the personhood of the serpent are completely unsupported.
So which is it? You want to DROP the subject? Or you want to TALK the subject ?
Oh. You want me to say "You're Right" and THEN drop the subject?
Well, I'll meet you part of the way. I'll say "You're WRONG ... and drop the subject."
So shall we move on to another subject?
you may not be entirely aware of it, but you are appealing to milton and hollywood. because that's the only place the story you tell can be found.
I'm appealing to the Bible which includes the New Testament:
Refer to Revelation 12:9 specifically. Did you ever read that dear "Brother in Christ"?
Me:
His glory has been insulted, His name blasphemed, His governemnt attacked, His plan temprarily spoiled.
You:
take job. satan, with god's blessing, tried to lead job astray. that's his job.
And his "wages" are the eternal damnation of the lake of fire.
" ... the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels" Matt. 25:41
Me:
This enemy of God also seeks to kill the followers of God. He seeks to mix the faith with the worldly pagan things so that it will be diluted and ruined. He also opposed the Lord Jesus Christ at every step.
again, this is just not in the bible.
Is this in the Bible? "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him..." (John 8:44)
Is the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John in your Bible? It is in mine.
And if Satan is not a murderer how come God had to restrain him from taking Job's life - "And Jehovah said to Satan, Here he is, in your hand; only spare his life." Job 2:6
Is the book of Job in your Bible?
If you say "Yes but that is NOT the Devil. That is NOT Satan in the book of Job."
We have a disagreement on that. But if you are tired of talking about it. Let's drop it and each just be persuaded of the correctness of our repective understandings. You're not going to convince me that Satan is not Satan is not Satan from one end of the Bible to the other.
Yes I know that there are "advasaries" many. Regardless - the head of all the "advasaries" is clearly identified.
then i suppose christ preached satanism when he told us that god takes care of us?
Talking about grasping for a strawman argument ...
so maybe you shouldn't go looking for him everywhere you can find him in the bible.
This is an exaggeration. And it is unwarranted.
You dispute my usage of some passages. That's all. That is not my "looking for him everywhere you can find him in the bible".
look, this is the kind of paranoia that i'm concerned about. especially this:
Satan, the god of this age,
I didn't write that. The Apostle Paul wrote that.
Now if you don't like it you should consider that Jesus said that same devil was the ruler of the world.
"Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out." (John 12:33)
So the teaching is buite balanced. On the one hand Satan is about to be judged and cast out in defeat. You like that part. Right? So do I. But on the other hand Jesus said he was "the ruler of this world"
So when Paul calls him the god of this age, what is he saying which is so different from Jesus calling him the ruler of this world?
We should know our enemy. We should not over estimate the enemy, I agree. But we should know the enemy or else you cannot "stand against the stratagems of the devil" (Eph. 6:11)
We should in Christ be able to "quench all the flaming darts of the evil one" (Eph. 6:16)
Do you hold the words of Jesus in contempt "Christian brother"?
Have you taken a pair of scissors and cut out of your Bible the words of Jesus in John 12:33 about "the ruler of this world?"
What could you possibly say in your defense? Let me guess. Perhaps are going to say "That is the ruler, that's all. He's talking about Pilate or some other government official."
Is that the route you're going to take?
i don't care what paul says.
You should if you are truly a "Christian brother".
if you think he meant that satan is really god of anything you are in some serious trouble.
groan.
Of course that is not what I mean. I think you MUST know this and you're looking to score some kind of cheap points.
When Satan offered to Jesus the world in the three temptations in Matthew :
Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, All these will I give YOu if You will fall down and worship me.
Then Jesus said to him, Go away, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve. (Matt. 3:8-10)
Notice that Jesus refused to worship Satan. However Jesus did not dispute that Satan could actually turn over the world over to HIm.
Listen I have to go now. But this is not me looking for Satan everywhere in the Bible. This is me supplementing your apparant ignorance of the Scriptures on the subject.
Latter.
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 173 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 4:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 01-05-2008 2:13 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 180 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 11:52 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 177 of 301 (446266)
01-05-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jaywill
01-05-2008 12:54 PM


Re: a history of the devil
jaywill writes:
How come they call me a Bible Tumper around here if I don't refer to the text of the Bible very much?
That's what a Bible Thumper is: somebody who thumps the Bible instead of reading it.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 12:54 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 178 of 301 (446370)
01-05-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by arachnophilia
01-05-2008 4:17 AM


Re: False brothers and the Tares
Arachnophilia,
You wrote for me to take it from you as from a christian brother. So you believe that the Lord Jesus has been raised from the dead ?
Or do you just mean you believe in the golden rule or that Jesus was a good moral teacher? How can you know that I am a Christian brother ?
The New Testament talks about "false brothers" (2 Cor.11:6). The Apostle Paul said that he was "in danger among false brothers". Some people were professing with their mouth that they were Christian brothers to Paul. Actually they were a danger to him.
How do you or I know that either one of us may be a "false brother?"
How do we know who is really in the Christian brotherhood?
Did you ever read the parable about the wheat and the tares in Matthew? Did you see that Jesus said that the tares were placed among the wheat to frustrate the wheat from growing? Jesus said that the tares were planted in the world along with the wheat "by an enemy".
Who do you suppose Jesus was saying the "enemy" was? Do you see that the "enemy" planted tares among the wheat? The servants of the man who sowed wheat had a hard time deciphering the tares from the wheat.
See Matthew 13:24-30 and and the explanation of the parable given by Jesus Himself in verses 36 through 43.
Another parable He set before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field. But while the men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares in the midst of the wheat and went away.
And when the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the tares appeared also. And the slave4s of the master of the house came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where then did the tares come from?
And he said to them, An enemy has done this. And the slaves saod to him, Do you want us then to fo and collect them? But he said, No, lest while collecting the tares, you uproot the wheat along with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest, and the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Collect first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them up, but the wheat gather into my barn.
(Matt. 13:24-30)
You see Jesus give us the interpretation of the parable:
"And He answered and said, He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; And the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
And the enemy who sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the consummation of the age; and the reapers are angels.
Therefore just as the tares are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the consummation of the age. The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness, And will cast them into a furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matt. 13:37)
You see the enemy is Satan. And what Satan did was sow false Christians among the true Christians in the world. The field is in the world.
For a season it is difficult for the servants of the master to tell the two apart. The master tells them not to try to go through the field and uproot the tares from among the wheat because in doing so they may uproot genuine wheat also.
At first wheat and tares look very much alike. But one ripens into a golden yellow. The other ripens into a blackened shade. The parable is about Christian brothers in the world who have among them false Christian brothers who have been planted among them by Satan - the enemy of God.
It is not the job of the disciples to chase false Christians out of the world. The job of taking care of the stumbling blocks of the false brothers is left to the angels at the consummation of the world.
The harvest is coming one day. And when it does many seminary students, Bible teachers, Bible talkers, and people who falsly call Christians their "brothers in Christ" will be gathered by the angels of God. We humans may make a mistake. But the angels of God will make no mistake.
Then the false brothers, those who are really not the sons of the kingdom, who do not confess that God is their Father, will be gathered into bundles and burned. For they have been specifically planted among the Christians by Satan the enemy of God to FRUSTRATE the growth of the genuine Christians.
The reason I write this is to warn you. You said to me "take it from a christian brother". And then you tell me that spiritual warfare is all in the head. It is all in the imagination.
Unbeknown to you , I have a concern that you possibly are a tare. What could be more frustrating for the spiritual growth of a Christian than for someone professing falsely to be his "christian brother" teach him that spiritual conflict is all in the head?
So you better make sure that you are really my Christian brother. Otherwise you may be a tare among the wheat planted by Satan the enemy of God, whose existence you have streneously insisted is not in places in the Bible where he is exposed.
If you are not a genuine Christian brother embracing the resurrection and Lordship of Christ the Son of God, you certainly can repent and become one by receiving Christ as your Lord and Savior. But just professing your agreement to the golden rule or knowing how to talk a lot about Genesis does not make you one of the wheats, one of the sons of the kingdom.
This parable in Matthew is about false brothers placed among the true brothers by the enemy of God in order to frustrate the real brothers in Christ from progressing.
So take heed. The Spanish Inquisition was not God's will. The Lord said that He did not want His servants to go through the world and try to get rid of false Christians. If they did that they might mistake real ones for false ones. And that is just what happend. The Roman Catholic Church persecuted real Christians in their attempt to rid the world of heretics. They will answer to the Lord one day for their deeds.
But this parable is not focusing on religious sins. This parable is focusing on Satan's attempt to oppose the will of God by planting phony believers in Christ among real believers in Christ.
So take heed and become a real believer in the resurrected and living Son of God Jesus, if you are not one.
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 173 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 4:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 01-06-2008 12:08 AM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 179 of 301 (446371)
01-05-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by jaywill
01-05-2008 11:00 AM


Re: a history of the devil
He was not a transgressor until he ate. That is what Genesis wants us to know. That's what concerns me most.
you're still missing the point. no devil was needed to make him transgress. it was his own actions, of his own free will, and the responsibility fell squarely on his shoulders.
that is not the argument. the argument is that "sin entered into man when adam ate" doesn't quite mean what you think it means.
Where was the sin in Adam before he transgressed? Point it out.
Not potential, not free will, not capacity. Point out the sin in Adam before he transgressed.
the word "quite" was not there for sarcasm. there is a subtlety i think you are missing.
there is no devil in genesis 3 that takes adam by the hand,
We've been through that. We don't agree.
the issue is not that you do not agree with me. it's that the bible does not agree with you.
That is true regardless of whether there is Satan there or not.
Saying Satan was there is not equal to saying that Adam was not responsible.
no, it doesn't. but you're reading a powerful and manipulative spiritual entity into a story that just doesn't need it. and doing so runs contrary to the message about human nature the bible is trying to teach.
I agree with this also. Doesn't prove none existence of Satan in Genesis.
nor does it prove the nonexistance of invisible pink unicorns in genesis. genesis proves that, by not talking about invisible pink unicorns. or satan. it's not in the story, and you are reading it in where it does not fit.
If you fail to grasp that the writer is retelling the story of the origin of mankind then you're reading is superficial.
yes, and i never said otherwise.
Eve was the mother of us all. There were no other people left in the garden.
how do you know that? afterall, if satan's in the story but not written about, how many other things that the bible is equally silent about could be possible. suppose i say that there were other people, perhaps outside of the garden. i actually have a decent argument for that too, based on the text of the bible. but that's somewhat irrelevent -- because you can't actually prove that because genesis is silent on the matter, they didn't exist.
The story is about the parents of all mankind. And if you think it is just a story about an individual couple which has nothing to do with the rest of the human race then you miss the point of Genesis.
noah is descended from adam and eve. there's a bottleneck there, isn't there? noah is also the father of all mankind. maybe the bit about eve being the mother of all relates to the author's time period (like, you know, everything else in genesis does), and it's through that bottleneck that it's technically correct. i agree, that's just a little silly, but it sure as hell solves the problem of who cain was worried about being killed by, and who he married.
Don't blame Paul.
i'm not blaming paul. i'm blaming you for misinterpreting paul.
he will die because he will no longer have access to the tree of life. we are subject to death because we are not in the garden. though you could argue, in a metaphorical sense, that christ is the tree of life.
That is a theory. I don't agree with it.
no, because then you'd have to have read and carefully thought about genesis in meticulous detail, instead of trying to hammer a later reinterpretation into it. why, exactly, would there even be a tree of life in the garden if adam were born immortal? why would god be worried about adam becoming immortal if he already were? no other argument fits the story.
It is a theory. I don't think it is correct. I have given much thought to it. I am willing to musee on it further. But I don't think Adam was created to die if he failed to eat of the tree of life.
adam wasn't created to die. he was created to have a choice. he chose knowledge over eternal life, even with the admonition of god against knowledge.
But if he ate of the forbidden tree he was ruined to take in the life of God. He must die, which the tree of life could overcome. But God would not have man mixed with two elements - the divine and the Satanic.
again, please feel free to cite the verse in the book of genesis that says "satan." cause that's just not in my bible. mine says "snake."
If Adam could not have the TWO trees as food then it MUST be that Adam had at no time PREVIOUSLY eaten of the tree of the LIFE.
it is unknown whether the fruit of the tree of life was a one-time thing, or if you'd need to continually eat it all of your days to maintain immortality. that goes for "knowledge" too -- it's quite possible that the effects wore off. if i recall, one of those books that supports your snake = devil idea, the book of adam and eve, supports the notion that the effects of the tree knowledge wore off. but it's been a while since i've read it.
Sounds like a false charge. I didn't miss the consequences of Adam's eating of the tree.
didn't say you had. just that it's not a major conclusion that the tree fundamentally changed something about adam -- the text says so. what, however, is a rather strange conclusion is assuming it changed something else about him that the text does not say.
I have thought about that. However, I believe that there is nothing higher than God Himself. Nothing can transcend God. Nothing is higher or surpasses God Himself. God is the Ultimate Reality.
Anything really belonging to God is of His life. It is off Himself.
I find very difficult any interpretation that lead to the idea of something God is dependent on which man can steal. That makes the knowledge of good and evil higher than God.
and yet, there it is in print, in genesis 3: man steals something that god claims as his and only his. now, it is fine to interpret that had god not wanted to provide the choice, the tree wouldn't have been in the garden in the first place, and so on some level, the theft was "allowed" by god. just as god allows us the freedom to sin in other matters.
Think about it. How could the Ultimate Reality and the ground of all being - self existent - self existing I AM THAT I AM, be jealously guarding some special fruit which if man obtains he will give Him competition.
so you're saying that you think the story in genesis 3 is a bit silly? because that's precisely what happens.
I see your point. And I have thought about it. But I don;t think this is like the mythology of the stolen whatever it was from the gods.
it's not a direct parallel, but there are rather strong similarities in the stories.
RATHER, I think that that mythology has its vague rememberance of what happen in Genesis, as it was passed down FROM Adam and Eve themselves to their descendents.
They embellished the story. They adopted it to local needs and cultures. And thus we have various vaguely similiar myths from cultures around the world. The primal memory of man probably has its origin in the actual history as Adam spoke it to his children.
ah, the old "my book is true, yours is the distortion" canard. always a classic -- sheer opinion and faith.
I never said that it granted man free will. So that is not relevant.
It certainly was the source of them dying.
it certainly was not. if you pay attention to the details given in genesis, man dies explicitly because god curses him with it, and exiles him from the tree of life. the tree of knowledge is not the source of death -- god's punishments for adam's actions are. the tree itself simply granted knowledge of good and evil.
You have a piece of the Bible. I have the whole Bible.
i assure you, i have at least as much bible as you do. and considering the books i have containing portions of the DSS, and the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical and gnostic texts, and lost gospel that i have accessed online, i think "more" would be a safe bet. the difference is that i'm willing to break texts down and analyze them, in their component parts, in comparison with their sources, and think about how they fit the whole of the history of judeo-christian ideology. it's certainly not just looking at one part of it. indeed, it is looking at quite a lot more than you do, and studying how the parts form the whole.
you simply lump it all together as if the bible were one singular book to be quote-mined at will, and chop it up into bite-sized lumps. you ignore socio-political context, historical context, authorship, timeframe, which particular philosophy a particular text comes out of or addresses. as i've stated before, it's a bit like taking a beautiful seven course meal, running it through a blender on "puree" and drinking it through a straw. it might be easier to chew, but it sure won't be as tasty as the individual dishes and it will lack the kind of relationships those dished would have had if enjoyed in the proper way.
You think I haven't thought about all this. In the 30 years plus I have studied the Bible, I have thought about these things and more.
i think you haven't thought about these things clearly, and independent of religious input from culture or church. that much is evident by your completely flawed and anachronistic reading of the text, that draws more from the post-milton school of christian thought than it does from the words of the bible itself. you may done a task for 30 years, but that does not automatically mean that you have done it well, or that you have learned to do it the correct way.
Why does the Angel of Jehovah rebuke Satan in the book of Zechariah? Is it because there is no insubordination on Satan's part?
zechariah is a prophetic work. if i had to guess what this passage (chapter 3) is about, i would instantly relate it to king josiah, responsible for the cleansing of the preisthood in judah. joshua looks to serve god, and satan raises the accusation that he is unworthy (with his dirty garments). this is, afterall, satan's job. god then basically says to satan that his accusation is irrelevent, and the from this filth god will raise something better. and joshua is cleansed.
i'm not sure what you think "rebuke" means.
and only one such reference (in future tense) in the new.
False, as demonstrated in the above question.
last i checked, zechariah is not in the new testament. further, this was a question about satan rebelling against god with a bunch of angels, and falling from heaven at the beginning of time. stories that fit (indeed, are part of) the jewish interpretation that simply does not include those bits don't count.
If you want to make a case that everything that Satan does is under God's sovereign control and providence, say as in Chronicles or Judges. I would agree with that. I call that like having a mad god on a leash.
chronicles, you say?
quote:
1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
surely that couldn't have been accidental on your part. that is the only time he's mentioned in chronicles. and comparison with the book of samuel (on the same story) and presuming you accept both as true leaves only one possible conclusion.
Anyway Jesus said that Satan was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies. That's all I need really. However, befor Jesus said it, the evidence confirms it in the OT.
...and you're still looking at the wrong evidence.
Now in one of the books you have a lying spirit stepping forward to do something for God. And five times the prophet Samuel tells us that Saul was hounded by a evil spirit from God. It is just like the prophet is saying "Yes, you heard me right - and evil spirit from God."
that is what it says. i'm not sure we can actually connect lying spirits and evil spirits to the adversary, but i'll let that one go for now.
So I sympathize a little bit with you wanting to portray an evil spirit as just amiably doing favors for God. But these kinds of passages in Job, Samuel, and Chronicles, I think, only underscore that God is the ultimate Governor and nothing can take place unless He providentially allows it to happen.
yes. exactly. that is the only possible conclusion one can reach by actually analyzing the texts and how they relate. and it's not "amiable favors." it's his job. it's what he was created to do, as his name rather clearly demonstrates.
So what happens to Job, Job BLAMES on God not on some enemy of God.
er, maybe. job, apparently, does not blaspheme even though many of the things he says might be considered as such. there is an interesting reading of job -- that he is provoking god on purpose, and seeing how far he can push things. because he's apparently wrestling with his faith, as anyone who's lost everything is bound to do. some have suggested that job represents one of the earliest books that touches on atheism in parts, and he simply wants to get god to prove his existence. once god does so, job is appeased: at least someone is in charge. it's an interesting take.
but it is clear that in the book of job, the blame as it were rests on god, for it is god who shows up to accept it. but that is, afterall, his right and his duty. the lord giveth and the lord taketh away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 11:00 AM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 180 of 301 (446374)
01-05-2008 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jaywill
01-05-2008 12:54 PM


Re: a history of the devil
Yea, he wants to get Job to curse God right to His face. Real friendly.
i meant when he's talking to god. their wager seems rather friendly. yes, satan wants to get job to curse god -- that's the point. he's testing job's faith, and whether it is based solely on his blessings from god. in science, this is what we call "falsification." you take your idea, and you actively try to break it. that is satan's function. he tests people by trying to break them.
as i understand it, the christian method of interpretation seems to have a lot in common with divination,
Divination uses physical objects.
that's a mighty technicality instead of a rebuttal.
How come they call me a Bible Tumper around here if I don't refer to the text of the Bible very much?
as ringo points out, you thump the bible more than you actually quote it. that's what a bible-thumper is -- someone who holds up their bible and hits it as justification, rather than studying it and quoting it in context.
i would highly suggest that if one is interested in interpretation, they should take an academic class on the bible, and not rely on the voice in their heads. because those voices... lie.
I hope the instructor would not be the type of fellow when others don't agree with him he accuses them of hearing voices in their heads.
jay, this was not particularly addressed at you. in my past, i have belonged to several evangelical churches, and at least one pentecostal church. people their claimed to have visions and hear voices. this is not a mischaracterization.
and when people here attempt to say that you need your holy spirit brand decoder rings to understand the text (instead of, i dunno, reading it), it seriously makes me wonder what exactly such a thing means. how, exactly, does your holy spirit impart you the correct reading, and one that runs contrary to what a careful academic reading says? clearly, a spirit that tells you things that are demonstrably untrue is not a holy one. if we're looking for devils...
yes. and i am asking you to re-examine your convictions.
No, I ain't throwing away the Gospel of that's what you mean.
that was not what i mean. and i'm fairly certain that you understood that.
i understand that this is not an easy task. but if satan has a home today, it's in the minds of fundamentalist christians.
Which is it? Satan is or Satan isn't?
Make up your mind.
you misunderstand the implication. supposing that satan did not exist, christians would invent him. if satan has authority, it's because christians say he does. if you're convictions are the gospel, believe the christ of the gospels who said that we are given power to overcome such spirits, and who died to that satan could no longer accuse us in front of god.
they're the ones that speak his name more times in conversation than it is written total in the bible.
An exageration or a lie. Or maybe you're a veteran of some way off group of snake handling people or something. That's not the Bible's fault.
it is neither an exageration, nor a lie. it is a conclusion i have come to in years of church-going, and listening to christian radio. it may not represent christianity as a whole, but it certainly represents fundamentalism.
What are you, a child of Jim Jones' Jonestown eager to blame Christians for the rest of your life?
no. that's about the only sort of church i haven't been to. i went to an assembly of god church for a number of years, but also went around to various other denominations ranging from lutheran and methodist to calvary chapels and nameless store-front pentecostals. i am not eager to blame christians -- but i think that many of fundamentalist groups need a little re-direction. if anything, i am eager to help christians. welcome to joy and insult of being evangelized to.
What's a pulpit? We don't have any where I meet.
it's a generalized term these days, referring to podium or lectern a pastor generally speaks from. but in the loose colloquial sense (how i used it), "from the pulpit" means "in a sermon."
that's not christianity. it's not following christ who died so that we may live, and who told us to not be afraid.
You mean like "Greater is He that is within you than he who is in the world" (1 John 3:4)
Careful, you're skating a little close to the New Testament there.
You know that's a no no.
i thought you liked the new testament. i think, judging from your references about "part of the bible" above, you think i'm jewish? i'm a christian. i assure you, i have read the new testament, and this part was specifically referring to it.
Huh ? I mean HUH?
Can you quote me where I said he was all powerful?
I thought I said God couldn't be defeated. I thought I wrote that the little snake is going to the lake of fire.
you fail to understand that this is a wedge issue. you start thinking that satan has any power over your life, and that's dangerous. it's the foot in the door. he wants nothing more than that opportunity, and he'll work his way into your head, make you see him everywhere until you're so confused about who's running what that you'll be running yourself in circles. the whole time distracted from the real issues.
you discussed an old girlfriend as a distraction sent by satan. you have been so blinded that you do not see that satan is the distraction from doing the things christ taught, helping those in need and spreading his love and compassion, and the good news.
YIKES !!! Been there - done that ?? Who would dream to dare to argue with a X Christian ?
not sure where you got the "x" idea, jay. you're arguing with a brother in christ.
What is all in my head ?
You call me your brother in Jesus Christ, and you tell me that spiritual conflict is all in my head ?
Look. I don't know what your backround is. I don't know if you were brought up in Sweet Daddy Grace's Church or sat at the feet of Reverend Ike (" I'm gonna teach you all to LOVE money " ).
I have had experiences too. I have met with all kinds of Christian groups from one side of the spectrum to the other. I have met with groups from "YOU BETTER SPEAK IN TONGUES" side to "YOU BETTER NEVER SPEAK IN TONGUES" side.
I've worshipped in totally intellectual Presbyterian Social Gospel think tanks. I have met in Charismatic and Pentacostal groups supposedly casting out demons all night with a loud racket.
I bet I could match you experience for experience in the gamut of styles of worship. There is very little you could tell me that would be a shock to me. I have seen a lot of things.
I am still a disciple of Jesus. I never threw out the baby with the bath water.
nor have i. that is not the issue. the issue is that you've apparently got the wrong baby in the bath:
And I never got to a place where I decided that spiritual conflict doesn't exist - period.
"spiritual warfare" is a device that cults use to ensure continued membership by making their congregations scared of the outside world. if you are truly a disciple of jesus, you will follow his teachings and go out into the world making it a better place, and faith in the salvation he has given us.
If you want to talk about excesses - that's one thing. But moving to an extreme position that "all spiritual warfare is just in your head" is a position I won't be taking - "brother in Christ"
well let me ask you, if satan has been overcome, and you are saved... where's the war? i do not see how these two positions can be compatible. either satan is still on the loose, and his accusations have weight in the eyes of god -OR- we have been saved. you simply cannot have it both ways. we are either saved, or we are not.
and i will not accept that we are not.
Now if you want to get away from discussing the serpent and talk about how much Jesus is the Victor, the Lord, the One Who defeated the Devil, and how we are more than conquerors and have overcome the world and the devil - I'M ALL FOR IT.
evidently not, if the war is still being fought.
I'm sorry if you were brought up at the feet of Kathrine Kuhlman or A. A. Allen. I feel for you if you spent years with Father Divine or Sweet Daddy Grace. But I'm not throwing out the New Testament just because I have religious wounds to lick for the rest of my life.
nor am i, and i am not asking you to. i am asking you to read it responsibly and carefully, and not to use it as a weapon.
So which is it? You want to DROP the subject? Or you want to TALK the subject ?
Oh. You want me to say "You're Right" and THEN drop the subject?
Well, I'll meet you part of the way. I'll say "You're WRONG ... and drop the subject."
i want you to study your bible a little harder, and try to ignore the sorts of messages you hear from church that abuse it. i want you to understand the details and implications and context and ideological history of the text. why? because i find it truly intriguing, and hate to see other people miss out on the stuff of real value in favor of the sermon of the week.
you may not be entirely aware of it, but you are appealing to milton and hollywood. because that's the only place the story you tell can be found.
I'm appealing to the Bible which includes the New Testament:
Refer to Revelation 12:9 specifically. Did you ever read that dear "Brother in Christ"?
i do believe i quoted it above? note that this is prophecy regarding the end times. if you'd like the debate that point, ie: that it's in the past, i'll be happy to entertain an argument and you may even convince me. it's probably even the way that milton (mis)understood it. but, the point stands, the cohesive story of lucifer's fall from heaven, and disguising himself as a snake in eden is literally straight out of milton, and is found in no earlier source. components of it are clearly older, and i'll be more than happy to point out which bits come from where.
Is this in the Bible? "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him..." (John 8:44)
again, this does not seem to be referring to what you think it refers to. can you a find a direct reference?
Yes I know that there are "advasaries" many. Regardless - the head of all the "advasaries" is clearly identified.
i was not arguing that.
then i suppose christ preached satanism when he told us that god takes care of us?
Talking about grasping for a strawman argument ...
no, that was sarcasm.
This is an exaggeration. And it is unwarranted.
You dispute my usage of some passages. That's all. That is not my "looking for him everywhere you can find him in the bible".
well, you've sure found him in some stange places.
Satan, the god of this age,
I didn't write that. The Apostle Paul wrote that.
yes, i'm aware of that. and it is wrong to call satan a god of anything and mean it, as you seem to do. he deserves the same designation as a false god, called "a god" only because people worship him as such. any other use -- and to think paul meant something else -- is pretty close to being blasphemy. and if paul meant anything else, his letter should not be in the bible. so i don't think that's what he meant.
Of course that is not what I mean. I think you MUST know this and you're looking to score some kind of cheap points.
ok, fair enough. but i would try avoid calling satan a "god" entirely. my point, as i have been trying to make all along, is that giving him any authority at all is a dangerous thing.
Notice that Jesus refused to worship Satan. However Jesus did not dispute that Satan could actually turn over the world over to HIm.
you have to be kidding, right? this is precisely what i mean. you think that the father of lies is telling the truth here? seriously now. satan simply does not have the authority to give jesus rule of the world. only god has that authority.
Listen I have to go now. But this is not me looking for Satan everywhere in the Bible. This is me supplementing your apparant ignorance of the Scriptures on the subject.
do not mistake my failure to see your points as valid as ignorance. believe me, i started out believing the same story you refer to. but upon reading the bible and failing to find any good evidence of it, i gave it up. my failure to agree is because the text disagrees, not because i am not aware of something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2008 12:54 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024