- This topic has 417 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi,
Jesus said he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Some people see this as the same as the verses in Rev 12. 9 when he and his angels are thrown to earth. But I do not think so.Revelation is a book of prophecy so events seen by John on Patmos after Jesus's resurrection could not have occurred while Jesus was alive. Also when he was seen by Jesus he was not described as having his angels with him as in Revelation.
Then did Jesus see a prophetic vision of the fall? Again it does not explain the others not being with him. Did Satan just get a big fright at the growing spread of light in the dark old earth he ruled?
There is no suggestion elsewhere in the Word as far as I know, that Satan's access rights to heaven[as in Jb 1-2]were restricted till the expulsion in rev 12. It was as because of these rights, it would appear from Job, Zech3 etc, that his role as 'accuser of the brethren' came about because of his access to God.
Jesus made it plain too that demons were part of Satan's organised forces of evil in the kingdom of darkness on earth.
Quote (Sammo @ Oct. 20 2004,17:10) Hi everyone I don't want to draw attention away from the fact that God causes suffering, and not Satan, or that “satan” and “diabolos” are both used with the definite article in contexts that clearly rule out an immortal evil being, or that none of the commonly claimed attributes of the devil can be proved by scripture, but I'd like to raise another thought.
Not once, in the entire Old Testament, is anyone ever warned about “Satan”. Nowhere, not once.
If Satan really is the immortal arch enemy of God, and the sole cause of our demise, does this not strike anyone as odd? Wouldn't God want people to know?
Where does the weight of scripture really lie?
Sam
To Sammo,The point is that we are to follow God. Yes the Devil is our enemy, but we are to focus on God. God is our remedy. We are not to focus on our enemy the Devil. Yes we are aware that he exists and that his mission is to destroy us. But God is our remedy and we are protected by remaining in his will not by trying to dodge the enemy.
1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.So yes the Devil stuffed things up, but the Son of God is fixing it up. Doing God's will is not doing the opposite of what you think the Devil wants, rather it is to do what God wants. Out focus is God. We do not take our lead from the Devil even if that lead is to rebel against him. You know that God is not fixated on the Devil like some people are and that is why he doesn't inspire biblical books to focus on him.
You know you see this with Microsoft and Linux. Microsoft has conferences that inform people why MS Windows is better than Linux. They spend a lot of money telling people this. But what does this strategy do. It makes people ask Why are they so fixated on Linux. Why are they so threatened by it. It must be because Linux is so good that they have to rubbish it. So it actually has the opposite effect. In reality Linux is faster growing as a server than MS Windows is. In fact Linux practically runs the Internet. So the reality is that MS wouldn't put so much effort into their propaganda if they wern't so threatened. But God is not threatened by the Devil.
So God doesn't have to inspire conferences or people to write endless warnings about his enemy. That is not the answer. God delights in using the weak things to bring down strong holds anyway.
But besides all that there actually are some (but few) scriptures that warn us about our enemy. This probably refects how much we should be foccused on God and that we should acknowldge the enemy, but not be focussed on him.
1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:James 4:7
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from youBesides those scriptures we have many practical examples of the Devil and how he works. It would be obvious to anyone given his nature and works that he is our enemy.
Revelation 12:9
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.Zechariah 3:1
And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.The book of Job contains probably the fullest description of Satan as the accuser and how he plots to destroy us.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin….=13&y=2
But the point about the Book of Job is that they enemy usually ends up glorifying God by putting him into question. But those questions only prove how perfect God is all the more.
Sammo,
The reason that Satan is not mentioned in the old testiment as the focus of all evil and pain is, that wasn't his gig. He, put simply, wasn't that kind of angel. At the time he was still a member of the fold, as it where. It's not until Christ is crucified that God has the 'legal precident' to rebuke the claims of Satan and his followers. The new coveneant between God and man is sealed with the blood of the lamb upon the cross, effectively rendering the complaints of Satan and the other angels null and void. Having spoken against God in his pride and leading a rebelion against the enfoulability of God, Satan and one third of the angels of heaven are cast out. (The one third in my opinion could only come from the archangels for they, like man possesed free will. Higher angels are so inamored by the light of God that they lack the ability to exercise free will.)My big questions are; How many fallen angels would one third of heavens original host be? Why do we not know the names of these fallen? In the end all of their hard work to corrupt man seems to be fruitless so why the endless war? What reward do they recieve for their efforts, is it really possible to steal a soul or do they simply deny it's entry to paradise? With eternity to think about it, wouldn't the fallen attempt to repent or at least bore of a fruitless effort? Does misery love company that much?
Sammo, I think we could all do alot more reading and rereading and never be fully satisfied with the results of our study, so long as we continued to question the outcome. Remeber, the basis of faith is belief with out question. This after all appears to be Satan's sin. Good luck!
Welcome Stan,
What about some more scriptural evidence for your claims so we can look at their veracity?Hi,
Rev 8.10″ and the third angel sounded and a GREAT STAR FELL FROM HEAVEN, burning like a torch and it fell on a third of the rivers and the springs of waters..”
If angels can be symbolised as stars then is this great star Satan? Great surely means very important angel in symbol?ps it says “fell from heaven” so it was not sent down on a mission but expelled. It came from “heaven” and not “the heavens” -the realms of the stars?
pps. In the start of the next chapter it seems the same star\angel [which had fallen from heaven] is the one who opens the bottomless pit beginning the woes and torment of man.In the meantime the changes to the sun and moon and stars prophesised by Jesus in Matt24.29 take place. That makes it more likely to be Satan do you think?
ppps.If satan is the agent for this part of the tribulation is it possible he and his forces are the agents for the rest of the time of tribulation? God allows him to test men now while the angels of God do not, but rather seem to encourage and help us.
In Revelation God's angels seem only to announce things rather than be the direct causes of the events that purify men, as gold is purified-by fire..?
What do others think?Hi ,
When we go through the sheepgate we become sheep. In Israel the shepherd walks ahead of his flock and he calls to them by name and they follow him. In every flock there are older cunning sheep and young naiive lambs that their mothers look after and watch over and a good shepherd also watches over the flock.
We are told of two dangers to us as sheep. The lion and the wolf. Both are heartless and vicious and love eating sheep.But their tactics and style of attack differs.
Peter tells us that Satan is like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour and we are told to resist him. The lion can devour those who do not fear him, have wandered far from the flock and the shepherd and not responded to his call. His approach is not subtle as he roars to announce his presence and he attacks individual sheep directly. Our shepherd has no fear of him as he has already defeated him and he wants us to crush him under our feet too. He has trained other shepherds and instructed them to guard us till his return.
The wolf ,however, is cunning. He sneaks up with his pack and gets amongst the flock and scatters it dividing the flock and splitting families. They are savage and merciless and young sheep are especially vulnerable. Not only that but some wolves assume sheep's clothing submitting to baptism and being clothed as a sheep without repentance with a view to leading sheep away from the flock following them so they may devour them later.
They enter the flock and mix with the sheep but their motivation is lustful and destructive. Their fruit betrays them as wolves and not sheep and they have no intention of following the shepherd. but their confident and independant style cause some sheep to also ignore the shepherds and follow them.
Some sheep become sickly through eating the wrong food or drinking tainted water and their poor health causes them to stagger. The shepherds constantly walk on and lead to good pasture but some sheep are smug and lazy and stay where the grass is good instead of following the shepherds.
Some shepherds also are inadequate and fearful, self appointed or inadequately prepared for dangerous animals and thus unable to resist these attacks or help those who are vulnerable.
” The Lord is my shepherd;I shall not want. In verdant pastures he gives me repose. Besides restful waters he leads me ;he refreshes my soul. He guides me in right paths for his name's sake. Even though I walk in the dark valley I fear no evil for you are at my side. With your rod and your staff you give me courage..”Hi,
To hear the message and respond is vital.
2 Thess 1.6f
“For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as wellwhen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire dealing our retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ and these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power”The world is under the control of the god of this world and his demonic powers who will do anything to make you complacent and to refuse to accept the message.
Hi,
Rev12.7
“then there was war in heaven” What a sight to behold! It sounds like a close battle too. Then the devil and his angels are cast to earth. That means the devil and his angels were tolerated in heaven until this time . Amazing.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 28 2004,10:16) Hi Nate,
Found this on khouse.org/articles/biblestudy, it's a part of a pretty comprehensive rebuttle of the sethite view of Genesis 6. I agree with the reasoning so i thought i'd post it FYI:Origin of the Sethite View
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the “angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The “angel” view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional “angel” belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox “angel” position with the “line of Seth” interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal “angel” view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the “Days of Noah.” Some of the many problems with the “Sethite View” include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the “Sethite” view. (In data analysis, it is often said that “if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.”)
The term translated “the Sons of God” is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, “Sons of Elohim,” which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to “godly leadership” is without Scriptural foundation.
The “Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain” interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the “angels” and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the “sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain,” why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the “sons of Cain” and the “daughters of Seth?” There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the “Sethite” interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
The Biblical term “Sons of Elohim” (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a “son of God.” The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God. Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels. The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.
The attempt to apply the term “Sons of Elohim” in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The “Daughters of Adam” also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, “the daughters of Adam.” There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the “sons of Adam?” Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God, it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate “lines” itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later. Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, “The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers,” whose sonship is “distinctly a New Testament revelation.”
The “Sons of Elohim” saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.
If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?
5. The Unnatural Offspring
The most fatal flaw in the specious “Sethite” view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to “giants” does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.
Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce “monsters,” but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It
was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.
Why were the offspring uniquely designated “mighty” and “men of reknown?” This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.
A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of reknown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?)
Hi sammo,
Is 1.18 has done some good work here.I have seen your statement that the “sons of God” in Gen 6 “could not be angels” because angels are asexual beings and scripture agrees with that.
What of archangels? Does scripture say such things about them.
What of Princes as in Daniel? Is not Satan the prince and the god of this world?
You also say angels cannot sin. Do you have any scriptures to support that an a rebuttal of the scripotural evidence that it does and has occurred?[eg 2 Peter 2.4, Jude 6]
You say Revelation is a book of symbolism. Does that mean no part of it is true or only some? Who will dissect it for us?
Hi,
From another thread,
“
Quote
I doubt that the sons of God refer to angelic beings because Jesus states that those that are worthy of the resurrection will neither marry or be given in marriage but will be as the angels of heaven. Indicating by this statement that angelic beings do not have the capacity to reproduce. (Matt. 22:30)The angels in heaven don't marry. They also don't eat physical food, or do they? Yet, they could take on human form and eat. (Gen 18) They could sin and take on human form and have sexual relations.
The angels in heaven don't marry. The ones who came to the earth, aren't in heaven anymore.”Lk 20
“34Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,35but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
36for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
And Jesus did not specify all angels or speak of sexual relations but only Marriage.
Hi,
Is it OK to call fallen angels demons if Jesus didn't?
Seems he called them evil spirits, wicked spirits but never any form of angel.
Angels in their various different forms seem to be primarily based in heaven as servants of God
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
