Fallen angels

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

i understand that eph 6:12, “kosmokrator” is generally translated “ruler” but the word actually comes from “kosmos” meaning, basically the world and everything in it, and “krateo” meaning possessor, or the one who holds… so “kosmokrator” should really be translated as something like “possessor of the world and all that is in it”. this kind of parallels satan's temptation of jesus, where he says, all the kingdoms of the earth i will give to you if you will worship me – because they are mine to give.

furthermore, eph 6:10-12 says, “finally, my brethren, be strong in the lord, and in the power of his might. put on the whole armour of god, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [and this is the important bit] for we wrestle not against flesh [sarx – living flesh] and blood [haima – blood], but against principalities [arche – beginning or principal], against powers [exousia – influence or authority], against the rulers [kosmokrator – as above] of the darkness of this world [aion – an age, all ages or worlds], against spiritual [pneumatikos – pertaining to a spirit] wickedness in high places [epouranios – the heavens].”

so from this i gather that paul was saying we don't wrestle against living flesh and blood – ie. human beings, whether in government or not… but against the wicked spiritual authority which controls the world… ie. the devil…

moving on to james, i agreed in my post with what you said about being tempted by our own lusts, but while i think that “defilement” comes from within, i still don't agree that “temptation” does.

the greek word “peirazo” is the one used in most cases of temptation, and this is a verb (a doing word) meaning to test, or to attempt… so if i attempt to make you sin, i am tempting [peirazo] you. you can choose to be enticed [deleazo – begiled, baited] and thereby sin, but the temptation has come from an outside source. you said that it is only temptation when it plays on inward desires, but this is not what “peirazo” means – and this is the word used in the temptation of jesus.

similarly, 1 cor 8:9-13 is a good example of one person causing another to sin (which is in itself a sin):

Quote

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

as to luke 10:18, what it actually says is “i saw satan like/as lightening descend out of heaven.” this sounds to me like satan fell from heaven, but whether it means that satan fell from heaven, or just fell swiftly, jesus is talking about an actually being, not a metaphorical adversiary, and speaking of this being in relation to the disciple talking about demons (whether these demons are real or not makes no difference)…

as to demons, you said that they spoke through the afflicted so could be seen as an extension of the person, but the demons in mark 5:6-13, not only spoke, but they were cast out into a herd of pigs.

as to the fall, i think there's a lot of confusion as to what this actually constitutes, and how it could happen… and i think i'll look into this…

i don't know what/who satan and demons are, ie. angels, other, but the scriptures make it very plain that they exist in a very real sense. if you choose to ignore all this, i think you're deluding yourself… but i'll continue to look into the matter with you… hopefully we'll recognise the truth when it knocks at our door.

cheers,

nate.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Sammo @ Sep. 09 2004,15:41)

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure there are about 100 exousias in the NT.

Hi Sammo,
You're right, my mistake.

[Sammo]

Hi Ringo, I hope you're well.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

if you believe that satan is not a being in controll of angels

Please show me the passages that prove (original post edited: my mistake) that demons are the angels of Satan.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

All this verse does is mention the devil – I don't see how this proves any of your points. But for what it's worth, this is a reference to this event in Zechariah 3…

Quote

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. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. 5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. . . 9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. 10 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

From the context, I see Satan here as most likely the “adversaries” to the rebuilding of the temple in Ezra 4:1 (different word to satan, but close enough). The “stone laid before Joshua” (v9) fits neatly with “the foundation of the temple of the LORD” in Ezra 3:10.

Of course, I don't expect you to think much of that

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

John 8 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” Now. Jesus equates GOD as a father of people. But then says, No you are not a child of GoD. You Are a child of…. SATAN!!! For he was a murderer from… when??? when was he a murderer??? oh, only from the beggining!!! Father of all lies!!! Notice how he says HE. Now, when was the first recorded murder?? the deception of adam and eve. They died there. And even if you would call that not a murder. Then what about immediatly after with cain and able. Satan was before that, according to Jesus Testimony.

Sin, personified here as the devil, has been around since the early chapters of Genesis, I agree. It's like Romans 6 – we can either be children of God or children of sin, servants of God or servants of sin.

Quote

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. Direct possession of a disciple. how obvious. Please wake up. and forsake the delusion, that will make your downfall serious indeed.

Sin personified. For example, Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:

Quote

1 ¶ But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

“Satan” filled Ananias' heart, yet Peter says that Ananias – not a supernatural tempter – had conceived the sin. Simply because Satan filling the heart of Ananias, just as Satan entering into Judas, is the personification of a man who has determined to follow the sin he has conceived in his heart.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

Now as for your claim of christadelphians not meeting in secret. They have closed doors meetings. One for everyone, then one closed doors meetings. They advertise that they have closed door meetings, to try and draw in the curious. That is around the newcastle region.

Well, I can't argue with that – I guess different places do things different ways. Amazingly enough, I met a Christadelphian from Newcastle just yesterday!

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

Apart from all that ive written, You mock me!!! With your belief that satan does not have angels, you mock me!!! For i suffered for 9 years of demons tormenting me. Please take note. Please question what youve learned. And in the name of Jesus, as the new testiment says. Jude “the demons shudder”

I think you mean James. Look Ringo, I have no intention at all of mocking you, and I'm very sorry if that's how you read my posts. If you've been suffering something in particular for the last 9 years, then I'm very sorry to hear that, I really am. But unless you can prove to me from the Bible that demons are more than 1st century belief, I'm not going to change my mind.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

So many- how about the pigs, The disciples asking Jesus why they could not drive out the demon, The unbelieving Jews that fooled a few demons, but then the demons turned and said, “we know paul(or another disciple), but as for you we do not know) and the demon possesed man beat them.

All just extensions of the personification, to my mind. It was how they talked.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,11:05)

It is such a heavy burdon Having demons torment you. And you would tell such people that they are crazy? unwell? a sideffect of a modern life? Such people are conforming to the ignorance of the world that satan will dominate untill the day of purification by fire.

I would never call anyone crazy. Yes, possibly I would call them unwell, but not before meeting them in person.

The following is an extended extract taken from http://www.bbie.org/english/Study06GodandEvil/0603Demons.html

Quote

Everyone who believes demons exist has to ask themselves the question: “When I am ill, is it caused by demons?” If you think the New Testament references to demons are about little gods going round doing evil, then you have to say “yes”. In that case, how can you explain the fact that many diseases blamed on demons can now be cured or controlled by drugs? Malaria is the classic example. Most people in Africa believed until recently that malaria was caused by demons, but we know that malaria can be cured by quinine and other drugs. Are you then saying that as the demons see the little yellow tablets going down your throat they become frightened and fly away? Some of the diseases which Jesus cured, which are described as being the result of demon possession, have been identified as tetanus or epilepsy – both of which can be relieved by drugs. A friend of mine comes from a village just outside Kampala in Uganda. He told us that people used to believe malaria was caused by demons, but once they saw how the drugs controlled it so easily, they stopped blaming the demons. However, when someone had cerebral malaria (causing serious mental illness) they still blamed the demons. A doctor came from the nearby town and offered them strong anti-mal drugs as a cure, but they refused because they said they needed something to fight demons, not malaria. The doctor returned later and said, “I have a drug which will chase away the demons”; the sick person eagerly took the drug, and became better. The second tablets were just the same as the first ones. The doctor did not believe in demons, but he used the language of the day to get through to the person – just like the “Great Physician”, the Lord Jesus, of 2,000 years ago.

Ringo, do you think I don't feel strongly about this issue too? Do you think it doesn't disturb me to think that millions of people attribute their failings to a tempter that I don't believe exists, their illnesses to demons that I can't accept? So please take it easy in the way you address me, and talk about my faith.

God bless you,
Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Ringo

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,19:44)

Quote Beelzebub is unquestionably an Ekronite god (2 Kings 1:2). Did Beelzebub exist? Did Beelzebub have any power? Judging from Baal's performance in 1st Kings 18, I'd strongly suggest not. Consider what Isaiah says about the gods of surrounding nations in chapter 37: When they spoke lies, Jesus rebuiked them, and said. You do not know what you talk about. If beelzabub had not been a member of Satans angels, then Jesus would not have continued and tied in Beelzubub with Satan. The Jews did not, they only said by the prince of Demons(satans angels) , then Jesus expands and says. Luke 11:18 If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. So there you have it, Jesus refutes your claim that beelzabub is not a demon of Satan, Because Jesus Made that charge himself. The Jews only Charged him with the name of Beelzabub. It was Jesus who egknoledged beelzabub, and said that Satan was the real ruler of beelzabub “how can his Kingdom stand”. It was not the Jews ignorance, But Jesus' knowledge that reveals that Beezlabub is a demon, Under the rule of Satan.

Look up Beelzebub any Bible dictionary, and it will take you to 2 Kings 1, which shows that Beelzebub was clearly an Ekronite God that did not really exist (1 Kings 18, Isaiah 37 etc). Otherwise, you have to explain this somehow.

I think Jesus does say “you don't know what you're talking about”, in a veiled kind of a way – Mark makes it clear that he was speaking in parables (Mark 3:23). By showing how obviously Satan cannot cast out Satan, he brings to light how inconsistent their beliefs about Satan really are. He does the same thing in the parable about Lazarus in Luke 16 – suffice to say that he hypothetically takes an established Pharasaic belief, follows it through, and powerfully illustrates how silly it is.

Quote (ringo111 @ Sep. 09 2004,19:44)

Quote Nowhere in this passage is Satan mentioned. It's demonstrably speaking of the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12). Sam I tottally agree

And I'm glad we do

Sam

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

i think jude 1:9 is actually refering to the book of enoch… but i'm not sure…

i don't think you've answered the “legion cast into the pigs” question yet… not sure how that could fit into your theory… but it would be interesting to find out…

that extract is a bit innaccurate… i believe in the existence of demons, but i don't think they're behind all sickness… nor do i believe that this is what the bible says… in some cases jesus casts demons out, but in other cases he just heals the sick…

another thought… the word jesus used “satanas” is a proper name. if he just wanted to say “adversary” he could have used the noun “satan” (sawtawn)… why didn't he do that instead?

cheers,

nate.

[Sammo]

Hi Nate

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

i understand that eph 6:12, “kosmokrator” is generally translated “ruler”

Well, Ephesians 6:12 is its only occurance.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

but the word actually comes from “kosmos” meaning, basically the world and everything in it, and “krateo” meaning possessor, or the one who holds…

“Possessor” is only one meaning – simply to have power is another, for what that's worth.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

so “kosmokrator” should really be translated as something like “possessor of the world and all that is in it”. this kind of parallels satan's temptation of jesus, where he says, all the kingdoms of the earth i will give to you if you will worship me – because they are mine to give.

Possibly, but like you say, “world” here is “aion”, or “age”, so I'd question the link with the kingdoms of the earth. I can only really repeat what I've already said, “The rulers of the darkness of this age” (NKJV) need have no spirit-world overtones – I take it as just meaning those in authority in this (metaphorically) dark world.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

furthermore, eph 6:10-12 says, “finally, my brethren, be strong in the lord, and in the power of his might. put on the whole armour of god, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [and this is the important bit] for we wrestle not against flesh [sarx – living flesh] and blood [haima – blood], but against principalities [arche – beginning or principal], against powers [exousia – influence or authority], against the rulers [kosmokrator – as above] of the darkness of this world [aion – an age, all ages or worlds], against spiritual [pneumatikos – pertaining to a spirit] wickedness in high places [epouranios – the heavens].” so from this i gather that paul was saying we don't wrestle against living flesh and blood – ie. human beings, whether in government or not… but against the wicked spiritual authority which controls the world… ie. the devil…

I don't really have anything new to say to this, but that I don't think any of the phrases in this verse necessitate a spiritual dimension – rather they merely warn against opposition from human institutions in society.

For instance, the direct opposition to the church in the 1st century was basically Jewish religious leaders and Roman secular bodies. It seems much more believeable to me that these were the kind of groups that Paul was warning against in Ephesians 6:12. I don't know if I can prove that well enough to convince you, but to me this avoids the contradictions with 1 Corinthians 8:4 etc that otherwise I feel are inescapable.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

moving on to james, i agreed in my post with what you said about being tempted by our own lusts, but while i think that “defilement” comes from within, i still don't agree that “temptation” does. the greek word “peirazo” is the one used in most cases of temptation, and this is a verb (a doing word) meaning to test, or to attempt… so if i attempt to make you sin, i am tempting [peirazo] you. you can choose to be enticed [deleazo – begiled, baited] and thereby sin, but the temptation has come from an outside source. you said that it is only temptation when it plays on inward desires, but this is not what “peirazo” means – and this is the word used in the temptation of jesus. similarly, 1 cor 8:9-13 is a good example of one person causing another to sin (which is in itself a sin):

I agree that our temptations are stimulated by external influences, absolutely. But something will only be a temptation based on an individual's internal lusts, which to me suggests that all temptation is internal.

For example – two men can walk past a chocolate bar, and only one will be tempted to eat it. Would you say that the chocolate bar was actively tempting only one man, and not the other? Or is it simply that one man lusts after chocolate and the other doesn't?

Quote

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Obviously, the temptation to eat the chocolate bar is concieved entirely inside the one man's head, because that's the way his lusts draw him.

This works for situations where people are actively trying to create tempations for others as well. For instance, a prostitute inviting custom will tempt one man, and not another. For both men the stimulus is external, but only in one man's mind has temptation taken place.

The implication for the devil is that we have to think up bad thoughts for ourselves, before we can be tempted, whatever the situations we might face in a day. There is no evil voice in our head saying “do this sin” – other than the one we're born with in our innate tendancy to lust.

What do you think?

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

as to luke 10:18, what it actually says is “i saw satan like/as lightening descend out of heaven.”

Possibly so, I guess, although I admit that's not the way I read it. In any case, the “falling” still took place several thousands of years after Satan was supposed to have fallen (before Genesis 3), which certainly demands an explanation from orthodox devil-believers.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

as to demons, you said that they spoke through the afflicted so could be seen as an extension of the person, but the demons in mark 5:6-13, not only spoke, but they were cast out into a herd of pigs.

Again, I don't see this as more than an extension of the personification. To me the guy sounds kind of schizophrenic – maybe he wanted the “demons” to pass to the swine as a visible symbol that his illness had left him. Afterwards he's described as being “in his right mind” (Mark 5:15), which suggests to me that before he had some kind of illness that made him “not in his right mind”.

I think it's interesting that you never specifically read about people with mental illness in the Bible – yet you do read about people who show exactly the same symptoms, described as being possessed by demons. I think that's telling

Quote (nate @ Sep. 09 2004,22:51)

as to the fall, i think there's a lot of confusion as to what this actually constitutes, and how it could happen… and i think i'll look into this… i don't know what/who satan and demons are, ie. angels, other

Well, I think this is really important – just who is this devil? Why doesn't God tell us who he is, or where he came from? How is it that God permits such an evil being to roam around to tempt us? And why do we need the help?

Why is that orthodox Christianity has taught for centuries that the devil is a fallen angel, when the evidence for this just isn't there? And if orthodox Christianity can get that so wildly wrong, then what does that say about other orthodox doctrines about Satan?

I'm enjoying your posts, I hope your week's going well.

God bless,
Sam

[Sammo]

LOL, guess this gives you some idea of how long my last post took to write!

Quote (Guest @ Sep. 13 2004,20:54)

i think jude 1:9 is actually refering to the book of enoch… but i'm not sure…

That's interesting – I've never heard that before. How does it go?

Quote (Guest @ Sep. 13 2004,20:54)

i don't think you've answered the “legion cast into the pigs” question yet… not sure how that could fit into your theory… but it would be interesting to find out…

Hopefully I kind of have now.

Quote (Guest @ Sep. 13 2004,20:54)

that extract is a bit innaccurate… i believe in the existence of demons, but i don't think they're behind all sickness… nor do i believe that this is what the bible says… in some cases jesus casts demons out, but in other cases he just heals the sick…

I think it is a good example of people, like those of the 1st century, who attribute all otherwise unexplained illness to demons. Westerners like youself that believe in demons, who know what mental illness is, might attribute demons only to some cases and not others, but in tribal African societies, and in the 1st century, I think this would have been true for all such illnesses. I think you'll find that all the “sick” people in the New Testament had externally obvious ailments (eg blind, lame, leprous etc…), as opposed to the demon-possessed…

The symptoms of demons in the New Testament go away when you take the right pills, which I think is significant.

Quote (Guest @ Sep. 13 2004,20:54)

another thought… the word jesus used “satanas” is a proper name. if he just wanted to say “adversary” he could have used the noun “satan” (sawtawn)… why didn't he do that instead?

I'm not denying that Satan is personified (in the New Testament)

Sam

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

i think i'll start with this one, and see how i go…

Quote

Obviously, the temptation to eat the chocolate bar is concieved entirely inside the one man's head, because that's the way his lusts draw him. This works for situations where people are actively trying to create tempations for others as well. For instance, a prostitute inviting custom will tempt one man, and not another. For both men the stimulus is external, but only in one man's mind has temptation taken place. The implication for the devil is that we have to think up bad thoughts for ourselves, before we can be tempted, whatever the situations we might face in a day. There is no evil voice in our head saying “do this sin” – other than the one we're born with in our innate tendancy to lust. What do you think?

concerning the chocolate bar – have you never heard a picnic say, “eat me… go on, you'll enjoy it!” hehehe… but seriously… i agree that in the case of a chocolate bar, and in all other cases of temptation, there is a playing on our inner urges, but just because only one man submits does not mean that the both aren't tempted… as jesus said, if you lust after a woman not your wife your have commited adultery with her in your heart. this is an unmanifest sin, not just a temptation.

you agree that in the case of the prostitute she is trying to tempt them? doesn't this mean that, regardless of whether they submit to the temptation or not, the temptor is external? again i bring up the “if my actions cause my brother to sin…” argument – whether i am purposefully tempting him or not, he is still tempted because of me, and paul concludes that this is a sin…

i understand your point with regard to the temptation of jesus, but i still think that as their was no evil in jesus, the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world can't have come from an internal source… surely if there was no evil in him, such a thought cannot have come from within.

as to satan being the ruler of this world or this age, i think both apply – he is the ruler of the world for a time (this present darkness), until jesus returns…

with regard to jude – i must have been mistaken… jude does in fact quote the book of enoch (whether it be the same as the book on this site or not, i don't know), but a quick perusal did not yield the required information… in so saying, it should still be noted that jude is talking about michael and satan fighting over the body of moses, and not the lord and satan fighting over jerusalem… though i don't know where jude got this from…

btw you still haven't answered how the pigs could be possessed without the existence of demons… i don't think a pattern of speech could answer for this, or for why jesus spoke “to” and “of” demons, if they didn't exist – wouldn't this just be propegating a lie?

have you always believed as you do? (just curious)

cheers,

nate.

[Sammo]

Hi nate

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

concerning the chocolate bar – have you never heard a picnic say, “eat me… go on, you'll enjoy it!” hehehe… but seriously… i agree that in the case of a chocolate bar, and in all other cases of temptation, there is a playing on our inner urges, but just because only one man submits does not mean that the both aren't tempted… as jesus said, if you lust after a woman not your wife your have commited adultery with her in your heart. this is an unmanifest sin, not just a temptation.

Sure I agree – just because you're tempted, doesn't mean you'll sin, which is what Hebrews 4:15 says about Jesus. The order James gives is lust -> temptation -> sin, all of which I believe to take place internally, externally triggered or not.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

you agree that in the case of the prostitute she is trying to tempt them? doesn't this mean that, regardless of whether they submit to the temptation or not, the temptor is external? again i bring up the “if my actions cause my brother to sin…” argument – whether i am purposefully tempting him or not, he is still tempted because of me, and paul concludes that this is a sin…

No, I'd stick to saying the although the stimulus can be external, the thoughts definitely arise in your own mind. For instance, someone could be sitting in a silent, empty room, and still be tempted to go and visit the prostitute. The stimulus (for want of a better word) in this case would still be external, because he's thinking about a prostitute, but you could hardly call her a “tempter”. And even if she was, she'd have had to come up with sin of tempting the men herself, unless someone else tempted her to do that!!

But thinking about it a little more, I don't think that lusts need always be aroused by something external. For instance pride or greed are emotions that can lead people to do all sorts of stupid things without needing prompting or enticement from an outsider. You can see both of those in what happened with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and Peter is quite clear:

Quote

why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?

I think that their (and everyone else's) temptation was internal – they conceived it in their own hearts.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

i understand your point with regard to the temptation of jesus, but i still think that as their was no evil in jesus, the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world can't have come from an internal source… surely if there was no evil in him, such a thought cannot have come from within.

I think Jesus was born with the same tendencies to sin that we are, just never gave in. Paul says that Jesus was “made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4) – he was tempted “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). If thinking up bad thoughts is part of being human, then surely that was Jesus' lot too. There was noone else with Jesus – nothing directly external – in Matthew 26:

Quote

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

I read this as Jesus comptemplating, just for a moment, not facing the cross after all – yet immediately overcome in the words “nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”. As he says to Peter, two verses later –

Quote

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Sure, Jesus never sinned – but the fact that whenever he contemplated it, he always turned back to God, is something I find amazingly encouraging

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

as to satan being the ruler of this world or this age, i think both apply – he is the ruler of the world for a time (this present darkness), until jesus returns…

Well, be that as it may – I guess I could say the same of sin.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

with regard to jude – i must have been mistaken… jude does in fact quote the book of enoch (whether it be the same as the book on this site or not, i don't know), but a quick perusal did not yield the required information… in so saying, it should still be noted that jude is talking about michael and satan fighting over the body of moses, and not the lord and satan fighting over jerusalem… though i don't know where jude got this from…

He does quote Zechariah word for word: “The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9, Zechariah 3:2). This phrase appears only twice in the entire Bible, and here they are…

So far as the body of Moses goes, I see that as speaking of the Jews in the same way that we're the “body of Christ”, eg 1 Corinthians 12:

Quote

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. . 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Similarly, Israel was “baptised into Moses”, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:

Quote

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea

So that's the rationale for suggesting that “the body of Moses” is speaking about the nation of Israel. Of course, after the exile in Babylon, the only part of the body left was Judah.

So far as Michael goes (Jude 9) it was “the angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:1.

Once again, this fits very nicely with Zechariah and Ezra, where we see the surrounding nati
ons being “a satan” (adversary) to Judah in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

btw you still haven't answered how the pigs could be possessed without the existence of demons… i don't think a pattern of speech could answer for this, or for why jesus spoke “to” and “of” demons, if they didn't exist – wouldn't this just be propegating a lie?

Have you got a specific verse in mind?

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,01:21)

have you always believed as you do? (just curious)

Yes, but only in the last few years have I really looked into it a bit more. I was brought up a Christadelphian, but I do my best to be objective

How about you?

Have a good day,
Sam

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

i'll address this one before i forget:

Quote

He does quote Zechariah word for word: “The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9, Zechariah 3:2). This phrase appears only twice in the entire Bible, and here they are… So far as the body of Moses goes, I see that as speaking of the Jews in the same way that we're the “body of Christ”, eg 1 Corinthians 12: Quote 13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. . 27  Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Similarly, Israel was “baptised into Moses”, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10: Quote 1  Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea So that's the rationale for suggesting that “the body of Moses” is speaking about the nation of Israel. Of course, after the exile in Babylon, the only part of the body left was Judah. So far as Michael goes (Jude 9) it was “the angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:1.

i still don't think that's what it was talking about because while zech 3:1 says the angel of the lord[malak yahovah], verse 2 says “the lord [yahovah] said to satan”, so although the angel of the lord resisted satan, it was the lord who spoke… which seems to contradict jude 1:9, which says that michael spoke – as far as i can tell jude is talking about the actually body of moses which was hidden (deut 34:6)…

i understand what you're saying about the body of moses, but this interpretation doesn't really make sense to me – my reading of this passage (1 cor 10) is that while the jews were baptised towards moses (in that they followed him), they did not please god, so they were not identified with moses… so my understanding is kind of the opposite of yours.

besides, i don't think that the contention in the zechariah verse was over israel but over the high priest joshua (though this is unclear).

as to my beliefs: i was brought up believing in the existence of satan and demons, as well as many other things which i no longer believe because i don't see any evidence for them… i try to understand other people's perspectives, but am still rather opinionated i guess… regarding this issue, i find that the arguments you propose don't really line up with my understanding of the scriptures – which isn't to say that my understanding is right, but i do try to look into the scriptures to find they're intended meaning…

anyway, i'll try and address your other points later, but i'm a bit brain-dead at the moment…

cheers,

nate.

[Sammo]

Hi nate

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,22:00)

i still don't think that's what it was talking about because while zech 3:1 says the angel of the lord[malak yahovah], verse 2 says “the lord [yahovah] said to satan”, so although the angel of the lord resisted satan, it was the lord who spoke… which seems to contradict jude 1:9, which says that michael spoke – as far as i can tell jude is talking about the actually body of moses which was hidden (deut 34:6)…

I think there's very sound evidence that there was an angel that bore the name of God, and spoke on his behalf, which clears up the apparent discrepancy in Zechariah 3. This is Exodus 23:

Quote

20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

So basically, when this angel spoke, it was as if God himself was speaking. “His voice” is what “I speak”, says God. You get the same sort of thing in Exodus 3, at the burning bush:

Quote

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

“The angel of the LORD” and “the LORD” seem interchangable here – which would seem a little odd to me were it not for the passage in Exodus 23. This particular angel bears the name of God, and speaks as if he were God. There's a good example in Genesis 18 and 19 too – three men are spoken of, two of which are definitely angels and the third I would strongly suggest is this angel that bears God's name.

Quote

1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

So when “the LORD” appeared to Abraham, he saw “three men”. Two of these are definitely angels (19:1) – therefore it's most likely the third is too? Then after Abraham has prepared them a meal (“entertained angels unawares”?)…

Quote

13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

Abraham was visited by angels, yet “the LORD” spoke to Abraham. Then “the men” (two angels – 19:1) leave, but “the LORD” stays to speak to Abraham about Sodom:

Quote

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

The angels that left Abraham arrive in Sodom, but now there's only two – because the third stayed to speak with Abraham, on God's behalf. “Men” and “angels” seem to be used interchangably:

Quote

1 ¶ And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; . 12 ¶ And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

Then the two angels leave with Lot's family, and “the LORD” destroys Sodom.

So in two sentences, this is the reasoning: three men (angels – 19:1) visit Abraham, but two (19:1) angels leave and visit Lot while the third stays to speak with Abraham. This angel is spoken of as if he is God himself (18:13,22 etc.) because this is the angel that bears God's name (Exodus 23:20).

So returning to Zechariah 3, if the angel that Joshua stood before was the angel of Exodus 23:20, then this explains why God himself appears to speak, which fits perfectly with how I see Jude 9.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,22:00)

i understand what you're saying about the body of moses, but this interpretation doesn't really make sense to me – my reading of this passage (1 cor 10) is that while the jews were baptised towards moses (in that they followed him), they did not please god, so they were not identified with moses… so my understanding is kind of the opposite of yours.

I just see Moses as the head of Israel in the same way that Christ is our head. That makes them the body of Moses in the same way that we're the body of Christ.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 14 2004,22:00)

besides, i don't think that the contention in the zechariah verse was over israel but over the high priest joshua (though this is unclear).

I guess the high priest represents the nation, in any case. But the most important cog in my argument is that Jude quotes Zechariah directly – you'll only find two places in the Bible where the phrase “the LORD rebuke thee” appears, and it also fits well in the context of Old Testament examples in Jude.

Besides of which, the alternative seems like quite an odd scenario to me – what would the devil want with Moses' dead corpse anyway?

Cheers,
Sam

[Anonymous]

hey sam,

Quote

esides of which, the alternative seems like quite an odd scenario to me – what would the devil want with Moses' dead corpse anyway?

ah… i'm glad you brought that up – you know how the israelites had a tendancy to worship anything? they worshipped a golden cow, they worshipped the symbol of their suffering (the bronze serpent), they made idols and worshipped other gods, etc… well, deuteronomy tells us in the “hidden body” passage that there was no-one like moses… so i think that if the israelites had his body, they would make it a symbol of worship – hence the contention between michael and satan… hope this makes sense.

as to israel being described as the body of moses – its not really the way i understand the bible… um… we know that the israelites are the “sons of abraham”, because they came from the “body of abraham”, but only the levites came from the “body of moses” (and probably only a third of them – because there was also aaron and moses' sister)… now zechariah took place after the exile, and as far as i know only the tribe of judah returned, so it seems erroneous to say that this was the body of moses in that regard too… but this is only my understanding.

as to this:

Quote

But the most important cog in my argument is that Jude quotes Zechariah directly – you'll only find two places in the Bible where the phrase “the LORD rebuke thee” appears, and it also fits well in the context of Old Testament examples in Jude.

this isn't exactly true… zechariah says, “the lord rebuke satan”, whereas jude says, “the lord rebuke you”. not to mention the fact that a different word is used for lord – because this could be attributed to the different language – but seriously, reading these two verses i would never have thought that they were the same… moses vs joshua, michael vs malak yahovah or yahovah… (btw i have a different understanding of the the angel of the lord [malak yahovah] but i'll have to do a bit of research because my understanding in this still dates from my doctrinal days). considering jude draws heavily on the book of enoch (v6 & 14-16), it wouldn't surprise me if this was from that same book, or another apocryphal book…

you still haven't answered the demons cast into the pigs thing yet (matt 8:31-32)…

cheers,

nate.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Guys,
Interesting discussion you have going here. I just wanted to add my view on the burial of Moses incident.  I think he was the only man reported to have been buried by God Himself – its pretty wierd really. Ive got a slightly different take on it but its a bit 'out there'. I think im right in saying that there are two people in heaven we know of that didn't actually die; Enoch and Elijah. Many claim that it is these two that God will use as the two witnesses of Rev 11 – hence the need to have physical bodies. But Enoch, for a number of reasons doesn't really fit as a good candidate. Moses however does appear to at least have some interesting attributes that make him a creditable choice. Its quite a detailed study to make all the pieces fit and I don't have the time at the moment to do this but I will throw it out there anyway. Its interesting to me that the two powers the witnesses had was fire (Rev 11:5) and withholding rain (v6). Didn't Moses call down fire (Ex 9) in and Elijah withhold rain? Anyway, an alternative explanation for God burying Moses  – maybe he did it in a way that it wouldn't decompose so He could use it thousands of yrs later, thats hugely conjectural, I know. Also, Jews set a place for Elijah at the passover feast, it's prophesised for to him return again. Likewise Moses, they're expecting to see him too – I believe he was the prophet referred to in Jn 1:21.

Sammo, sorry its taken me so long to get back to you. I think Nate has raised a lot of the same points I would have, and a few more I hadn't thought of. You said that satan was cast out of heaven in Gen 3 (the past) – therefore how could he be cast out again in Rev 12 (the future). Well I guess I would argue firstly that the text doesn't say He was cast out of heaven in Gen 3:

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Also in Job 1, there he is in heaven talking to God:

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD , and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD , “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”

So it appears from this passage that he currently has visitation rights.

….And then in Rev 12 he is permanently expelled:

7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Thats my take on it anyway.
God Bless

[Ramblinrose]

You may find the following article interesting. It is in regard to Enoch and Eliyah being in heaven.

http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/enoch,eliyah,moses.html

Shalom

[Anonymous]

hey is 1:18,

in support of the moses and elijah theory, it was these two who appeared with jesus on the mount of transfiguration…

hey ramblingrose,

i had a quick look at the article… um… its interesting, but i find two immediate problems with it… it equates the phrase “he was not” with death (and this may be) but the enoch passage in hebrew doesn't use this phrase… a more literal translation would be “enoch walked with god, god snatched him”… the second is the translation of “vision” as something not real (or dreamlike)… while this can be infered, the actual word “horama” also means something which is seen (though this just comes down to interpretation)…

cheers,

nate.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Guest @ Sep. 16 2004,21:05)

Quote

hey is 1:18, in support of the moses and elijah theory, it was these two who appeared with jesus on the mount of transfiguration…

Yes, I forgot to mention that, compelling isn't it? Nate, I would be interested in you thoughts on the identity of this mysterious angel that appears in Josh 5 and elsewhere.
Thanks and God Bless

[Anonymous]

hey is 1:18,

well, i was taught throughout my bible school days that “the angel of the lord” in the old testament – with a couple of exceptions – was jesus, and of course i believed it! but after a quick perusal of such verses, i have to say that some passages don't really seem to distinguish between “malk yahovah”, and “yahovah”, but other passages make a clear distinction… so, i don't know…

of course josh 5 is the captain of the lord's hosts, right? as far as i know this is the only time that phrase occurs in the bible… obviously it can't be said with certainty, but this could definitely be jesus and i don't see anything to doubt it (though i know some people don't believe jesus pre-existed his birth)… i don't think it could be michael, because he is described as “one of the chief captains”, but the figure in josh 5 is described as “the captain of the lord's hosts”… still, it's all heresay…

i think also, paul says that “melchizedech” is a type of the christ – does this mean that he was the christ? if so, i guess it sets a precedent, but again this seems a bit unclear…

not much help, eh? what's your understanding?

cheers,

nate.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Nate, hope your weekend is going well.
I find these Christophany passages really intriguing. Three things strike me as being remarkable about the Josh 5 incident.

1. After being spoken to, Joshua immediately seemed recognise the awesome supernatural nature of this visitor (v14).

2.  Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped Him (v14). It is sin to worship angels and men (Ex 20; Deut 5-8; Rev 19:10; 22:8,9). He was not rebuked for this.

3. This visitor said “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.”, to which Joshua promptly obeyed (v15). Could an angel rightfully make this order? The same thing was said by the angel in the burning bush – interesting.

The context of the passage, to me, indicates that Joshua was in the presence of someone much greater than an angel. I think all distinctions between the messenger of the covenant and the preincarnate Jesus appear to evaporate in light of these elements.

What do you reckon?

Is 1:18

[Sammo]

Hi nate

Quote (nate @ Sep. 15 2004,20:59)

ah… i'm glad you brought that up – you know how the israelites had a tendancy to worship anything? they worshipped a golden cow, they worshipped the symbol of their suffering (the bronze serpent), they made idols and worshipped other gods, etc… well, deuteronomy tells us in the “hidden body” passage that there was no-one like moses… so i think that if the israelites had his body, they would make it a symbol of worship – hence the contention between michael and satan… hope this makes sense.

Well, I guess I can understand how you see it that way, but I can't say I'm convinced. It seems to me to be founded on a pretty big maybe – I don't think you can prove it. And after all, didn't they have the bones of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David etc? You'd think they'd've been the next best bones in the land, but they never worshipped those.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 15 2004,20:59)

as to israel being described as the body of moses – its not really the way i understand the bible… um… we know that the israelites are the “sons of abraham”, because they came from the “body of abraham”, but only the levites came from the “body of moses” (and probably only a third of them – because there was also aaron and moses' sister)… now zechariah took place after the exile, and as far as i know only the tribe of judah returned, so it seems erroneous to say that this was the body of moses in that regard too… but this is only my understanding.

Then I guess we just disagree on that one… but just to summarise my view, this is my reasoning:

• Israel/Judah was under the law,
• Moses was the representative of the law,
• hence “the body of Moses” is a figurative term for the body of people under the law, which was Israel/Judah.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 15 2004,20:59)

as to this: Quote But the most important cog in my argument is that Jude quotes Zechariah directly – you'll only find two places in the Bible where the phrase “the LORD rebuke thee” appears, and it also fits well in the context of Old Testament examples in Jude. this isn't exactly true… zechariah says, “the lord rebuke satan”, whereas jude says, “the lord rebuke you”. not to mention the fact that a different word is used for lord – because this could be attributed to the different language – but seriously, reading these two verses i would never have thought that they were the same… moses vs joshua, michael vs malak yahovah or yahovah…

I checked the Septuagint, and the word for “thee” (in “the Lord rebuke thee”), soi, is definitely in Zechariah as well as Jude. The phrase isn't exactly the same, but no doubt there's some weird Greek grammatical rule going on. Could ask my Dad – he's up to speed with stuff like that…

In any case, I don't think it's a coincidence that almost all translations use the same phrase in Zechariah 3:2 as in Jude 9: see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1095637532-7475.html#2 and http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1095637541-9435.html#9

That Jude 9 is talking about Zechariah 3 certainly isn't my idea, nor is it a Christadelphian idea – I mean, it comes printed in my margin! But take it or leave it, up to you.

Quote (nate @ Sep. 15 2004,20:59)

you still haven't answered the demons cast into the pigs thing yet (matt 8:31-32)…

What do you want to know? Yes, I do believe that a herd of swine literally ran down the hill, but no, I don't think that they were demon-possessed. The guy simply wanted to see a physical sign of his healing, which Jesus supplied. I think that this is exactly what the gospel records describe, given that the language of the day was to personify unexplained illnesses as demons.

Interestingly, this parallel is made earlier in Mathew 8:

Quote

16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

You can see how “demons” and “spirits” are equated with “infirmities” and “sicknesses”.

Cheers,
Sam

[Sammo]

Hi Is 1:18

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

Hi Guys, Interesting discussion you have going here. I just wanted to add my view on the burial of Moses incident. I think he was the only man reported to have been buried by God Himself – its pretty wierd really. Ive got a slightly different take on it but its a bit 'out there'. I think im right in saying that there are two people in heaven we know of that didn't actually die; Enoch and Elijah.

I think that Enoch and Elijah did both die – Paul says that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and these were by no means perfect men. Also “death passed upon all men” (Romans 5:12), “in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22) etc etc. Surely these are pretty global statements.

Infact, in the case of Enoch, Paul specifically says that he died in Hebrews 11:

Quote

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Enoch is definitely part of this “all” becaude he's mentioned earlier in verse 5. I think Elijah is in just the same boat as Enoch, as he's implicitly mentioned as well, in verse 32.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

Many claim that it is these two that God will use as the two witnesses of Rev 11 – hence the need to have physical bodies.

Well suffice to say that Revelation is far from literal…

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

Its interesting to me that the two powers the witnesses had was fire (Rev 11:5) and withholding rain (v6). Didn't Moses call down fire (Ex 9) in and Elijah withhold rain?

Undoubted links, and cool ones at that – but far from proving that Enoch and Elijah never died.

There were some good points in the article Ramblinrose posted, much of which I agreed with, especially about the letter that Elijah posted after he was taken in the chariot. It also explains why the sons of the prophets went looking for him.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

Sammo, sorry its taken me so long to get back to you.

No worries – I can see you're keeping more than busy on the Trinity thread!

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

You said that satan was cast out of heaven in Gen 3 (the past) – therefore how could he be cast out again in Rev 12 (the future). Well I guess I would argue firstly that the text doesn't say He was cast out of heaven in Gen 3

My understanding was that only fallen angels – such as the serpent in Genesis 3 – could tempt people, hence Satan by this stage was already a fallen angel. I also understood that he's called “fallen” because he fell from heaven – hence he was cast out of heaven before Genesis 3. Is this a fair representation?

Incidentally, we don't even read about “Satan” in Genesis 3, we read about a serpent. Please tell me how this curse…

Quote

14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

…affects the devil!!

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

Also in Job 1, there he is in heaven talking to God: One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD , and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD , “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”

Unfortunately, there's no proof that the “sons of God” were angels, or even that this took place in heaven…

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,02:57)

….And then in Rev 12 he is permanently expelled:

Why did God cast Satan from heaven in the first place, if he's allowed to keep coming back? To me, now more than ever, orthodox doctrines about Satan and the Devil just simply aren't backed up by the Bible – and often all the presented evidence does is contradict itself.

I'm still looking for

• Evidence that the devil was once an angel
• Evidence that the devil fell from heaven, just once, before Genesis 3.
• An explanation of why satan is used to refer to a righteous angel, men and God himself, if satan is a proper noun for an immortal evil being.
• An explanation of why the devil is used to refer to regular men and woman, if the devil is a proper noun for an immortal evil being.
• An explanation of how James could possibly omit the devil from his summary of temptation.

…and this list could be longer.

God bless
Sam

[Author]

Posts