|
Post by Dave on Sept 25, 2023 2:00:04 GMT -5
Where are the scholars who agree with you? Show me one of their studies. get your scholarly articles posted with links I can access freely. Robert complains that he does not have access to scholarly papers. He claims it is my job to copy and paste everything here Through the years I have obtained several different Library Cards – and I deliberately pay membership fee to maintain access to Yale Divinity and Cornell. Notre Dame and U of Kansas at Hays are great for specifically NT Greek as well. Clarendon College has the Nag Hammadi and Princeton has the Dead Sea Scrolls Some of the papers I can see – I cannot copy and paste – only download for a fee Some of the papers – I can only see the first 3 pages - then requires a donation to continue I do not begrudge them wanting money – maintaining ancient texts is not simple – this is why they are usually found in large special libraries – that only the academic (Greek Nerds) use. This is an excerpt from a Book – reprinted in the Washington Postwww.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/deathof.htmThe Death of Satan How Americans Have Lost the Sense of EvilBy Andrew Delbanco The Hebrew word Satan, which means obstructor or adversary, is given in the Book of Job to the agent of God who is sent to test Job's constancy, and to the obstacle against which David must prove his kingship in the first Book of Chronicles. This Satan, as one writer genially puts it, has "access to Heaven . . . and [is] evidently on good terms with the Almighty." Correct – Hebrew satan of the OT is NOT the BEAST of Revelation Hebrew satan of the OT is an angel of the Lord – working for the LordWhen the Old Testament was rendered into Greek in the third century, the Greek word diabolos (from dia-bollein, to tear apart) was chosen to translate this Hebrew Satan, and at the same time a different Greek word, satanas, was used in the New Testament to denote, not a tempter sent by God to test men, but an enemy of God himself. This new Satan appears most vividly in the Book of Revelation as "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan . . . cast out into the earth." Correct – and the answer to Roberts LXX question In Greek G4566 (Hebrew satan) = Hebrew satan of the OT While G4567 (Chaldean satanas) = satanas of Rev 12:9 of the NT Two completely different entities(Still another word, daimon, was used to signify various evil spirits from the Hebrew texts, such as the demon bride in the apocryphal Book of Tobit.) To compound the confusion, the Greek diabolos and satanas were both rendered as "Satan" in the Tudor-Stuart English translations, culminating with the standard King James version of 1604. By the later Renaissance, therefore, when the Bible had become the central vernacular text of every literate Englishman, a permanent consolidation of subtly different meanings had taken place, and Satan had reemerged as a unified contradiction, an inherently paradoxical creature. Yes – Hebrew satan and NT satanas + the devil become confused through translation My comment – this is the human factor – the bias of the individual translator – the common understanding in 1080AD or 1604AD or later translations It took centuries for this to happen. The Christian devil emerged slowly as the amalgamation of all the scriptural elements--a process that can be followed at the linguistic as well as the doctrinal level. Correct – Catholic satan was not invented until ‘centuries’ AFTER the Gospel was writtenJesus did not teach Catholic satan His Disciples did not teach Catholic satan His followers never heard of Catholic satan All of them were Jewish with Jewish demonology –
Hebrew satan and the other gods and their demons were of two different groups Hebrew satan was an angel of the Lord within Hebrew – within Judaism The other gods and their demons were of the world – King Solomon’s shedimAs this visual image of Satan emerged, there was still considerable disagreement over what exactly had precipitated his fall. According to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, the fall of Satan followed the creation of man and was occasioned by his festering jealousy of Adam as a rival in the affections of God. In the fourth century a variant idea was introduced (by Lactantius): that the object of Satan's jealousy was not Adam, but Christ, who stood in the mind of the jealous angel as a kind of favored older brother. Both of these accounts had at their heart the problem of what we would call sibling rivalry." Justin Martyr and Irenaeus = Catholic Church Fathers – Doctors of the faithjealousy of Adam = 100% Islamic – Iblis and the Jinn are jealous of man
In the fourth century a variant idea was introduced (by Lactantius): that the object of Satan's jealousy was not Adam, but Christ, 400 years after Christ – Catholic satan takes form jealous of favored older brother – 100% Mormon – a sibling rivalry
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 25, 2023 2:59:01 GMT -5
Satan, Yhwh’s Executionerryan e. stokes - rstokes@swbts.edu Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX 76122 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014) This is a very long paper - I am posting only parts In recent decades, scholars have taken great care not to assume that “the śāṭān” of Job 1–2 and of Zechariah 3 is supposed to be the archenemy of God and the opponent of good, as is Satan in later Jewish and Christian literature. Nevertheless, scholars have yet to eliminate anachronistic assumptions from their discussions of this figure as he is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, maintaining that the śāṭān in Job and Zechariah holds the office of heavenly “prosecuting attorney” or “accuser.” After surveying the uses of the noun שָׂטןָ and the verb שָׂטןַ in the Hebrew Scriptures, this article argues that these words never denote “accusation” in this literature but refer exclusively to physical “attack.” This article further contends that in legal contexts the noun שָׂטןָ can refer specifically to an “executioner” and that “the Executioner” is the proper understanding of השַָּׂטןָ in Zechariah and Job. Who is Satan? What does Satan do? According to popular imagination and centuries of Christian theology, Satan is the archenemy of God, the opponent of all that is good; Satan does evil. Bible scholars, to their credit, now recognize that the biblical authors conceived of the nature and activity of this figure somewhat differently from later theologians. According to the present scholarly consensus, the early literature portrays Satan (or the śātạ̄n, השַָּׂטןָ , as he is referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures) as “the Adversary,” or, more specifically, “the Accuser.”2 He serves God as a sort of prosecuting attorney in the heavenly court. This conception of the early śāṭān tradition is based on an understanding of the Hebrew root שׂטן , which appears both in the nominal form שָׂטןָ and as the verb 3.שָׂטןַ The noun שָׂטןָ is typically taken to mean “adversary” or “accuser.” The verb שָׂטןַ likewise is understood to refer to acts of “opposition” or “accusation.”4 If the standard translations of these words are correct, then so is the scholarly consensus that the śāṭān of the Hebrew Scriptures is the Adversary or the Accuser. In this article, however, I contend that scholars have misunderstood the words שָׂטןָ and שָׂטןַ . I love this sentenceAccording to popular imagination and centuries of Christian theology, Satan is the archenemy of God, the opponent of all that is good; Catholic satan = popular imagination and centuries of Christian theology,III. The Śāṭān in Zechariah 3 pg 262 This translation of Zech 3:1–7 represents the scholarly consensus as to how these verses are to be understood with regard to the identity and activity of the śāṭān. Two aspects of this rendering of the passage merit comment. First, the NRSV translates לשְִׂטנְוֹ in 3:1 as “to accuse him.” Second, it renders השַָּׂטןָ in 3:1–2 as “Satan.” Since this is a semantic study of the root שׂטן , I will not here discuss the grammatical distinction between “Satan” and “the Satan,” as one would usually translate a noun with the definite article.31 One should note, however, that the transliteration of השַָּׂטןָ as Satan is not as interpretively neutral as it might at first appear, since the NRSV and several other translations provide readers with an explanatory note defining this term as “the Accuser.”32 Commentators and translators alike are virtually unanimous that what the śāṭān is doing in this scene is accusing Joshua and that the śāṭān is in fact “the Accuser.”33, 31 In view of the fact that “lethal, physical attack” is the meaning of שָׂטןָ and שָׂטןַ attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, this is also almost certainly the meaning of these words in Zechariah 3. More specifically, it was shown that שָׂטןָ is in some instances used with reference to capital punishment (Num 22:22, 32; 2 Sam 19:23). In these passages, the attacker functions as an “executioner.” This seems to be the sense of the root שׂטן in Zechariah 3, the first verse of which should be translated as follows: Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of Yhwh, and the Executioner standing on his right to execute him. (Zech 3:1) The identification of the śāṭān as a superhuman executioner garners additional support from a comparison of Zechariah 3 with two other passages from the Hebrew Scriptures, IV. The Śāṭān in Job 1–2 pg 267 The title השַָּׂטןָ appears twelve times in the first two chapters of Job. When it comes to discerning the meaning of the title, however, Job 1–2, like Zechariah 3, leaves open more than one interpretive possibility. Despite the more elaborate narrative context provided by Job and the frequency of השַָּׂטןָ , the book of Job offers no unambiguous indication of the meaning of the noun שָׂטןָ . As a result of this ambiguity, scholars have proffered various readings of Job 1–2 and various translations for השַָּׂטןָ . Some commentators regard the śātạ̄n in Job as “the Adversary” or “the Opponent.”38 Others understand this figure more specifically as “the Accuser” or “the Prosecutor.”39 Based on the present study’s analysis of שָׂטןָ up to this point, one would expect “the śāṭān” in Job to be an attacker. Since the word is used exclusively in this way elsewhere, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, this is likely to bethe way it is used in Job as well. Given that the designation השַָּׂטןָ is identical to that found in Zechariah 3, and given that this figure reports to Yhwh among the “sons of God” in Job (1:6; 2:1), one would expect, more specifically, for this attacker to be, as in Zechariah, a superhuman “executioner.” The evidence of Job itself, allusive though it may be, also suggests that the śāṭān is thought to be a superhuman executioner of the wicked. Several aspects of the narrative indicate that an understanding of the śāṭān as God’s “attacker” or “executioner,” rather than “accuser,” lies in the story’s background. Third, one can perhaps detect an underlying understanding of the śāṭān as “the Executioner” in Yhwh’s instructions to him regarding his attack on Job. When the śāṭān challenges God to strike Job, God assents, telling the śāṭān that all that Job has is in the śāṭān’s hand. But each time that God hands Job over to the śāṭān, God curtails the śāṭān’s authority, instructing him in the first instance not to strike Job’s flesh and bones (1:12). In the second instance, God permits the śāṭān to attack Job’s body but forbids him to take Job’s life (2:4–6). These instructions limiting the śāṭān’s freedom would have been necessary, given that the use of such physical and lethal force would have normally been within the purview of “the Executioner’s” authority V. Conclusion pg269 The tradition of a superhuman śāṭān, whether a śāṭān as in Numbers 22 and 1 Chronicles 21 or the śāṭān as in Zechariah 3 and Job 1–2, is among those traditions in the Hebrew Scriptures that pertain to superhuman agents of death, who visit God’s enemies with capital judgment. One example of this sort of figure is the “destroyer” ( המשחית ) who kills the firstborn children of Egypt on the eve of the exodus (Exod 12:23). The angel of Yhwh also serves as a messenger of death in several passages. Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014) This article was published in JBL 133/2 (2014) 251–70, copyright © 2014 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.My comments1- This article is speaking about OT Hebrew satan only 2- it is a little harsh (Baptist) - but I don't dissagree 3- YHWY's excutioner - works for God 4- YHWY's excutioner - does NOT rebel against God 5- YHWY's excutioner - does not oppose God 6- YHWY's excutioner - no evidence here that he hates God
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 26, 2023 10:06:42 GMT -5
www.much-ado.net/satanthesis.htmlHELL'S ANGEL: FOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF SATAN IN BIBLICAL AND EXTRA-BIBLICAL LITERATURE By DeeDee Baldwin Submitted to the Honors Committee of William Carey College, May 2001 Supervised by Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. This is a Master's Disortation submitted on the path to a PhD/ThD I have deleated very little - most from the openingIntroduction and Methodology The Bible provides different characterizations of Satan. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan appears as a messenger of God and serves in the heavenly courtroom as the “accuser.” In the New Testament, however, Satan has become God’s adversary and the tempter who tries to lead Christians astray. Faced with these differing and vague characterizations presented in the Bible, theologians and writers throughout church history have held varying understandings of the role of Satan. With so many literary presentations, “the only way the Devil can be defined is through his tradition.”[1] These literary traditions, both biblical and extra-biblical, present four basic characterizations of Satan, which have been supported by various theologians, writers, and myths: the Accuser, the Adversary, the Other God, and the Hero/Antihero. Many scholars have studied the development of Satan from a chronological standpoint, though such an approach simplifies the character of Satan and implies that certain interpretations belong to specific time periods. 1- Hebrew Satan appears as a messenger of God and serves in the heavenly courtroom as the “accuser.” 2- New Testament Satan has become the tempter who tries to lead Christians astray. 3- Descriptions of satan change over time – change from the OT to the NT
Background Considerations In the Old Testament, the noun STN (satan), put most simply, means “accuser,” and appears twenty-six times[2] in the Hebrew Bible. Hamilton separates the usage into two categories: “terrestrial satans” and “celestial satans.”[3] The first human called a STN in the Old Testament is David (1 Sam 29:4), when Philistine rulers worried that David was their “adversary.” The other appearances are in reference to David accusing Abishai (2 Sam 19:23), Solomon’s military enemies (1 Kgs 5:18; 11:14; 11:23, 25), and in Psalm 109. These seven passages clearly do not set forth the idea of a supernatural adversary of God. Hamilton lists four passages suggesting a “celestial” STN: Num 22:22, 32; Job 1-2; Zech 3:1-2; and 1 Chr 21:1. All of these instances describe a STN in opposition to the “hero”—but not necessarily in opposition to God. Yep – sometimes the opposer/accuser just means to oppose or accuseBy the time the books of the Apocrypha were written (theories for dating set a wide range: 200 B.C. - 100 A.D.), some elements of Judaism had begun to reflect the dualism found in the New Testament, and Yahweh had an adversary. What brought about such a radical shift in theology?Correct – Christians use the NT to radically shift the theology – change the theology Hebrew satan that serves God is changed - into Catholic satan who, rebels, hates, and opposes God – and turned 1/3 of all God’s angels to the dark side – for the purpose of opposing God’s right to rule the universeAfter Persia conquered Babylon, the religiously tolerant King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return home in 538 B.C.; many, however, chose to remain. During this time, they encountered Zoroastrianism. This ancient Iranian religion was based on two main gods: Angra Mainyu, who brought death to the world and controlled evil spirits,[5] and Ahura Mazda, who was the “good god.”[6] This cosmic dualism strongly affected the exiled Jews, and their “world was now viewed as a battleground fought over by both benevolent and malevolent deities.”[7] Correct – the Cosmic struggle between two gods – one good and one bad is NOT Judaism – it is Zoroasterian Correct – Ellen White’s SDA two god controversy is NOT found within Judaism – its origin is a pagan Persian religion built upon a prophet named Zoroaster (approx 500BC)An important difference to note here is that while Judaism became more dualistic with the development of an adversary of God, Satan was always considered subordinate to God; this was not so in Zoroastrianism.[8] Judaism – satan is always subordinate to God – serves God Christianity – NT satan is the serpent – is the BEAST – we call devil – who deceives the whole world Gnostic Christianity – NT satan is the serpent – is the BEAST – we call devil – who deceives the whole world – and are the archon of the Nag HammadiZoroasterian – satan god directly opposes God Ellen White’s SDA - satan god directly opposes God in a cosmic controversy Catholic satan – rebelled against God + took 1/3 of all God’s angels + for the purpose of opposing God’s right to rule the universe
Arvind Sharma calls this idea of a subordinate adversary “explicit monotheism and implicit dualism.”[9] Zoroastrianism so influenced Jewish thinking that the book of Tobit (2nd century B.C.) involves the character Asmodeus, named after a demon in Iranian mythology. Asmodeus – a shedim discussed by King Solomon (an archon)Moving from the Hebrew Bible into the New Testament ... The Satana/j of the New Testament is much different from the STN of the Old Testament. Under Zoroastrian and hellenistic influences, “the Accuser” has become Satan, a personification of evil who leads a vast army of demons. The Satana/j of the New Testament is much different from the STN of the Old Testament. Correct – because they are NOT the same being Hebrew satan = God’s servant NT satanas = the BEAST of RevelationCharacterizations of Satan From reading the Bible and other extra-biblical religious literature, one can identify four main characterizations of Satan: the Accuser, the Adversary, the Other God, and the Hero/Antihero.[12] Old Testament passages depict Satan—or, preferably, the satan—as “the Accuser,” a quasi-prosecutor in the heavenly “courtroom.” The next two characterizations stem from the Jews’ exposure to Zoroastrianism and hellenism; Satan is understood as a being who acts apart from God. The idea of Satan acting as “the Other God” is the result of extreme dualism, in which Satan is equal to, or sometimes even part of, God himself. The characterization given in the New Testament—and the one supported by many people today—is that of the Adversary, a deceiver who desires to lead people astray, and whose active fight against God is predestined to fail. Finally, another tradition arose in the writings of the early church fathers, who identified the lucifer in their Latin translations[13] of Isa 14:12 as Satan. They interpreted the passage to mean that Satan had rebelled against God and had been cast out of heaven. Most traditions support the idea that Satan brought about his own downfall, though they disagree as to whether that downfall was precipitated by Satan’s goodness or wickedness; these stories and traditions about Satan’s fall present him as the Hero or Antihero. Yep – Catholic satan is 100% a Catholic invention building upon Zoroasterian principles Ellen White and the SDA are even more Zoroasterian than the Catholics – they take the idea even further into a two god cosmic controvery The Accuser While the New Testament presents Satan as an enemy of God, the Hebrew Bible seems to depict Satan as an agent of God. The satan may enter the heavenly courtroom, which consists of the “sons of God”— (Job 1:6; 2:1)—and lay a charge against a man, or God might send him to test someone “on His behalf, at His command.”[14] Peggy Day calls the satan a “legal opponent.”[15] The satan makes his first appearance[16] in Numbers 22, in which God dispatches a messenger to oppose STN, vv. 22, 32) Balaam. The writer clearly does not portray the satan as an enemy of God—rather the reverse. God sends an angel to act as an adversary STN against Balaam; This is clearly not Satan, but an emissary of God. Satan appears next in the prologue of the book of Job,[17] where his presence at the assembly of the sons of God (see also 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6; and Zech 3-4) demonstrates that “the ancient Near Eastern concept of a divine council . . . is very much alive in the biblical texts.”[18] Perhaps the satan was seen as a “roving secret agent”; the verb used to describe his roaming over the earth, (1:7)—besides having a lexical connection with his name STN —comes from the same root as the verb used in Zech 4:10 to describe God’s eyes “ranging” over the earth.[19] In Job 1:9, the satan begins to question Job’s prosperity; Day suggests that in this speech, he is not accusing Job, but God himself. He challenges the “validity of a system which rewards the righteous with material prosperity,” perhaps accusing God of “divine patronage.”[20] The satan may also represent “God’s own internal conflict” or function as a hypostasis of some attribute(s) of God: “He is only merciful, while His other attribute, that of justice, is personified in Satan.”[21] Some Jews believed that there is an internal conflict in human beings; they called this inner struggle between good and evil the yetser.[22] In the third century AD, Rabbi Simon ben Lakish identified this yetser with Satan: “Satan and the yetser and angel of death are one.”[23] Like any good “prosecutor,” Satan is a master speaker. Robert Alter analyzes the initial dialogue between God and the satan, pointing out that while God begins with a simple question—“Where are you coming from?”—Satan responds with a fondness for verse insets, clever citation of folk sayings, argumentative positioning of syntactical members for the most persuasive effect. In short, as befits a prosecuting attorney, he is a master of conscious rhetoric, alongside of whom God seems plainspoken.[24] For example, Satan employs parallelism (“roaming over the earth and walking around in it,” 1:7), proverbs (“All a man has he will give for his life,” 2:4), and emphatic repetition (“a hedge about him and about his household and about all he has,” 1:10).[25] The writer also creates irony in two of Satan’s charges. In 1:10, Satan accuses God of building a hedge around Job to protect him, yet in 3:23, Job complains that because he is hedged in, he cannot see his way.[26] Satan then challenges God, “Stretch out your hand now . . . and he will curse [literally, “bless”] you to your face” (1:11). God allows Satan to test Job, and Job passes the test by saying, “Blessed (jrbm) be the name of Yahweh” (1:21). STN next appears in Zech 3:1, in which Joshua the high priest stands before Yahweh, with “the satan STN standing at his right hand to accuse him STN.” Yahweh defends Joshua and rebukes the satan, then Joshua’s filthy garments are replaced with clean ones. The high priest Joshua is probably a symbol for the nation of Israel, and “his change of clothes represents the change in the community’s status from impure to pure (or sinful to forgiven) in the eyes of Yahweh.”[27] In this passage, one again sees the satan desiring justice, while God intends to be merciful. Because Joshua/Israel appears before God and the satan, Day suggests that “the heavenly council has convened.”[28] Satan makes his final Old Testament appearance in Chronicles. In 2 Sam 24:1, God’s anger is kindled against Israel, and he incites David to take a census. The parallel passage 1 Chr 21:1 replaces God’s anger with Satan as the instigator of David’s census. This is the only Old Testament passage in which STN appears without the definite article, implying that it could function as a proper name.[29] The apparent contradiction between 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chr 21:1 is particularly troublesome to interpreters who do not acknowledge that the Old Testament “Satan” was an agent of God. Why would the Chronicler change the Samuel account to have Satan replace God’s wrath?[30] He may have wanted to “distance Yahweh from the subsequent act of instigating David to take a census,”[31] or he may have understood God’s wrath and Satan as essentially the same concept. Satan may appear elsewhere in this story (even in the 2 Samuel passage), though STN is not directly named. Further in the passages, God sends an angel/messenger to destroy Jerusalem (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15), but changes his mind. David tells the angel to judge him and his household instead (2 Sam 24:17; 1 Chr 21:17). It seems probable that the angel may be identified with STN. Day finds a parallel between these passages and Numbers 22: In [Numbers 22], Yahweh’s anger leads to the dispatch of a sword-wielding messenger who confronts Balaam on his way to meet the king of Moab . . . This is precisely parallel [to] what was described in the Chronicler’s source: Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel, and so the sword-wielding mal’ak yhwh was sent forth to smite the object of divine wrath.[32] If one does not include Chronicles, Satan first appears as a proper name in the pseudepigraphical work Jubilees, dated during the reign of Antiochus IV (ca. 170 B.C.):[33] And all of their days they will be complete and live in peace and rejoicing. There will be no Satan and no evil (one) who will destroy (Jubilees 23:29).[34] Satan does not appear in the Old Testament Apocrypha; the two references to an adversary (dia/bolon in 1 Macc 1:36, referring to a citadel and satana~n in Ecclesiasticus 21:27, referring to an enemy) clearly indicate a “terrestrial” enemy. STN occurs three times in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QH 4:6, 45:3; 1QSb 1:8), but is never clearly a proper name.[35] This passage from the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH 45:3) contains an interesting use of STN, but the text is so fragmentary that the context is indefinite: [ . . . ] justice and [ . . . ] [the one abh]orred to the pit at the time of his punishment [ . . . ] [ . . . ] every adversary and destroyer [ . . . ] [ . . . ] in their wickedness, sending them away, a nation [ . . . ] [ . . . ] the arrogant man with those who increase unfaithfulness and o[ppression . . . [36] The New Testament writers do not further develop this characterization of the accuser, though Satan’s actions in the temptation narratives (Mt 4; Mk 1:13; Lk 4) somewhat reflect his role in the Old Testament. Though Satan’s function in this story may be to act as the adversary, one can interpret his role differently. As in Job 1, Satan appears and proceeds to test a righteous man, wanting to see if he is worthy of God’s “patronage.” Indeed, to many New Testament writers, Satan’s “primary function was the proving of the faith and steadfastness . . . of the pious.”[37] He might even function as God’s agent. Lk 4:13 seems especially to support this view: “the devil had finished every trial (peirasmo\n).” Peirasmo\n is traditionally translated as “temptation” in this passage, but can also mean “proof” or “test,” as in 1 Pet 4:12. Similarly, peira/zwn is usually translated “the tempter” in these passages (such as Mt 4:3), when the translation “the tester” would be justified – and perhaps even more appropriate. Did the writers of the Synoptic Gospels intend for the temptation narrative to parallel the story of Job? One can find rather vague parallels between Job 1-2 and the temptation narrative in Matthew 4.[38] The first calamity to befall Job is the sudden death of his children, his servants, and his livestock. One by one, messengers report the bad news, including the facts that the donkeys were feeding (Job 1:14) and that his sons and daughters were drinking wine and eating (Job 1:18). Jesus’ first trial is to turn a stone into bread and satisfy his hunger. In Job 2:4, Satan next proposes that he should attack Job’s body; in Mt 4:6, Satan tells Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the temple in order to prove that the angels will prevent him from bodily harm. After Job’s great misfortunes, his wife urges him to curse God, but he refuses, thus passing Satan’s test. Likewise, Jesus passes Satan’s test in Mt 4:10 by refusing to bow to anyone but God. Job 2 ends with the scene of Job’s friends surrounding him to comfort him, while at the end of Matthew’s temptation narrative, angels come to wait on Jesus. Satan’s characterization as the accuser did not end with the writings of the biblical period. In the third century, Origen popularized the ransom theory of atonement, which seems to portray Satan as a prosecutor. Mt 20:28 provides the scriptural basis for the theory: “the son of man came . . . to give his life, a ransom (lu/tron) for many.”[39] According to the theory, God was obligated to pay Satan a ransom in order to save the human race. Because Satan would accept only a blameless person, God was forced to offer Jesus. In accepting the “payment,” Satan violated justice because of the very fact that Christ was blameless.[40] Thus God seems like a trickster, and Satan acts as a fool. Russell points out, however, that this idea of Origen’s that God is a master cheater is not only undignified but illogical, for it hinges upon Satan’s ignorance of Christ’s sinlessness and divinity. Had Satan really been thus ignorant, he would not have been willing to accept Christ as sufficient payment to begin with.[41] Subsequent to Origen, theologians introduced the concept of “the trial of the human race . . . in which Christ and Satan dispute in hell, Christ arguing for mercy against the Devil’s claim of strict justice.”[42] Here again one sees the dynamic identified in Job by Meir Weiss, in which Satan wants justice, while God dispenses mercy. The trial of the human race was a common image in early medieval thought. Satan took his Old Testament role of accuser/prosecutor, God presided as the judge, and either Jesus or Mary acted as defense attorney. Using original sin as the basis for his case, Satan argues “suavely and cleverly, pulling every legal trick, quoting and glossing scripture.”[43] One recalls Alter’s observation of the satan’s elevated language in Job. The court scene always ends with God judging in favor of humanity. Maximus Confessor (580-662) believed that Satan is God’s enemy, driven chiefly by his envy of God and humanity. However, he asserted that Satan also appears as God’s “servant” and “vindicator,” sent by God to “help us distinguish between virtue and sin.”[44] Satan is not often characterized as the accuser in modern times. Though “Accuser” is the dominant presentation of Satan in the Old Testament, the New Testament contains only one text in which he vaguely serves this role. Apart from the biblical writings, there are a few obscure “accuser” characterizations from the early Middle Ages. This view of Satan now rarely appears in Christian literature. The Adversary Though Satan never appears as God’s adversary in the Old Testament, this is his primary role in the New Testament and in “orthodox” Christianity ever since—“in complete contradiction to the Satan of the Hebrew Bible.”[45] While the New Testament church was giving Satan “considerable importance, Jewish thought was moving decisively in the other direction . . . [Evil does not result] from the machinations of a cosmic enemy of the Lord.”[46] Wis 2:23-24 seems to equate the devil (diabo/loj) with the serpent in Eden: for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity [or nature], but through the devil’s (diabo/lou) envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it. This passage is the first suggestion in the Bible, including the Apocrypha, that the devil was involved in the fall of humankind. Protestants who do not read the Apocrypha find no biblical proof that Satan should be identified with the serpent in Eden, though the New Testament makes two very vague references. Rom 16:20 assures the reader that God “will crush Satan under your feet,” and Rev 12:9 calls Satan “that ancient serpent.” The New Testament writers portray Satan as God’s enemy, a change subtly reflected in the terminology used in the shift from Hebrew to Greek. When STN is translated dia/boloj, “the accuser” becomes “the slanderer,” and there is “a thin line that divides accusation and slander.”[47] In John 13, Satan slanders Jesus: “The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray [Jesus] . . . Satan entered into him” (13:2, 27; see also Lk 22:3). For the first time in the Bible, Satan is prompting a person to sin. Far from acting as the agent of God, Satan seems to be attempting to undermine God, taking on an adversarial position which becomes much less passive in the book of Revelation. However, perhaps Satan is God’s agent in this passage; the Gospel writer makes it clear that God has planned Jesus’ death, and that Jesus knows the plan and intends to carry it out willingly: “I do as the father has commanded me” (Jn 14:31). In the Hebrew Bible, it is God who hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 4:21). Now in John’s Gospel, Satan can turn a person’s heart, perhaps acting again as the Gnostics’ “problem side” of God. Satan appears several times in the New Testament epistles. According to Paul, he can disguise himself as “an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14). Christians need “the whole armor of God” in order to defend against “the schemes (meqodei/aj) of the devil” (Eph 6:11). Satan may be the “the man of lawlessness” (o( a!nqrwpoj th~j a)nomi/aj) in 2 Thessalonians 2, who is “the son of destruction,” exalting himself in the temple of God by saying that he is God (v. 4) until the Lord destroys him (v. 8). Paul then refers directly to Satan, who employs deception by “all power, signs, [and] lying wonders” (v. 9). 1 Tim 3:7 mentions “the snare of the devil.” 1 Pet 5:8 calls Satan “a roaring lion, your adversary (a)nti/dikoj)” who “prowls around, looking for someone to devour.” Jude refers to “a lost apocryphal account”[48] in which Satan fights with the archangel Michael over the body of Moses (v. 9), stating “his legal claim.”[49] Caird points out that in the New Testament, Satan is still the lawyer. He is the legal adversary whose attacks on Christians are conducted in Roman courts of judicial inquiry . . . he is disbarred because, through the atoning work of Christ, there is no place in heaven for the Great Accuser . . . he must expect to find himself out of a job. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus . . . Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?” (Rom 8:1, 33-4). The answer to Paul’s rhetorical question is clear: not even Satan![50] In the book of Revelation, however, Satan is an entirely different character. Perhaps it is Satan’s obsession with “merciless justice” that propels him to lead armies of angels against God, who desires to pardon every crime. (interesting idea)After Satan is cast out of heaven (Rev 12:9), a voice in heaven shouts, “The accuser (o( kath/gwr) of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God!” The character Satan leaves the biblical narrative on an ironic note, when the Accuser himself is condemned to be “tormented day and night, forever and ever” (Rev 20:10). Early Christian tradition focused on Satan as Lucifer, the fallen angel who still fights against God by tempting humanity to sin. Some argued whether the great adversary could or would ever return to God; Origen called this conversion “apocatastasis,” and the idea was later condemned by Justinian.[52] In the medieval period, the adversary was transformed into a fool. Christ, at his death, descends into hell, fools Satan, and frees all the blameless people who died before the incarnation.[53] Medieval folklore contains many stories of people outwitting Satan the fool, including the popular fairy-tale Rumpelstiltskin. The peasant girl, in paying Rumpelstiltskin to spin gold for her, is essentially selling her soul to the devil, though she manages to outwit him in the end. “The message was clear: an ordinary person, using his native wit, could make a fool of the Prince of Darkness.”[54] Of all the characterizations of Satan, “the adversary” has become the most popular in modern times. Reading New Testament passages and influenced more than they know by church tradition, people have gradually accepted this characterization over the others. Some people who understand Satan as the adversary also believe that his downfall was precipitated by a cosmic battle against God, ending in Satan’s banishment from heaven. The Hero/Antihero Before any discussion of Satan’s characterization as the hero/antihero, it is first important to clarify the literary terminology. A hero functions as the main character in a story. Several literary conventions are associated with the hero of a tragedy – the genre which best seems to fit the Satan tradition. Perhaps the most important of these conventions is the hero’s “tragic flaw” – the trait which may be his only weakness, but eventually leads to his downfall. Often the tragic flaw may actually be a virtue carried too far, such as Brutus’ strong sense of honor in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.[55] An antihero is a character who functions as the villain, yet holds the reader’s sympathy; the classic example of an antihero is Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost.[56] This role of Satan as hero/antihero is not found in the Bible, though the characterization developed from elaboration of biblical passages. The key passage for the hero/antihero’s downfall is Isa 14:12-15, a text written about the king of Babylon. Satan’s classic epithet, Lucifer, originates from the Latin translation of the Hebrew llyh, which means “morning star.” llyh may refer to a Canaanite god of the crescent moon called hll, or the Isaiah passage may parallel a Ugaritic myth, in which ‘Athtaru the Rich attempts to usurp the throne of Ba’lu (Baal), but fails and becomes the king of the earth: Then ‘Athtaru the Rich went up into the highlands of Sapanu, he sat down on the throne of Ba’lu the Almighty.[57] The Septuagint translates llyh as o( e(wsfo/roj; the writer of 2 Pet 1:19 uses a similar word (fwsfo/roj) to call Jesus the “morning star.” In the Latin translation of the New Testament, fwsfo/roj becomes lucifer.[58] The name Lucifer was also well-known because of a fourth-century bishop, a “most beloved brother, the Bishop and Confessor Lucifer.”[59] In Isa 14:12, llyh is not a title for Satan, though its Latin translation came to be regarded as such. Verses 12-15, “nestled among a series of oracles aimed primarily at foreign nations,” are unlikely to “suddenly speak of Satan.”[60] Jung writes, “Satan and his rebellious ranks owe their existence to a mistake, not of any Creator, but of the commentator of a prophetic passage.”[61] Church writers would later connect this passage with Satan, partly because they associated it with Lk 10:18, in which Jesus says, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” The church fathers combined this passage with Isa 14:12-15, though it is not to be understood . . . as a preexistent vision of Satan’s fall aeons earlier . . . Rather, Jesus’ “watching” is a symbolic way of summing up the effects of the disciples’ mission; his contemplation revealed how their activity expressed victory over Satan’s power or influence.[62] Jesus’ description of Satan’s “fall from heaven” may also be interpreted as a fall from “the height of prosperity and power.”[63] Tertullian was the first church father to write about Satan’s fall from heaven. Though he acknowledged that Isa 14:12 was a reference to the prince of Tyre, he added that it “properly belongs to the transgression of the angel . . . for none among human beings was . . . born in the paradise of God.”[64] In the third century, Origen was the first to identify Satan with Lucifer, “bringing together a number of diverse Old Testament traditions.”[65] In his Treatise on First Principles, Origen maintained that Lucifer and his followers fell because of pride before the creation of humanity, and that the fallen angels chose Lucifer to be their leader.[66] Origen also believed that because of free will, “Satan could choose to return to God’s favor.”< [if !supportFootnotes]>[67] More than a century later, Augustine would support the Lucifer interpretation as well: Isaiah represents the devil symbolically as the prince of Babylon and apostrophizes him thus: “How Lucifer has fallen, who used to rise in the morning!” . . . he is not to be supposed to sin from his beginning, when he was created, but from the beginning of his sin, because it was by his pride that sin first came to be.[68] The Koran uses two names for Satan: Iblis (probably derived from dia/boloj), which refers to his relationship with God, and Shaytan, which refers to his relationship with humanity.[69] Though Iblis falls from heaven as Satan does in Christian tradition, Iblis is a much more sympathetic character—in fact, he is admirable. Iblis had to leave heaven because he refused to obey God’s command to bow before Adam: So the angels made obeisance [to Adam], all of them together, but Iblis (did it not); he refused to be with those who made obeisance. [Allah] said: O Iblis! what excuse have you that you are not with those who make obeisance? [Iblis] said: I am not such that I should make obeisance to a mortal whom Thou hast created of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape. [Allah] said: Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away: and surely on you is curse until the day of judgment . . . [Iblis] said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate, except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones.[70] In later Islamic thought, he actually became “the model of the perfect lover who would rather be separated from God and God’s will than united with God against God’s will . . . a model of perfect loyalty and devotion.”[71] In this tradition, Satan’s “tragic flaw” is actually his loyalty to God. One more text is essential for understanding Satan’s role as Hero/Antihero, and it is the latest text addressed in this paper—John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Published in 1667, it is included because of its great importance in the tradition of Satan’s characterization. God acts as the hero of the work, though Milton’s Satan proves to be much more attractive as the courageous, stubborn antihero.[72] In one of the most famous quotes in the work, Satan declares, “The mind is its own place, and in itself / Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n . . . Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.”[73] Readers know they are supposed to be on the side of God, Jesus, and the angels, but soon find themselves more intrigued by the complex character of Satan and leave the work feeling sympathy for the devil. As an Arminian,[74] Milton wrote from the perspective that Satan chose his path and orchestrated his own downfall; “he shows persistence and guile in his undercover mission to subvert the world.”[75] Milton never gives the impression that Satan was predestined to fall from heaven, exploring instead “the tragedy of Satan . . . the sadness of lost potential.”[76] In the end, however, Milton “knows his Satan well enough to reject him.”[77] While Milton does not condone Satan’s actions in the story, he seems to have sympathized more and more with his creation, much as Leo Tolstoy gradually began to love his Anna Karenina.[78] The “Lucifer tradition” arose from a Latin translation and a mistaken interpretation of Isaiah 14. Since Tertullian and Origen first popularized the identification of Satan with Isaiah’s “morning star,” a complex mythology, culminating in Paradise Lost, has arisen regarding the battle in heaven. Correct – Catholic satan, that rebels, hates, and opposes God is a Catholic TRADITION Correct – Lucifer is another TRADITION of the Catholic church Both – the result of other religions and outside secular novels The Other God While many early Christians understood Satan as God’s adversary, the (Ancient) Gnostics believed that Satan was part of God himself. Because Gnostics believed that the world, being material, is evil, logic led them to assert that the creator of the material world must be evil. A good God “would never have created the gross world in which we live,” so Gnostics “assumed that the creator of the world was a spirit who had originally been good, but who had devolved or fallen into evil.”[79] They identified this spirit with the devil, also calling him the “demiurge” or “partial mover,” since God was the “prime mover.”[80] Some Gnostics believed that this demiurge was the God of the Old Testament, and that he “began to create a man according to his image.”[81] The account of the temptation in Eden troubled Gnostics, who pointed out that the serpent seems to have told the truth, while the demiurge lied: When Adam and Eve obeyed the serpent, “then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3:7). They did not die “on that day,” as God had warned; instead, their eyes were opened to knowledge, as the serpent had promised . . . This God is ignorant and vindictive.[82] Who is this God, they wondered, who calls evil “good” and good “evil”?[83] The writer of the Testimony of Truth asks, Of what sort is this God? . . . Surely he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger. And what kind of a God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him.[84] The writer goes on to use Num 21:9 as his basis for claiming that the serpent in Eden “is Christ; [those who] believed in him [have received life].”[85] Gnostics, therefore, did believe that Satan was in Eden—though not in the person of the serpent, but in the person of Christ! 1- most of this is accurate as to “Ancient Gnosticism” – a collection od divergent theologies all grouped together by Rome and called Gnostic
2- “Ancient Gnostic” = God delegated creation to a craftsman and artisan (demiurge) Who created a flawed world of matter that man needs to escape from and back to spiritual perfection
3- Gnostic Christian – God is the craftsman and artisan (demiurge) Although the concept of delegation of tasks is certainly scriptural – this does not negate God as the One True Creator
Gen 1:1 - Who created a world exactly as He desired Gen 1:2 – and the only flaw is the DARKNESS of ignorance of God (Entropy) Gen 1:3 – correction/salvation - which only requires illumination by the LIGHT of truth (Christ)Gnostics, therefore, did believe that Satan was in Eden—though not in the person of the serpent, but in the person of Christ![?] I have spent more than a decade reading Gnostic material – I have never encountered this serpent = Christ idea – and he has no footnoteA good God “would never have created the gross world in which we live,” so Gnostics “assumed that the creator of the world was a spirit who had originally been good, but who had devolved or fallen into evil. 100% Ellen White SDA teaching – because of Catholic satan Sounds just like Robert - A good God “would never have created the gross world in which we live,”
In Bogomil thought,[86] God had two sons: his firstborn was Satanael, and the younger was Christ. 100% Mormon teaching - siblingsDissatisfied with his subordinate position in his father’s world, Satanael created a second world (the cosmos), thus becoming the creator God of the Old Testament and composing the Pentateuch himself.[87] Satanael proceeded to form Adam, but had to ask his enemy, God, to bring Adam to life; thus “the human soul, a creation of the true, good God, is trapped in the human body, which is a creation of Satanael.”[88] God eventually saves the world by sending Christ (born through Mary’s right ear!), and Satanael is cast out, “losing the divine suffix -el (‘Lord’) and becoming merely Satan.”[89] Christ (born through Mary’s right ear!) I have spent more than a decade reading Gnostic material – I have never encountered this idea – and he has no footnoteIn these writings, Satan’s role appears to be somewhat similar to his role as the accuser in the Old Testament—he represents the “problem side” of God. Gnostics were troubled by the problem of evil, and by making Satan “the other God,” they were able to clear God’s name, so to speak. Ellen White and the SDA make satan the other god in a two god controversyConclusion There are four characterizations of Satan in the Bible and in later church tradition. To put them into categories that are perhaps too broad: the Accuser was Hebrew, the Adversary was Greek, the Other God was Gnostic, and the Hero/Antihero was Medieval. The Bible and the other texts reviewed do not settle the dispute over Satan’s literary function, as all of the texts present differing ideas. One can trace, however, a rough outline of how these concepts developed, each one an elaboration of the familiar traditions. Hellenized Jews, perhaps influenced by the dualism in Zoroastrianism, essentially discarded their idea of Satan as God’s agent, adopting instead the view that Satan was God’s enemy. Gnostics (Ancient Gnostics) carried this dualism even further by suggesting that Satan was a god himself, and was in fact the evil, deceptive creator-god of the Old Testament. Finally, some early church fathers explained the origin of the adversary by connecting him with llyh / lucifer in Isaiah. With so many differing literary presentations, what can one conclude about the character of Satan? There may be elements of each of the four roles in Satan’s character, or perhaps Satan is none of those things. Some readers may be troubled by Satan’s changing nature in the texts presented—the Bible itself does not provide a consistent view—while others may enjoy the puzzle. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is intriguing because different stories, genres, and personalities form a balanced whole. In As I Lay Dying, Faulkner tells a story using an eccentric cast of characters who give conflicting, sometimes incoherent, narrations. In the same way, Satan emerges from biblical and extra-biblical literature as a character composed of varying accounts, a character made more interesting, perhaps, because the texts offer so many different insights into his nature. ------------------------------------------ My commentsIn the Hebrew Bible, Satan appears as a messenger of God and serves in the heavenly courtroom as the “accuser.” In the New Testament, however, Satan has become God’s adversary and the tempter who tries to lead Christians astray. While the New Testament presents Satan as an enemy of God, the Hebrew Bible seems to depict Satan as an agent of God. Though Satan never appears as God’s adversary in the Old Testament, this is his primary role in the New Testament and in “orthodox” Christianity ever since—“in complete contradiction to the Satan of the Hebrew Bible". If you try to force Hebrew satan and the Beast of Revelation together as one and the same being - then you must aslo teach - the Bible itself does not provide a consistent view Catholic satan, that rebels, hates, and opposes God is a Catholic TRADITION
Lucifer is another TRADITION of the Catholic church
Both – the result of imfluences from other religions and outside secular novels Both are “in complete contradiction to the Satan of the Hebrew Bible".Satan emerges from biblical and extra-biblical literature as a character composed of varying accounts, a character made more interesting Correct - Catholic satan is a composite of multiple beings from multiple sourcesIn the book of Revelation, however, Satan is an entirely different character. Correct - NT (Beast of Revelation) satans is NOT Hebrew satan
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 26, 2023 11:28:27 GMT -5
academic.oup.com/book/38719/chapter-abstract/336896773?redirectedFrom=fulltextReflection The Early History of Satan: Before the satan Was Evil Esther J. Hamori Abstract ha-satan (the adversary) is an ambiguous figure in the earliest Hebrew texts. Far from being the malevolent, majestic embodiment of pure evil imagined by Milton, the figure we confront in the Hebrew Bible can sometimes be a source of assistance around the heavenly court. Before the Catholic Church invented evil satan – Hebrew satan worked for the Lord------------------------------------------ newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/give-the-devil-his-dueGive the devil his dueJessica Wolf | February 16, 2018 Modern Judaeo-Christian rhetoric and imagery purports that Satan is an evil opponent to all that is good and godly — a literal opponent of God. But that characterization doesn’t hold up under critical scrutiny of the Bible, says Henry Ansgar Kelly, UCLA distinguished research professor of English and one of the world’s leading experts on Satan. His 2006 book “Satan: A Biography” was a top seller for Cambridge University Press. His latest book, “Satan in the Bible, God’s Minister of Justice,” combs through all the relevant passages of the Old and New testaments, tracking evidence of stories of the devil we think we know. The early appearances of the word “satan,” when literally translated from Hebrew, simply means “adversary.” None of the passages that use the word refer to an inherently evil spirit, Kelly said. “A frequent assumption about Satan is not only that he is as bad as can be, but also that he has always been considered this bad,” Kelly said. “I have been researching and writing about the devil for over 50 years now, and have been making many of the same points without really being able to get across my main point, that no matter when we have heard about Satan and his nature and history, and activities, most them are not to be found in the Bible, where he is a much different person.”Correct - Christendom's Catholic satan is a Catholic mythologyLooking back through the Old and New testaments, Kelly said it becomes clear that Satan, no matter what we may think of him or imagine him to be now, was not originally presented as the implacable enemy of God, but rather God’s heavenly assistant in dealing with human beings. Hebrew satan = God’s heavenly assistant in dealing with human beings. As Kelly contends, Satan is more like an old-guard authority figure committed to the status quo and as such is an obstructer of social welfare or change — such as the ideas preached by Jesus. Satan is looking out for God’s interests and is distrustful of humans, but that doesn’t necessarily make him “evil” per se.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 27, 2023 8:08:32 GMT -5
Every student of NT Greek – run into this same dilemma – in their third year of Greek H7854 / G4566 Hebrew satan – is NOT G4567 satanas of Chaldean originLoanwordsenglishproficiency.com/blog/what-are-loan-words/?expand_article=1Languages freely borrow terms from each other. This usually occurs when a new object or institution is created for which the borrowing language lacks a word.In Japanese, there are no existing words for Ford, Chevrolet, or Dodge – so they just borrow these English words into their own language Jesus was Jewish – His Disciples were Jewish – His followers were Jewish – the authors of the NT were Jewish - surely every one knew Hebrew satan – they grew up knowing all about Hebrew satan So why borrow the Chaldean word satanas into the NT?Answer – they are discussing a ‘New Object’ a ‘New Institution’ different from Hebrew satan History has always been about the (Israel) 1% vrs the rest of the world (99%) Israel + YWHY -vrs- the world + Ra, Horus Anubus, Baal, Molech, Beelzebub, Zeus, Thor Israel + YHWY + Hebrew satan -vrs- Chaldean satanas – the BEAST – the serpent - devils OT Hebrew satan – is an office – a function – anyone serving in that role is a satan OT Hebrew satan = an angel of the Lord – in service to the Lord OT Hebrew satan - helps facilitate God’s Will on earth – sometimes that is a dirty job NT satanas – is identified as the BEAST – the ancient serpent – that we call devils / demons NT satanas – is NOT an angel – he was made differently (Gnostic – Islamic – King Solomon) NT satanas – was NOT created directly – from the male Right Hand (as in God said let there be) NT satanas – just appeared out of nowhere – from the feminine left hand (Gnostic) NT satanas – is a BEAST but is not a singularity – appearing with 7 heads and 10 horns with 7 crowns Hebrew shedim – procreate – have offspring – partially biological – can appear / disappear / shape shift – have some power over nature (rain / wind / fertility) Gnostic Beast - procreated 7 then 12 that give rise to 72 – these offspring = Greek/Gnostic Archon procreate – have offspring – partially biological – can appear / disappear / shape shift – have some power over nature (rain / wind / fertility) The BEAST (NT satanas) does not oppose God – no one can The BEAST (NT satanas) opposes creation – matter and biology – via Entropy all things wear out / wear down Gnostic BEAST (satanas) opposes creation – via Entropy all things wear out / wear down Judaism 101 – from God we came – souljourn here – and we return to God Meaning – that we were once in heaven with God - we know because we were there (spirit) Gnostic BEAST (satanas) opposes man – via Entropy man forgets – fail to remember - what we once knew Deep inside of all of us – we are born with the instinctive need for self-preservation and the survival of the species (yester ra) (biology / flesh) This makes man no different than any other beast/animal Also deep inside of all of us – is the inner man (spirit) – the inner voice of conscious that already knows what is right or wrong (yester tov) This is what makes man different to beast/animals – we suffer from a guilty conscious (convicted – because we really do know right from wrong) (yester ra) flesh + (yester tov) spirit and (yester ra) flesh leads to sin Catholic satan is evil and wants to steal your soul for his own kingdomEllen White’s satan god opposes The Creator’s right to rule the universe – and has reverted to the two opposing gods of pagan Zoroastrianism – a good god vrs an evil god in a cosmic struggle Gnostic BEAST (satanas) opposes man – via Entropy man forgets – fails to remember - what we once knew How do they do this?They distract man from the truth (keeping us in the darkness) The Hypostasis of the ArchonsMoreover, they threw mankind into great distraction and into a life of toil, so that their mankind might be occupied by worldly affairs, and might not have the opportunity of being devoted to the holy spirit. Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities (archon), against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. How do they do this? - multi-pronged attackAnything that consume your time away from God – cell phones – the internet – porn – war – conflict – sex – aliens from space – demons from hell – inter-dimensional visitors – UFOs – Darwinism – ‘Conflict Thesis’ - false religions – of which Christianity has done as much harm as good How do they do this?False religions that teach equality between the Creator and a created being False religions that teach Zoroasterian two opposing gods locked in a cosmic controversy False religions that teach a created being can change his own function within creation against God’s Will False religions that teach a created being can then change God’s plan for His own creation – also against God’s Will False religions that teach – Biblical Creationism – that forces the educated to flee from the faith Creation Institute – Ken Hamm – Don Patton – all anti-faith promoters False religions that teach – end times dates – like MILLER – and now the new Bahai Ilamic advent math used by Ellen White – every time a date comes and goes and nothing happens – the faith looks more and more empty Catholic satan created himself by his own prideNT says God created everything – nothing exist that wasn’t created by God NT says the Principalities / archon are our real struggle as Christians - Eph 6:12 NT says the Principalities / archon were created by God for God – Col 1:16 Gnostic texts say the BEAST was created by God – but not from the male Right Hand (Christ) – but from the feminine Left Hand (Holy Spirit) Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities (archon), or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: WHY – Robert continually asks why. Why did God created a flawed world?Answer – according to God’s Law of Nature – Entropy is required for nature to function Gen 1:1 – God created heaven and earth 1st law of Thermodynamics – E cannot be created or destroyed – only translated or transmuted 2nd law of Thermodynamics – Entropy – consumes – wears things down – corrupts Gen 1:2 – Darkness (choshek) / ignorance 3rd law of Thermodynamics – things at rest stay at rest – until an outside force puts things in motion Gen 1:3 – The LIGHT of salvation – God entering His own creation Why did God created a flawed world?Answer – it is not flawed – it is functional – finely tuned in cycles of Entropy – no matter what scale – or when – or when we look – Rom 1:1-20 / Psa 19:2 Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness (choshek): I make peace, and create evil (ra): I the LORD do all these things. Why did God created a flawed world? Answer – it is not flawed – it is functional - the only flaw within creation = the choshek – Darkness – Ignorance --- ignorance of the truth – ignorance of the Creator Entropy of thought - The Hypostasis of the Archons (Gnostic)Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'. Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "… there is none other apart from me". A creature made with some matter – not totally ethereal – not totally corporeal All he could see was physical creation and thought he was alone. This is arrogant – self-centered – ignorance of the truth (yester ra) SELF a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Entropy of thought – Man – we are each born knowing the truth of God – deep within us our spirit knows – but our flesh has been so busy serving world that we have forgotten Why did God created a flawed world?Answer – it is not flawed – it is functional – finely tuned in cycles of Entropy – no matter what scale – or when – or when we look – Rom 1:1-20 / Psa 19:2 Answer – it is not flawed – it is functional - the only flaw within creation = the choshek – Darkness – Ignorance --- ignorance of the truth – ignorance of the Creator Answer - 2nd law of Thermodynamics – Entropy – consumes – wears things down – corrupts Answer – this physical world is corruptible – spiritual heaven is incorruptible Answer – Entropy – this world will pass away Answer – it is NOT flawed – just temporary – built to expire – time limit Origional sin vrs Adam and Eve1Jn 3:8 The one who practices sin is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. Ben-Elohim appeared for this purpose—to destroy the works of the devil. Entropy of thought - The Hypostasis of the Archons (Gnostic)Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'. Yes – what happened in Gen 1:2 = sinned against the entirety. If this is the Origional Sin Gen 1:31 … God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good. (tov) Then God is calling sin as tov Or – we could just let scripture speak Rom 5:12 So then, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, in the same way death spread to all men because all sinned. Rom 5:13 For up until the Torah, sin was in the world; but sin does not count as sin when there is no law. Until God gave a Law – there was no law to transgress God Law / Commandments to man began in Gen 2 Feminine Eve was the first to sin in Gen 3 Resulting in the ‘CONTEST of Gen 3: Gen 3:13 Adonai Elohim said to the woman, “What did you do?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me and I ate.” Gen 3:14 Adonai Elohim said to the serpent, “Because you did this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and above every animal of the field. On your belly will you go, and dust will you eat all the days of your life. Gen 3:15 I will put animosity between you and the woman—between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will crush his heel.” Gen 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly increase your pain from conception to labor. In pain will you give birth to children. Your desire will be toward your husband, yet he must rule over you.” Gen 3:17 Then to the man He said, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate of the tree which I commanded you, saying, ‘You must not eat of it’: Cursed is the ground because of you—with pain will you eat of it all the days of your life. Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles will sprout for you. You will eat the plants of the field, Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow will you eat food, until you return to the ground, since from it were you taken. For you are dust, and to dust will you return.” Gen 3:20 Now Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living. Gen 3:21 Adonai Elohim made Adam and his wife tunics of skin and He clothed them. Gen 3:22 Then Adonai Elohim said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. So now, in case he stretches out his hand and takes also from the Tree of Life and eats and lives forever,” Gen 3:23 Adonai Elohim sent him away from the Garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he had been taken. Gen 3:24 And He expelled the man; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He had cheruvim dwell along, with the whirling sword of flame, to guard the way to the Tree of Life. Who created the contestants – God did Who place them all together in the Garden – God did Who established the enmity between the seed of Eve and the seed of the serpent (archon) – God did Who made sure life in the ‘real world’ is hard – God did
Who knew what was going to happen – God did Who allowed it to happen – God did Authoritative TeachingAnd before anything came into being, it was the Father alone who existed, before the worlds that are in the heavens appeared, or the world that is on the earth, or principality, or authority, or the powers. [...] appear [...] and [...] And nothing came into being without his wish. He, then, the Father, wishing to reveal his wealth and his glory, brought about this great contest in this world, wishing to make the contestants appear, and make all those who contend leave behind the things that had come into being, and despise them with a lofty, incomprehensible knowledge, and flee to the one who exists.The POINT – Leave this world behind and flee to the one who existJas 1:12 Happy is the one who endures testing, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to those who love Him. Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”—for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He himself tempts no one. (google) Someone once said this quote, “If you love someone, let them go. If they return, they were always yours. If they don't, they never were.” - Luke 15:11-32 The Prodigal Son[/quote] Luk 15:11 Then Yeshua said, “A certain man had two sons, Luk 15:12 and the younger of them said to the father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that comes to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them. Luk 15:13 “Not many days later, the younger son gathered everything and traveled to a far country, and there he squandered his inheritance on wild living. Luk 15:14 Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine came against that country, and he began to be in need. Luk 15:15 So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. Luk 15:16 And he was longing to fill up on the carob pods the pigs were eating, but no one was giving him any. Luk 15:17 “But when he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have food overflowing, but here I am dying of hunger! Luk 15:18 I’ll get up and go to my father, and I’ll say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your presence. Luk 15:19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired workers. Luk 15:20 “And he got up and went to his own father. But while he was still far away, his father saw him and felt compassion. He ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. Luk 15:21 Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your presence. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ Luk 15:22 “But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quick! Bring out the best robe and put it on him! Put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. Luk 15:23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it! Let’s celebrate with a feast! Luk 15:24 For this son of mine was dead and has come back to life—he was lost and is found!’ Then they began to celebrate. Luk 15:25 “Now his older son was out in the field. And as he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. Luk 15:26 And he called out to one of the servants and began to ask what these things could be. Luk 15:27 “The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he got him back safe and sound.’ Luk 15:28 But the older son was angry and didn’t want to go in. So his father came outside and pleaded with him. Luk 15:29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look, so many years I’ve slaved away for you—not once did I ignore your order. Yet you’ve never given me a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. Luk 15:30 But when this son of yours came—the one who has squandered your wealth with prostitutes—for him you killed the fattened calf!” Luk 15:31 “Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and everything that is mine is yours. Luk 15:32 But it was right to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead but has come back to life! He was lost, but is found.’” Who is the son that stayed home – angels – created to serve and praise – without free will Who is the son that leaves home – man
From God we came – to souljourn here – to taste mortal life and realize that – this world is an illusion – it is a trap of worldly pleasure – to realize that we will all die and meet our make one day – which leads to repentance and a return to service to the Lord Why is this world of corruption so harsh – flawed as Ellen White calls itWhy do wars happen – why do bad things happen to good people – why does sweet little 2 year old Jimmy have to die of disease Answer The Exegesis on the Soul – (a first or second century Messianic Christian commentary) Jesus siad - Luk 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—and yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple. Therefore (cf. Acts 13:24), "Before Christ`s appearance came John, preaching the baptism of repentance." And repentance takes place in distress and grief. But the father is good and loves humanity, and he hears the soul that calls upon him and sends it the light of salvation. Therefore he said through the spirit to the prophet (cf. 1 Cl 8:3), "Say to the children of my people, 'If your sins extend from earth to heaven, and if they become red like scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, and if you return to me with all your soul and say to me 'my Father!', I will heed you as a holy people.'"Jesus Christ Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Joh 3:17 God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Joh 3:18 The one who believes in Him is not condemned; but whoever does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not put his trust in the name of the one and only Ben-Elohim. Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Yeshua is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart it is believed for righteousness, and with the mouth it is confessed for salvation. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever trusts in Him will not be put to shame.” Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all—richly generous to all who call on Him. Rom 10:13 For “Everyone who calls upon the name of Adonai shall be saved.” Gen 1:1 – creation Gen 1:2 – choshek – ignorance of God Gen 1:3 – The LIGHT of SALVATION – God entering His own creation (Christ) God – came to earth as a man – in a tent of skin – Jesus (Christ) Jesus = the Son of Man – 100% biology from Mary – died upon the cross Christ = the image of God – God incarnate – Son of God – poured out at the cross to preach to the lost spirits in Hades Yes – the death of Jesus was necessary to satisfy all previous Hebrew prophesy – the Lamb – the blood – the sacrifice However – Jesus Christ is the only prophet ever to return – be resurrected Proof – Jesus Christ is God Proof – that LIFE LIVES – and there is a very real afterlife that we will all taste one day ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=psychologyThe Psychology of UnderstandingThere is a grave stone, in Northern Indiana, with the most fascinating verse engraved upon the front. It simply says: As you are, I once was, and as I am, you soon will be. Short, simple, straight to the point and perhaps the most profound revelation of mortality. We are all going to die sooner or later. So then, the next most important question becomes - Then what? - is there something more? The question for me is not whether there is a God and an afterlife! The question, for me as a man, is if there is a God and an afterlife, and I do eventually meet my maker; will I be able to look Him straight in the eye and shake His hand, or will I be ashamed and embarrassed for who I really am? Rosh Hashanah – the beginning of revelation LIFE LIVES – and there is a very real afterlife that we will all taste one day Yom Kippur – do I need to atone? The answer is always – yes If God is real, if Jesus Christ is real, if scripture is real, and the afterlife is real – should I consider my own judgment Sukkot – God does tabernacle with man Once in a tent of skin – twice in a Temple of stone – once in the skin of a man Purim – salvation is only by the lord Pesach – Passover – the sacrifice for all our sins – the Cross of Jesus Christ Shavout – The Harvest - Pentecost – First Fruits Rosh Hashanah – once you believed Yom Kippur – You know you need to atone – you understand just how small and worthless we are – tiny little biological life forms – polluting and destroying their own tiny planet – lost among the stars of our universe – and even smaller in the multi-verse. Sukkot –Yet the Creator of the ALL - tabernacles with me – came to earth just like I did – suffered just as I do (even worse) – and died just as I will – so that he can Tabernacle in me – commune with me spirit to Spirit – uses me – calls me to be His witness Purim – salvation is only by the lord – nothing I can do ever earn it – the only chance I have is a gift – the ultimate gift Pesach – Passover – the sacrifice for all our sins – the Cross of Jesus ChristYes – from the comfort of the 21st century it appears as a human sacrifice – only because of Entropy of memory – our comfort today skews our reality. Ask a child today – where does milk comes from? - the answer will be the store. Ponder – if Abraham was 4000 years ago and a generation = 40 years = 100 generations 98 of those generations hunted and fished for their food – gutted, skinned, cleaned – and roasted their dinner with fire To those generations the cycle of life was apparent – birth – growth – death – to give new life Without the sacrifice of life through the food chain – layer upon layer – man would starve – ancient man understood the cycle of life more than my children ever will Pesach – Passover – the sacrifice for all our sins – the Cross of Jesus ChristGeneration after generation understood the cycle of life – ancient man’s life style was built around it – the Cross of Jesus Christ was necessary to fulfill 2000 years worth of Hebrew (cycle of life) rituals – the Lamb – the blood – the sacrifice – Isa 53 suffering servant Pesach – Passover – the sacrifice for all our sins – the RESURRECTION of Jesus ChristThe point of Passover is not the death – but that LIFE LIVES – Christ was poured out – continued – and 3 days later – both body and spirit appeared to the disciples For 40 days they spoke of heavenly things after the resurrection Shavout – The Harvest - Pentecost – First Fruits – Baptism of the Holy Spirit The moment when the Torah comes down from the mountain to man Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Yeshua is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart it is believed for righteousness, and with the mouth it is confessed for salvation. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever trusts in Him will not be put to shame.” Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all—richly generous to all who call on Him. Rom 10:13 For “Everyone who calls upon the name of Adonai shall be saved.” If you ‘believe this story to be true – be real – is alive – you cannot keep quite ------------------------------------------------- OT Hebrew satan is an angel of the Lord in service to the Lord OT Hebrew satan is an office – a function – not a person NT satanas is the BEAST of Revelation – the serpent race – that we call devils NT satanas is a person – are real creatures – shedim – other gods – archon – principalities NT satanas is a deceiver – the deceiver of the whole world They are two different things – completely unlike – contradictory Exactly the reason that the authors of the NT borrowed the Chaldean word satanas G4567 instead of using Hebrew satan G4566 / H7854Robert and I have been all over OT satan – he cannot be academically honest about scripture Because what scripture actually says is different than his Ellen White SDA tradition
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 4, 2023 20:34:03 GMT -5
Every student of NT Greek – run into this same dilemma – in their third year of Greek H7854 / G4566 Hebrew satan – is NOT G4567 satanas of Chaldean origin Loanwords So why borrow the Chaldean word satanas into the NT? Answer – they are discussing a ‘New Object’ a ‘New Institution’ different from Hebrew satan OH, so no "Satanas" existed in OT times Dave?You know my answer – but you post this anywayOf course the BEAST was alive and well since Gen 1:2Book of Genesis they are the serpent All through the OT they are the shedim / other gods of the 99% and their demons / Jinn / shedim / archon All through the OT they are the other gods of the whole world – the 99% Gen 6 they are the Son’s of God that fathered the Nephilim All through the OT they are the Sons of Anak – the 7 tribes of Amorite All through history OT and NT they are Rephiem that are still alive and well walking among us Your sure have to deny a whole lot of OT scripture NOT to recognize the BEAST in its scripture
Another link the phenomenon of semantic shift Paleo Hebrew was a pure Hebrew script – but it is long gone By the time the Tanak came to us – Pale Hebrew had been exposed to many other semantic languages. The Tanak is filled with non-Hebrew words ROB" You are saying the OT Hebrew is HELLENIZED?No one said that the OT is filled with Greek words – please read that post again and pay attention this time Then one day Israel bumped into another Canaanite tribe called the Ammonites – who worshiped a god name Molech ROB" I thought EDENIC Hebrew existed first, these other langauges came second.Before Abram was called out of Ur – the 99% already had languages much older than Abram Your point is childishThe difference – Jeff Brenner is an honest academic – true linguist Respected by everyoneROb" Why don't you respect Jeff more than Dave? Who says that I don’t – he is an intelligent academic – a true linguist Are you?Gen 4:7 If you do well, it will lift. But if you do not do well, sin-offering is crouching at the doorway. Its desire is for you, but you must master it.” THE QUESTION – Why does Robert choose to read it this way? More importantly why does he teach it to others this way? Once called-out on it, why doesn’t Robert seem to care? Rob" Because Jeff Benner suggests this idea in his lexicon and thus I follow his suggestion. Correct – the word means sin or sin offering Why do you chose to use it tpo say sin is an offering to God?-------------- The word here is - G266 – ἁμαρτία – hamartia - ham-ar-tee'-ah From G264; sin (properly abstract): - offence, sin (-ful). Never does it means a sacrifice to the Lord – NEVERROb" OH sorry, so how does the LXX translate chataah than? Did Jews see any difference between chata and chataah?Gen 4:7 G264 – ἁμαρτάνω – hamartanō - ham-ar-tan'-o Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass. Exo 29:14 But the meat of the bull, along with its skin and its dung, you are to burn with fire outside the camp. It is a sin offering. Exo 29:14 τὰ δὲ κρέα τοῦ μόσχου καὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὴν κόπρον κατακαύσεις πυρὶ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς· ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν. ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν. = Sin for yours = for your sinLev 4:32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. Lev 4:32 ἐὰν δὲ πρόβατον προσενέγκῃ τὸ δῶρον αὐτοῦ εἰς ἁμαρτίαν, θῆλυ ἄμωμον προσοίσει αὐτό. προσενέγκῃ τὸ δῶρον αὐτοῦ εἰς ἁμαρτίαν, present a sacrifice for the sin of yours------------ In your links Dave, I did not read of your scholar who agrees the word Satanas is a different creature to your Satan.I am beginning to think you have no scholar? Every paper I posted seperates Hebrew satan from NT satanas If you failed to get that from reading them – then your reading comprehension skills are very poor indeed
|
|
|
Post by rob on Oct 5, 2023 6:25:36 GMT -5
Greetings Dave,
You posted some really good scholar stuff
"Exo 29:14 But the meat of the bull, along with its skin and its dung, you are to burn with fire outside the camp. It is a sin offering.
Exo 29:14 τὰ δὲ κρέα τοῦ μόσχου καὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὴν κόπρον κατακαύσεις πυρὶ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς· ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν.
ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν. = Sin for yours = for your sin
Lev 4:32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
Lev 4:32 ἐὰν δὲ πρόβατον προσενέγκῃ τὸ δῶρον αὐτοῦ εἰς ἁμαρτίαν, θῆλυ ἄμωμον προσοίσει αὐτό.
προσενέγκῃ τὸ δῶρον αὐτοῦ εἰς ἁμαρτίαν, present a sacrifice for the sin of yours"
But I don't read Greek as well as you do, so I do not understand.
What Greek word does the LXX use for the Hebrew word chataah?
----------------------------------------- And your next post, is not so friendly -----------------------------------------
Dave I have spent hours and hours trying to find some scholar who agrees with your hypothesis that the word Satanas in Greek is a different creature to the Hebrew word Satan. Sorry I cannot find anyone out there.
And I am beginning to think you do have any scholar also who agrees with your premise.
I would love to ask some scholar why the Greek Translators chose to use Satanas rather than meaning use the Hebrew word satan.
And why did they use a loan word.
And it the word Satan in Greek a declension, meaning how does the word mean with Satanas, as accusative masculine?
You are a Greek scholar, how does the one use of Satan in the NT, compare to the Greek word Satanas? Does it compare? Explain.
--------------------------------
You claim the archon shedim was in the OT. I agree.
I was reading Deut 32. There is a whole chapter on Shedim as a false elohiym power, Israel was worshipping.
This chapter is a song made by Moses
De 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
Look at the parallels here
Ears here, and mouths speak. What does the heaven and earth mean?
De 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
Why three different Hebrew words for rain
matar sa`iyr rabiyb
Interesting, what does this mean?
Notice the word "imrah" is also used.
De 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
The Father is a simile of the tsuwr rock, a strong authority of faith (the related word to amanuah) .
De 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
Notice while God is straight and upright, Israel is crooked.
De 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?
Why does the KJV not consider God thy Father here? rather a secular father?
De 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,
Interesting God considers Israel the Sons of Adam...wow
De 32:10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.
The earth is considered a desert, compared to heaven where God is. And Israel is the apple of His eye.
So Dave, why do you consider the Opposer who opposes man, is not also opposing the apple of His eye, God Himself? The verse clearly says this.
De 32:11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:
Why is the HS mentioned here, bearing her young on her wings, is a poetry reference to Israel, is it not ?
De 32:12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.
THis verse is strange. YHWH alone leads Israel, but the verse before we have the HS and her young. I suspect the phrase, no strange god with him, refers to no false elohiym powers was helping the YHWH.
And it proves a false elohiym power exists on earth, but it not helping the Lord. If anything such a power is opposing the Lord directly.
De 32:13 ...and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
YHWH helps Israel to eat nice blessings from the Father rock. Indeed there are pictures Kim Young shows of the cela rock upon the Tsuwr rock and feeding Israel with water.
De 32:14 the pure blood of the grape.
Sometimes the poetry in Scripture is plain and obvious. Do grapes have blood? No, so what is this a simile about?
De 32:15 ¶ But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
What is interesting here is the Godhead is named...
Israel forsook ELOAH, the Name for the Most High and YASHA, the Son of Salvation.
De 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
What is mentioned here is Israel sacrificed and worshipped to another elohiym power, termed SHAD, or a Jews write shedim, so such an opposing elohiym power existed in the OT times is very, very clear.
De 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
Why God to gets sad at Israel, is because they have no faith in God.
De 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: 33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
Notice the wine of this eloihym power is like poison, from dragons and snakes.
Can we identify who this opposing elohiym power is?
De 32:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
GOD is living in heaven and the author of living forever
The false elohiym power must be living on earth, for only a short time.
"tanniyn" might offer a clue to the identify of the elohiym power
28 verses
Ex 7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent "tanniyn".
Ps 44:19 Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death. 20 If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god; 21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart. 22 Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.
Why is this passage of the dragon-snake-serpent treating us humans as sheep to be slaughtered all the day long?
Ps 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. 12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. 13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
God promises to protect us from the dragon-snake-serpent.
Isa 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
Another picture dragon-snake-serpent-dinosaur creature
La 4:3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. 4 The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. 5 They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. 6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.
WOW what a poetry picture of the dragon and it's breasts (SHAD) which are used to suckle the humans who feed off its doctrines and false teaching, is an interesting picture of the opposing elohiym power.
The power is a simile of Sodom. And what went on in Sodom.
Now I need some help from my Greek scholar.
Dave can you help me to identify the LXX use of Tanniyn, and what Greek word do they use? This will align the OT with the NT, and thus help identify the dragon-serpent-sea dinosaur, shedim beast who gives suckling to humans, a false elohiym power, clearly mentioned in Deut 32.
Some things this elohiym power does
1) touches the apple of God's eye, his children Israel 2) causes Israel to suckle from the elohiym's breasts... ie shadim 3) De 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, 4) make sacrifices to SHedim,
Proving to you that a false elohiym power really does exist in the OT.
----------------------
Dave" Every paper I posted seperates Hebrew satan from NT satanas If you failed to get that from reading them – then your reading comprehension skills are very poor indeed
ROb" Yes you do, but you are doing your scholarship all alone. David Icke used the term "archon" once in a video, so agrees with you, but he does not support his views on Scripture, as you are doing.
SO you are alone without any scholar agreeing with you, that the Hebrew word Satan is a different creature to the Greek word Satanas.
If such a term was the slightest bit true, we should be able to find somebody who has also considered your idea. But I have tried to find somebody else, but can't. You can't also?
And you are a Greek scholar too.
Question" Why did Greek translators use Satanas, rather than Satan?
Any links on this idea?
Thanks for your discussions. SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 5, 2023 10:29:42 GMT -5
Exo 29:14 - ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν. = Sin for yours = for your sin Lev 4:32 προσενέγκῃ τὸ δῶρον αὐτοῦ εἰς ἁμαρτίαν, = present a sacrifice for the sin of yours" But I don't read Greek as well as you do, so I do not understand. What Greek word does the LXX use for the Hebrew word chataah?I did not go through all 270 verses – I just picked two at random Both verse do not have a 1 to 1 equivalent word for Hebrew chattah Both verse need additional word to express the idea – a phrase(wiki) Sin OfferingIn the Greek Old Testament, the Hebrew term for "sin" (ḥatat) is sometimes directly translated as "sin" - either by the Greek feminine noun hamartia ("sin" ἁμαρτία), or less commonly by the neuter noun hamartemata ("result of sin," "sinful thing" ἁμάρτημα) thereby duplicating the metonymy in the Hebrew text. More often the Greek paraphrases the Hebrew with expressions such as "that which is for sin" (peri hamartias περὶ ἁμαρτίας) or "for sins" (hyper hamartion ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν) - since the Greek noun hamartia does not have the double meaning of the noun ḥatat in Hebrew.[14] ----------------------------------------- And your next post, is not so friendly Because you refuse to answer ----------------------------------------- And I am beginning to think you do have any scholar also who agrees with your premise.Gee – and I just got another emailMentioned by Joachim Bretschneider <premium@academia-mail.com> Oct 4, 2023, 4:25 PM (15 hours ago) to me Academia.edu Dear David, You were mentioned in a Biblical Studies paper uploaded to Academia. ---------------------------------- www.academia.edu/28434074/THE_MISUNDERSTOOD_SATANS_OF_THE_CHRISTIAN_BIBLE_a_revised_version_of_a_paper_submitted_for_a_class_taught_by_Mark_S_Smith_on_Israels_Concept_of_God_This paper is 27 pages long – I am not pasting it all here THE MISUNDERSTOOD SATANS OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
byJerome WilczynskiB4036S: Israel’s Concept of God Professor: Mark S. Smith, Ph.D, August 2016 From the introductionDerek Brown summarizes the scholarly literature on “Satan” in the OT. He states, “No single passage in the OT is ‘directly’ related to the Satan of later Christian theology.” From the last paragraphWe have come to the end of the journey. I think most Christians would be surprised tofind all this out. As we have seen, none of the heavenly angels that function as satans in the OT are comparable to the Satan of the NT. Agree – NONE of the OT angels are comparable to NT satanasThe OT heavenly satans are members of God’s retinueand work in accord with God’s will, Agree – OT satan is an angel of God in service to Godwhereas the NT figure acts independently of God and is thevery personification of evil. The fact that the Bible does not tell us about the origin of the NTSatan, or even what this figure is, will probably shock believers. Agree – NT satanas is a new and different entity – THE BEAST of RevelationFinding out that non-biblical sources explain the origin of the NT Satan, in particular that the early church fathers created the version of the story Christians know about a renegade angel, Lucifer turned Satan, will likely bethe biggest surprise of all Agree – The fathers of the Catholic Church – INVENTED Catholic satan------------------------------------- And it the word Satan in Greek a declension, meaning how does the word mean with Satanas, as accusative masculine? I am not sure what your question issatan – G4566 – is a transliteration of the Hebrew word satan It is not a Greek word – it is not in Greek form The meaning of- Satanas, as accusative masculine? = as a direct object - the object of a verb or action Different than the subject of the sentence - or use in a prepositional phrase (in/of/with/to)
-------------------------------- You are a Greek scholar, how does the one use of Satan in the NT, compare to the Greek word Satanas? Does it compare? Explain. Hebrew satan is used only once in the NT 2 Cor 12:72Co 12:7 even in the extraordinary quality of the revelations. So that I would not exalt myself, a thorn in the flesh was given to me—a a messenger of satan to torment me, so I would not exalt myself. 2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. a messenger of satan to torment me, so I would not exalt myself. the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. The act of the heavenly Prosecutor – a reminder to be goodsatanas – the devils / serpent / BEAST in the NT deceive man – deceive the whole worldLuk 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. Luk 11:19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. Jesus says – G4567 satanas = beelzebub – the king of the other gods of the Levant King Solomon calls Beelzebub a shedim (archon) Beelzebub was the other god of the Philistines -------------------------------- Every student of NT Greek – run into this same dilemma – in their third year of Greek H7854 / G4566 Hebrew satan – is NOT G4567 satanas of Chaldean origin Loanwords So why borrow the Chaldean word satanas into the NT? Answer – they are discussing a ‘New Object’ a ‘New Institution’ different from Hebrew satan OH, so no "Satanas" existed in OT times Dave? You claim the archon shedim was in the OT. I agree. I was reading Deut 32. There is a whole chapter on Shedim as a false elohiym power, Israel was worshipping.Yep – other gods of the Levant and the whole worldAnd it proves a false elohiym power exists on earth, but it not helping the Lord. If anything such a power is opposing the Lord directly.So why do you waste everyone’s time posting nonsense?OH, so no "Satanas" existed in OT times Dave? Now you answer – why does Moses use a different word?Why not just say Hebrew satan? You insist they are one and the same – so why use new words to describe them? Why are the 33 other gods named in the OT ? Why not just say Hebrew satan? You insist they are one and the same – so why use new words to describe them? ---------------------------------------- De 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? Why does the KJV not consider God thy Father here? rather a secular father?Nonsense – please learn to read English------------------------------- De 32:10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. The earth is considered a desert, compared to heaven where God is. And Israel is the apple of His eye. So Dave, why do you consider the Opposer who opposes man, is not also opposing the apple of His eye, God Himself? The verse clearly says this. God is the apple of God’s eye? The opposer opposes the ‘Apple of God’s Eye’ (Israel) You corrupt scripture for fun – Mr Honest ------------------------------- De 32:12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. THis verse is strange. YHWH alone leads Israel, but the verse before we have the HS and her young. I suspect the phrase, no strange god with him, refers to no false elohiym powers was helping the YHWH. DUH – why would other gods help the Creator?Only Hebrew satan is heaven’s prosecutor------------------------------------ De 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. What is mentioned here is Israel sacrificed and worshipped to another elohiym power, termed SHAD, or a Jews write shedim, so such an opposing elohiym power existed in the OT times is very, very clear.Thank you for your support------------------------------------- De 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. Why God to gets sad at Israel, is because they have no faith in God. You claim that faith = doing the right prayers and saying the right words – doing the right rituals – and God says Israel has no faith Didn’t work for them – hint hint---------------------------- De 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: 33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. Notice the wine of this eloihym power is like poison, from dragons and snakes. Reference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satanCan we identify who this opposing elohiym power is? De 32:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. GOD is living in heaven and the author of living forever The false elohiym power must be living on earth, for only a short time. Reference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satan"tanniyn" might offer a clue to the identify of the elohiym power Reference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satanEx 7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent "tanniyn". Ps 44:19 Why is this passage of the dragon-snake-serpent treating us humans as sheep to be slaughtered all the day long?Because we are sinners and deserve deathPs 91:11 God promises to protect us from the dragon-snake-serpent.DUH Reference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satanIsa 35:7 Another picture dragon-snake-serpent-dinosaur creatureReference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satanLa 4:3 -6 WOW what a poetry picture of the dragon and it's breasts (SHAD) which are used to suckle the humans who feed off its doctrines and false teaching, is an interesting picture of the opposing elohiym power. Reference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satanNow I need some help from my Greek scholar. Dave can you help me to identify the LXX use of Tanniyn, and what Greek word do they use? This will align the OT with the NT, and thus help identify the dragon-serpent-sea dinosaur, shedim beast who gives suckling to humans, a false elohiym power, clearly mentioned in Deut 32. Don’t need the LXX Rev 12:9 ... the great dragon …(THE BEAST of Revelation) - the ancient serpent, called the devil and satanas (G4567) ... Some things this elohiym power does 1) touches the apple of God's eye, his children Israel A moment ago you said opposes God – now you say opposes Israel – Mr Consistant
2) causes Israel to suckle from the elohiym's breasts... ie shadim Yep – King Solomon’s shedim (Archon)3) De 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, 4) make sacrifices to SHedim, Yep – other gods---------------------- Dave" Every paper I posted seperates Hebrew satan from NT satanas If you failed to get that from reading them – then your reading comprehension skills are very poor indeed ROb" Yes you do, but you are doing your scholarship all alone.This is an oxymoron – I did, but I didn’tQuestion" Why did Greek translators use Satanas, rather than Satan?Same answer as – why did Moses use a new word -”{shedim) instead of satan Same aswer as – why did scripture use Baal – instead of satan Same answer as – why did the other gods of the OT have different names You claim they are all one and the same
|
|
|
Post by rob on Oct 5, 2023 15:34:05 GMT -5
Greetings Dave biblehub.com/sepd/exodus/32.htmCLick on LXX and read the Greek for me. Dave" Both verse do not have a 1 to 1 equivalent word for Hebrew chattah Both verse need additional word to express the idea – a phraseROb" I see. I checked out Exodus 32:30, and read Interlinear LXX in Greek. I tend to agree with you. Why is the Greek translation so fuzzy? It seems like I make errors trying to see hamarria and hamartano in my view COnsider this Greek, here it fits my view 1Jo 2:1 ¶ My <mou> little children <teknion>, these things <tauta> write I <grapho> unto you <humin>, that <hina me> ye sin <hamartano> not <hina me>. And <kai> if <ean> any man <tis> sin <hamartano>, we have <echo> an advocate <parakletos> with <pros> the Father <pater>, Jesus <Iesous> Christ <Christos> the righteous <dikaios>: 2 And <kai> he <autos> is <esti> the propitiation <hilasmos> for <peri> our <hemon> sins <hamartia>: And here it fits my view 1Jo 2:12 ¶ I write <grapho> unto you <humin>, little children <teknion>, because <hoti> your sins <hamartia> are forgiven <aphiemi> And this verse is really strange for my view 1Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever <pas> committeth <poieo> sin <hamartia> transgresseth <poieo> <anomia> also <kai> the law <anomia>: for <kai> sin <hamartia> is <esti> the transgression of the law <anomia>. Why does "sin-offering" transgress the law? The only thing I can see is the sin-offering is about ceremonial laws, interferes with moral laws. After all Jesus offers salvation to sinning humans, who break moral laws, are guilty of death. SO in this sense a "sin-offering" is a part of salvation, where the sinner is rescued from transgression of moral law, by Jesus? Normally a sinner sinning is not allowed to be rescued from sins, hence should immediately cease to exist. 1Jo 3:5 And <kai> ye know <eido> that <hoti> he <ekeinos> was manifested <phaneroo> to <hina> take away <airo> our <hemon> sins <hamartia>; and <kai> in <en> him <autos> is <esti> no <ou> sin <hamartia>. THis fits my view. Jesus had no sin-offering of his OWN. He was never breaking faith with His Father. Jesus was our SIN-BEARER. 1Jo 3:6 Whosoever <pas> abideth <meno> in <en> him <autos> sinneth <hamartano> not <ou>: whosoever <pas> sinneth <hamartano> hath <horao> not <ou> seen <horao> him <autos>, neither <oude> known <ginosko> him <autos>. THis verse also fits my view. So in summary Dave, I see the Greek is using the translation from Hebrew words consistently. But I do see your point, and I am confused by the examples across the OT . --------------------------------- Dave" Gee – and I just got another email Mentioned by Joachim Bretschneider <premium@academia-mail.com> Oct 4, 2023, 4:25 PM (15 hours ago) to meROb" Seems like a power bigger than both of us is answering our concerns?? THE MISUNDERSTOOD SATANS OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE byJerome WilczynskiB4036S: Israel’s Concept of God Professor: Mark S. Smith, Ph.D, August 2016From the introduction Derek Brown summarizes the scholarly literature on “Satan” in the OT. He states, “No single passage in the OT is ‘directly’ related to the Satan of later Christian theology.” Rob" I see. From the last paragraph We have come to the end of the journey. I think most Christians would be surprised tofind all this out. As we have seen, none of the heavenly angels that function as satans in the OT are comparable to the Satan of the NT. Rob " I see Smith" The fact that the Bible does not tell us about the origin of the NTSatan, or even what this figure is, will probably shock believers.Dave" Agree – NT satanas is a new and different entity – THE BEAST of RevelationRob" I see. You finally are showing me a scholar who agrees with you. ------------------------------------- Dave" I am not sure what your question is
satan – G4566 – is a transliteration of the Hebrew word satan It is not a Greek word – it is not in Greek formROb" I see, so the one time use of Hebrew Satan (2 Cor 12:7) is written exactly as the Hebrew letters are, and is not a Greek word, but a Hebrew word. The only Greek word is satanas, which is accusative masculine? = as a direct object - the object of a verb or action. I see. Dave" the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
The act of the heavenly Prosecutor – a reminder to be goodRob" I see. ------------------------------------------ Well I would like to read this paper by Smith myself. 27 pages. Hmm? Can you copy and paste some parts where he investigates Bible verses to prove his point please? Just a few paragraphs will do. He is saying the OT use of STN does not exist in the NT. In the NT we have a totally different creature, the Satanas? ----------------------------------------- Dave" Now you answer – why does Moses use a different word? Why not just say Hebrew satan?ROb" I don't know. He uses the word "SHAD" and so does "Lamentations" to picture the dragon creature using it's breasts to suck the humans into more depravity as Sodom was. But why Moses doesn't just use the word "Satan" plainly the and serpent word "saraph" plainly, I don't know. Instead the word "elohiym" is used instead. Dave" Why are the 33 other gods named in the OT ? Why not just say Hebrew satan? You insist they are one and the same – so why use new words to describe them?ROb" Obviously the Opposer does not wish to be identified, and invents different terms for his elohiym power. He is technically unnamed in the OT. Just a elohiym power that opposes GOD. Also the Scripture records the history and events of man on earth dealing with sin and the agent of sin, so God does not clearly make things easy to read....in poetry parables.... why? 1) It stops stiff neck translators from intentionally miscopying the texts 2) It makes it harder to read truth, that preserving truth in the poetry RobPP " Why does the KJV not consider God thy Father here? rather a secular father?Dave" Nonsense – please learn to read EnglishROb" I am serious, the verse seems to be speaking of the heavenly Father. --------------- Dave" God is the apple of God’s eye? The opposer opposes the ‘Apple of God’s Eye’ (Israel) You corrupt scripture for fun – Mr HonestROb" Some questions 1) Are humans the apple of God's eye? 2) Does this mean humans who have free will are very special indeed to GOD ? 3) What happens to humans directly impacts the very nature of GOD, who loves humans. Do you agree with this? --------------- Dave" DUH – why would other gods help the Creator? Only Hebrew satan is heaven’s prosecutorROb" I suspect this verse is saying otherwise, that GOD needs no prosecutor angel to HELP HIM Read Lev 16, on the annual atonment of Israel by GOD and the high priest. DO we read of any prosecuting angel investigating the sins ijn the sanctuary? No Instead some of the sins are confessed onto a scape goat and lead out to die in the desert. The rest of the sins are lifted away by the Lord's goat, who is Jesus that lifts away sins confessed unto Him. In Zechariah 3, we have the scene of the heavenly sanctuary, a pattern of the earthly. How come an opposer opposes the high priest here? I suspect the opposer is the Scapegoat, and does not want to bear his sinning part in Israel's sin, hence tries to stop the sanctuary process.It is not a function of judgement, with a prosecutor as you claim. If God plucked the high priest out of the fire as a firebrand, God can rebuke the opposer, because God can and does save humans from their sinning. God is allowed to do this because the sanctuary service is about saving sinning humans, not prosecuting the humans as you claim. You are looking at this as a court judgement scene, when in fact it is a sanctuary scene, where GOD is allowed to save sinning humans from their sins. Totally different system. Nothing to do with a judgement court process at all. Read Lev 16, the whole chapter. ------------------- Rob PP " What is mentioned here is Israel sacrificed and worshipped to another elohiym power, termed SHAD, or a Jews write shedim, so such an opposing elohiym power existed in the OT times is very, very clear.Dave" Thank you for your supportRob" Thank you for agreeing with me. 1) You agreed that Israel "worshipped to another elohiym power" 2) You agreed that Israel worshipped "an opposing elohiym power existed in the OT times " Such a power is like Sodom, is also mentioned in the chapter. Where is this idea mentioned before? Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Here. So this power in Deut 32, is about angels that left their first estate and are reserved in chains of darkness, restricted to earth, no longer allowed to wander over the heavens. Hence why the chapter speaks of these two places clearly. Dave" You claim that faith = doing the right prayers and saying the right words – doing the right rituals – and God says Israel has no faith Didn’t work for them – hint hintROb" Doing prayers, reading God's words as in a prayer, obviously is not the same as faith. God can see formalism and is not fooled. God reads your intent, reads your heart, sees the missing within your mind, something no angel can see or read, so why do you invent meaningless functions in some angel helping God to read sin. God needs no help in reading sin. "WHo touched me"? among hundreds who bumped in Jesus, Jesus could tell the touch of faith from the careless rituals of fingers brushing his cloak. Dave" Reference to the BEAST of Revelation -NOT- Hebrew satanROb" I will take your thoughts for now. I agree. Dave" Don’t need the LXX Rev 12:9 ... the great dragon …(THE BEAST of Revelation) - the ancient serpent, called the devil and satanas (G4567) ...ROb" I see. Thanks for this. Dave" Same answer as – why did Moses use a new word -”{shedim) instead of satanROb" I see. Well lets look at the fuzzy NT translation of the Hebrew.... Revelation was originally written in Hebrew. Re 5:1 ¶ And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, What hand does a Greek scribe write with? left? What hand does Hebrew scribe write with? right? Is this OK? or do I have this wrong? Re 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, Why does the Greek link dragon to shedim, but use a different word "satanas" for Satan? Linking dragon to SHAD is the same as Deut 32. Now if DEVIL is the same as dragon, across the LXX. Doesn't the LXX use devil for translating Satan? Why doesn't the LXX use Satanas in the OT, but it doesn't? Your term Dave to defend the reasons why the LXX is not consistent, even though there are many LXX versions, do you best to explain. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 5, 2023 21:45:57 GMT -5
Dave"Both verse do not have a 1 to 1 equivalent word for Hebrew chattah Both verse need additional word to express the idea – a phrase ROb" I see. I checked out Exodus 32:30, and read Interlinear LXX in Greek. Exo 32:30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. Exo 32:30 Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν αὔριον εἶπεν Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν λαόν Ὑμεῖς ἡμαρτήκατε ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην· καὶ νῦν ἀναβήσομαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα ἐξιλάσωμαι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. καὶ νῦν ἀναβήσομαι - and now he went up πρὸς τὸν θεόν, toward God - with God – in the direction of God Joh 1:1 ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. In the beginning – was the word – the word was with God – the word was God ἵνα For the purpose of – the reason - whyἐξιλάσωμαι G1850 ἐξουσιάζω – exousiazō - ex-oo-see-ad'-zo From G1849; to control: - exercise authority upon, bring under the (have) power of.περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας The Greek Phrase Peri – means all around it – circular – everything concerning it – everything about it French fencing move = peri ὑμῶν. Genetive – of yoursand now he went up – toward God – for the purpose – (of) ‘exercising authority (over) – all of the - sin of yours
and now he went up – toward God – for the purpose – (to) ‘bring power’ (over) – every thing of - your sin of yours-------------------------- It seems like I make errors trying to see hamarria and hamartano in my view You error is that you do not let scripture speak You make up your mind first what it is supposed to say – then you try to prove it1Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever <pas> committeth <poieo> sin <hamartia> transgresseth <poieo> <anomia> also <kai> the law <anomia>: for <kai> sin <hamartia> is <esti> the transgression of the law <anomia>. Why does "sin-offering" transgress the law? There is no sin-ofering in this verse – only sin1Jn 3:5 You know that Yeshua appeared in order to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. THis fits my view. Jesus had no sin-offering of his OWN. He was never breaking faith with His Father. Jesus was our SIN-BEARER. I have no idea what you mean--------------------------------- Dave" Gee – and I just got another email Mentioned by Joachim Bretschneider <premium@academia-mail.com> Oct 4, 2023, 4:25 PM (15 hours ago) to me ROb" Seems like a power bigger than both of us is answering our concerns?? I get these messages every no and then – just because he quotes something I wrote doesn’t mean he likes me – or agrees with me Most of my hits are on my paper about Non-Linear Time------------------------------------- satan – G4566 – is a transliteration of the Hebrew word satan It is not a Greek word – it is not in Greek form ROb" I see, so the one time use of Hebrew Satan (2 Cor 12:7) is written exactly as the Hebrew letters are, and is not a Greek word, but a Hebrew word. The only Greek word is satanas, which is accusative masculine? = as a direct object - the object of a verb or action. I see. No you do notSatanas can be written in 5 forms – to serve 5 functions of grammar Nonmitive = always the subject Genative = preposition of placement – possession – with/ of/ through Dative = prepostion of where – in/ into/ within / or the indirect object Vocative = demonstrative Accusative = the direst object of a verb or action ------------------------------------------ Well I would like to read this paper by Smith myself. 27 pages. Hmm? Can you copy and paste some parts where he investigates Bible verses to prove his point please? Just a few paragraphs will do. He is saying the OT use of STN does not exist in the NT. In the NT we have a totally different creature, the Satanas? With the exception of 2 Cor 12:7----------------------------------------- Dave" Now you answer – why does Moses use a different word? Why not just say Hebrew satan? ROb" I don't know. He uses the word "SHAD" and so does "Lamentations" to picture the dragon creature using it's breasts to suck the humans into more depravity as Sodom was. But why Moses doesn't just use the word "Satan" plainly the and serpent word "saraph" plainly, I don't know. Answer Moses used different words to describe different things Your effort to push everything under the name Hebrew satan is just error
Dave" Why are the 33 other gods named in the OT ? Why not just say Hebrew satan? You insist they are one and the same – so why use new words to describe them? ROb" Obviously the Opposer does not wish to be identified, and invents different terms for his elohiym power. Absolutely Correct – if the devil came out tommorrow and open his own church – it would drive eveyone into Chrisian church insteadInstead he presents himself as a Catholic teaching dependence yupon the church Instead he presents himself as a Mormon and teaches that Jesus and satn are twin brothers Instead he presents himself as a Jehova’s Witness and teach there is no heaven – this is it Instead he presents himself as a Ellen White believer thinking that satan is a god comparable to the Creator Instead he presents himself as a Allah and teaches that God has no son – there is no god but Allah and who can make war against him Instead he presents himself as a scientist named Darwin Instead he presents himself as a Creationist name Don Patton – polluting the faith until no one accepts it ---------------------------- Dave" DUH – why would other gods help the Creator? Only Hebrew satan is heaven’s prosecutor ROb" I suspect this verse is saying otherwise, that GOD needs no prosecutor angel to HELP HIM and needs no warrior angels and needs no recording angels and don’t need any angels at all – yet He does---------------------- In Zechariah 3, we have the scene of the heavenly sanctuary, a pattern of the earthly. How come an opposer opposes the high priest here? Because he is a man and all men are sinnersI suspect the opposer is the Scapegoat, and does not want to bear his sinning part in Israel's sin, hence tries to stop the sanctuary process. Just make up anything you want – just invent it as you go along--------------------- Dave" You claim that faith = doing the right prayers and saying the right words – doing the right rituals – and God says Israel has no faith Didn’t work for them – hint hint ROb" Doing prayers, reading God's words as in a prayer, obviously is not the same as faith. And yet you each it------------------------------------- Revelation was originally written in Hebrew. NOPE – Rejected nonsense------------------------ Re 5:1 ¶ And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, What hand does a Greek scribe write with? left? What hand does Hebrew scribe write with? right? Is this OK? or do I have this wrong? Wow – your imagination runs wild – don’t you have any control at allWhat is interesting is - All languages east of Jerusalem write right to left – toward Israel All languages west of jerusalem write left to right – toward Israel Fact – language east of Jerusalem are old – written with hammer and chisel You write right to left so your hand is not covering your test Languages west of Jerusalem are written with a quill You write left to right so you don’t smudge your text ---------------------------- Doesn't the LXX use devil for translating Satan? Why doesn't the LXX use Satanas in the OT, but it doesn't? Your term Dave to defend the reasons why the LXX is not consistent, even though there are many LXX versions, do you best to explain. Already answeredWhen the Old Testament was rendered into Greek in the third century, the Greek word diabolos (from dia-bollein, to tear apart) was chosen to translate this Hebrew Satan, and at the same time a different Greek word, satanas, was used in the New Testament to denote, not a tempter sent by God to test men, but an enemy of God himself. This new Satan appears most vividly in the Book of Revelation as "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan . . . cast out into the earth." Correct – and the answer to Roberts LXX question In Greek G4566 (Hebrew satan) = Hebrew satan of the OT While G4567 (Chaldean satanas) = satanas of Rev 12:9 of the NT Two completely different entities You do not consider the cultural impact within scriptureThe 70 were Jewsish scholars living in Egypt – what would the ramifications be if they called the devil Ra – or Horus – the devil is a generic term
|
|
|
Post by rob on Oct 6, 2023 4:36:25 GMT -5
Greetings Dave You answered my questions well enough for now A different tact:- The OT word "STN" was formalized by me meaning to "oppose/opposer" You agreed to this idea, but now you recant your views. Instead you have "STN" meaning "prosecute/prosecutor" NOW you know as well as me, that this word meaning might fit some of your verses of context, but not all verses of context. So your prosecutor idea is bogus. However if I use my word meanings, for both verb and noun forms of STN, the meaning of "oppose" or "Opposer" fits all the verses and all the contexts. But for your view, you want to introduce polysemy and make a word game out of STN having many different meanings, so you can invent different meanings from each verse. You claim to like Jeff Benner, and his mechanical translation, this is the idea that a single English word fits all the verses of the Hebrew word under study. Your word meaning cannot be used. For example in Job the Opposer comes to a meeting with God, and seems to oppose Job because of his sin. So does that mean the Opposer c an be a friend of God in this case? No, because the word Opposer is a Being who opposes. You get around this idea by saying the Opposer only opposes man, but is a servant of the Lord. But is this angel really helping humans to sin less, or getting humans to sin more, by helping humans to sin? And clearly the Opposer opposes salvation and God's right to save sinners from their sins. Job 1:8 In this verse God is speaking to the STN about how righteous Job is, and completely trusting in the salvation system, which declares a sinning human as sinless. In such a process, there is no need for a prosecutor, as GOD is wanting to save the sinner, regardless of his past sins, all is atoned for when the sinner does the process of salvation. Such a process is written here:- Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Leviticus is a book that explains the salvation process in fine detail, so a sinning sinner can maintain his sinless standing before God, like Job was doing. Having a prosecutor might be helpful if any sins are not confessed and thus not atoned for, but how would a prosecutor know if any sins are forgiven, when the forgiven process is between the human and God. First Dave you can't establish a court room meeting, nor any judgement of Job, God is declaring to the STN, how Job is completely saved in the salvation process. Now try to discuss my discussions, not go off tangent and not ignore the presentation at hand. 1Ch 21:1 ¶ And the Opposer stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (making Prosecutor here would make no sense?) Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto The Opposer, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (God is asking the Opposer about how perfect Job is in the salvation process. Salvation is about removing sins from a sinner through atonement. No need for prosecutor functions here. ) Zec 3:1 ¶ And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and The Opposer standing at his right hand to oppose him. Here the high priest is part of the salvation process as a type established on earth by GOD. It is true any sin unconfessed on the high priest would make his missions null and void and have him killed approaching the holy of holies by GOD. Lev 16 explains the process of atonement to the high priest. Is there any need for a prosecutor in Lev 16? None. If God wants to save somebody, a prosecutor has nothing to do with the salvation process. There is no Bible passage using such a person or angel. ---------------------- Regarding Smith's paper, does he offer any clues as to why the word Satanas was used and where this word came from? Can you copy and paste some of his paragraphs please? If I was to research into Satanas, how might a google search reveal history of this loan word and why the Greek translators used it. I have tried for hours and cannot find any information much on the use of Satanas as a word. ---------------------- One reason why Moses might have used the word "SHAD" rather than "STN", is because Job, while the oldest book, might not have come to Moses until later, as oral writings. If Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the word "STN" was not popular as a Hebrew word, until later. In Deut 32, we both agree the dragon is the same beast creature as identified as Greek Satanas, in Revelation. I will get back to you regarding more research on Satanas. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 6, 2023 7:19:29 GMT -5
The OT word "STN" was formalized by me meaning to "oppose/opposer" You agreed to this idea, but now you recant your views. Stop making up stuff – Mr Honestsatan = opposer / accuser – an adversaryInstead you have "STN" meaning "prosecute/prosecutor" The prosecutor is an opposer / accuser – opposes the sinner – accuser the sinner of sn
Your word game is a useless waste of time NOW you know as well as me, that this word meaning might fit some of your verses of context, but not all verses of context. So your prosecutor idea is bogus. Zec 3 is the example of the prosecutor Joshua has died – facing judgment Hebrew satan is there to accuse Joshua of his sin (because Joshua is a man – a sinner) The judge (God) tells the prosecutor to stand down – Divine Pardon has been granted Zec 3 is not a mystery – it is not some secret code – the story is obvious All Jews read it this way – all mainstream Christians read it this way Never has there been a debate within hermanutics about Zec 3 You are alone – or is it another false Ellen White teaching?However if I use my word meanings, for both verb and noun forms of STN, the meaning of "oppose" or "Opposer" fits all the verses and all the contexts. What does a prosecutor do in Australia – if he does not oppose the defendant?But for your view, you want to introduce polysemy and make a word game out of STN having many different meanings, so you can invent different meanings from each verse. NOPE – the word means oppose / accuse It is the context that determines how it is appliedJeff Brenner also teaches context - and you criticse him for being a conformist - and dissagree with him------------------------------------------- You get around this idea by saying the Opposer only opposes man, but is a servant of the Lord. Correct – Hebrew satan is an angel of the Lord working for GodBut is this angel really helping humans to sin less, or getting humans to sin more, by helping humans to sin? Not Hebrew satan – he opposes you for being a sinner The BEAST – on the other hand – temps you with the pleasures of the worldAnd clearly the Opposer opposes salvation and God's right to save sinners from their sins.Yep – Hebrew satan opposes / accuses – prosecutes the sinner All men are sinners – no man deserves salvation – it is Hebrew satan’s job to keep the sinner out of heaven The only way for man to enter heaven is with the Divine Pardon Job 1:8 In this verse God is speaking to the STN about how righteous Job is, and completely trusting in the salvation system, which declares a sinning human as sinless. Just because a man is righteous – does not mean he is without sin No one was more righteous than Moses – did he get into the promised land? First Dave you can't establish a court room meeting, nor any judgement of Job, God is declaring to the STN, how Job is completely saved in the salvation process.No one has ever suggest Hebrew satan is a prosecutor in the Book of Job – the opposer opposes Job per God command / request Did your satan obey God – or rebel against God and opoose God? God told / commanded / ordered the opposer NOT to let Job die Not that the opposer couldn't kill Job – but no one could Kill Job God made the opposer Job’s protector Did your satan rebel against God and oppose God - NO If other men killed Job - who would you blame - your satan of course So other men - animals - microbes - metiors from space - lighting strikes - falling trees were not allowed to kill Job So by ordering Hebrew satan NOT to kill Job - God made Hebrew satan Job's protector ------------------------ 1Ch 21:1 ¶ And the Opposer stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (making Prosecutor here would make no sense?) satan = the anger of the lord satan = an angel of the Lord working for the Lord No more needs to be said ---------------------- Regarding Smith's paper, does he offer any clues as to why the word Satanas was used and where this word came from? Can you copy and paste some of his paragraphs please? www.academia.edu/28434074/THE_MISUNDERSTOOD_SATANS_OF_THE_CHRISTIAN_BIBLE_a_revised_version_of_a_paper_submitted_for_a_class_taught_by_Mark_S_Smith_on_Israels_Concept_of_God_ Can you open it?------------------------------------ If I was to research into Satanas, how might a google search reveal history of this loan word and why the Greek translators used it. I have tried for hours and cannot find any information much on the use of Satanas as a word. If you look only in the apple barn – how many peaches will you find? If you only read Catholic material – all you will hear is Catholicism If you only read Ellen White – her version is all you have An Academic – studies the material without bias If you want to be an academic – be one – don’t play at pretending to be one ---------------------- One reason why Moses might have used the word "SHAD" rather than "STN", is because Job, while the oldest book, might not have come to Moses until later, as oral writings. If Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the word "STN" was not popular as a Hebrew word, until later. Correct – Jews did not spend all there days worrying about Catholic satan – they had other nations with other gods and their demons to worry about – they had the WORLD to worry about - they had the BEAST to worry about
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 6, 2023 8:23:25 GMT -5
Roberts example of – the Greek LXX (textus receptus) uses the word devil for Hebrew satanTextus receptus 1Ch 21:1 Καὶ ἔστη διάβολος ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ This from the textus receptus – the base for the 1611 KJV1Ch 21:1 And Satan stoode vp against Israel, From the 1861 revision of the KJV1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel However:archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n1585/mode/2up?q=1+ch+21This LXX says satanWhich version of the LXX is it – if different then the textus receptusThis web-site does not specify other than - septuagint, lxx, interlinear, bible, greek church – open source 2014-08-15 15:14:45 Identifier - InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t83j67m4m Ocr - tesseract 5.1.0-1-ge935 (1Chr 21:1 [HiSB]) - Hebrewוַ·יַּֽעֲמֹ֥ד H5975 שָׂטָ֖ן H7854 עַל־ H5921 יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל H3478 וַ·יָּ֙סֶת֙ H5496 אֶת־ H853 דָּוִ֔יד H1732 לִ·מְנ֖וֹת H4487 אֶת־ H853 יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ H3478 (1Chr 21:1 [WHM]) - Hebrewוַ @pcיַּֽעֲמֹ֥ד @vqw3ms שָׂטָ֖ן @ncmsa עַל־ @pp+Hbיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל @np וַ @pcיָּ֙סֶת֙ @vhw3ms+Xa אֶת־ @po+Haדָּוִ֔יד @np לִ @ppמְנֹ֖ות @vqc אֶת־ @po+Haיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ @np (KJV+) - Hebrew1Ch 21:1 ויעמדH5975 שׂטןH7854 עלH5921 ישׂראלH3478 www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ch&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#vrsn/1Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Concordance and Hebrew/Greek Lexicon1 Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. Available Translations and Versions for 1 Chronicles 21:1KJV And Satan stood up against Israel, NKJV Now Satan stood up against Israel, NLT Satan rose up against Israel NIV Satan rose up against Israel ESV Then Satan stood against Israel CSB Satan rose up against Israel NASB20 Then Satan stood up against Israel NASB95 Then Satan stood up against Israel LSB Then Satan stood up against Israel NET An adversary opposed Israel, RSV Satan stood up against Israel, ASV and Satan stood up against Israel, YLT And there standeth up an adversary against Israel, DBY And Satan stood up against Israel, WEB And Satan stood up against Israel, HNV Hasatan stood up against Yisra'el, VUL consurrexit autem Satan contra Israhel LXX καὶ ἔστη διάβολος ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ (textus receptus) BBE Now Satan, designing evil against Israel, LS Satan se leva contre Israël, LUT Und der Satan stand wider Israel Just how many versions of the LXX exist?(From wiki)None are origional – all at least 500 years after the origionalCodex Sinaiticus 4th Century (after 325 CE) Codex Codex Alexandrinus, 5th Century - the complete text of the entire Greek Bible (according to the Alexandrian canon) Codex Cottonianus 5th/6th century Codex Ambrosiano A 147 5th century Codex Colberto-Sarravianus 4th/5th century Codex Coislinianus 7th century Codex Marchalianus 7th century Codex Veronensis 6th century Codex Turicensis 7th century Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus 8th century Codex Venetus 8th century Codex Washingtonianus 3rd century POINT – just because Robert found a word – doesn't disprove Judaeo-Christian theology Only proves the danger / folly of building a doctrine around one or two words Precept upon precept, line upon line – scripture must validate itself
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 6, 2023 13:19:18 GMT -5
www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/22470The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans and Heretics Elaine Pagel(Elaine Pagel is considered an expert on Ancient Gnosticism)Christianity had a hard time of it in its early days. Attacked by the religionists of empire as pagan, and by its Hebrew confreres as heresy, the new religion had a number of pressing crises of identity. It claimed affinity with Judaism as its spiritual successor; yet it also had to distance itself from the seditious Jews of Palestine who were continuously challenging Roman rule. On the other hand, rocking the boat of established cults by trashing them too brutally wouldn’t have made terribly good press. Points1 – The Jews were never governable - They already have a king – Just as Born Again believers If you are lead by God – called by God – Used by God – man’s authority has no power over you 2-Original Christianity - claimed affinity with Judaism as its spiritual successor 3- Organized Christianity - had to distance itself from the seditious Jews of Palestine who KILLED JESUS In such circumstances, accentuating the positive, the doctrines of love, peace and universal salvation (whatever they took those to mean, and it’s not clear what they did mean), is not the route to PR success. It is hard to sell the idea of LOVE – and rape your congregation at the same timeNegative messaging, establishing what Christianity was not, had to have been been the central part of any campaign to attract new members while keeping the authorities off one’s back. Organized Catholicism – built it self up by accusing others of heresySo Christianity is not rebellious, provincial Judaism bent on independence. Christianity is not a threat to the established cult of emperor worship. Christianity in fact claims nothing about this world as its concern: Render unto Caesar... etc.Very Gnostic – not about this world or organizations in the worldAnd the Christian problem wasn’t only about external politics. The Christian Scriptures themselves testify to the variety of disagreements prevalent among ‘believers’ - from so-called Judaizers who preferred to view themselves as within the established Hebrew fold, to the mystically-minded Gnostics who saw the Judaic YHWH as an evil demigod to be overcome not worshipped. And after all, there were four approved gospel stories (as well as several others which were widespread), each with markedly different views about important religious events and their meaning.Messianic Jews = Christian Judaizers The Gnostic she quotes = is ancient Gnosticism and come from many more sources than the Nag Hammadi’s James, John, Paul, Peter, Philip, or Thomas In other words, Christianity began its life by prolifically generating its own heresies within and against itself. A reference to the Catholic ChurchThe new religion was open to so many interpretive possibilities that the only viable strategy for creating internal unity was more negative propaganda. Christians are not those who attend synagogue or observe Judaic ritual. Christians are not those who refuse to accept non-Jews into their congregations. Christians are not those who disrupt these congregations with doctrinal questions.Yes – the Catholic Church was VERY anti-Jewish Those damn Jesus KILLERSSo it was clear to the early Christians that theirs was not a time to be pulling rhetorical punches. They were engaged in an intense political battle. And they did what is usual in any such conflict: they lied about, slandered, vilified, and otherwise bad-mouthed their opponents. One of the most effective ways to do this in a relatively uneducated society was through the creation of symbols which were easy to communicate and powerful in their impact. Pagels makes a very strong case that the symbol of Satan is among the most important exports of early Christianity, intended specifically to create a unified, distinct Christian community. Agree! - Catholic satan was invented to force dependency upon a priest and the churchThe gospel may emphasise Christian love. But subsequent Christian rhetoric is primarily about Christian hatred. Yes – I have always said this Jesus Christ came into the world – saved the world Then the Catholic church began a systematic destruction of competing sects Followed by the ROMAN EDIT Followed by the Crusades Followed by the inquisition Followed by the upcoming tolerance of ‘other faiths’ within the Vatican Pagels is clear in her conclusions. Christianity was indeed a new form of religion but not for the reasons it advertised: “What may be new in Western Christian tradition... is how the use of Satan to represent one’s enemies lends to conflict a specific kind of moral and religious interpretation, in which ‘we’ are God’s people and ‘they’ are God's enemies, and ours as well.” The world has not been the same since. Yep – Catholic satan is a myth – created by the Catholic church---------------------------------- From the web-site - BadPope.com Catholicism is not Christianity The Roman Empire created Catholicism in order to blend together the pagans and the Christians. ------------------------------ scholar.csl.edu/ma_th/115/God and Satan: A Look at Martin Luther’s Titles for Satan and What They Reveal about the Relationship between God and SatanAlexandria M. Shick, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis Date of Award - Spring 5-20-2022 Document Type - Thesis Degree Name - Master of Arts (MA) Department - Systematic Theology The relationship between God and Satan is complex and intertwined. There is a tendency in Christianity to overemphasize Satan’s power and his place in the realm of evil and in so doing neglect and disregard what it means for God to be truly omnipotent. Luther understood Satan as being under God’s will, only having the ability to act where, when and how God allowed or permitted. The complex and intertwined relationship between Satan and God must be properly understood for the benefit of spiritual care in the church. Martin Luther – sure did not see your two god controversy of one god opposing another---------------------------- Which brings me to a relevant pointI have spoke / studied / talked with several local church pastors – many throughout my life Some admit that I might be on to something – or that there might be some truth in what I say But they also admit that they must answer to a higher church authority – 99.9% of churches in America are 501C3 tax shelters I can tell you all about it Takes 3 people to make a LLC, INC, or CORP – Pres, Sec, Tres Once you get your 501C3 standing – you also get a 3 year and 5 years tax review The Reg – ½ of all funds raised – must come from 2/3 rds of non-office holding members So – to operate a tax exempt church – takes 9 people – 3 officers + 6 to donate Pastors must keep their audience – congregation – donors happy Pastors must keep their acceding agency happy So Christian Pastors / Ministers are allow to think – but must color within “standard accepted commercial organised religion’ and the myth it promotesReligion is a BUSINESS
|
|
|
Post by rob on Oct 6, 2023 21:50:50 GMT -5
Greeting Dave Happy Sabbath 'Dave" The prosecutor is an opposer / accuser – opposes the sinner Rob" OK I get your point, broadly the term STN means oppose/opposer and in some verses you wish to narrow the word meaning to prosecutor. OK I get this idea, and it might be valid as a hypothesis. The only cases where such a term might exist is in Job and Zec, both of which do not have judgement or court words. They are instead about salvation as a process for the sinner. Question: When God set up the salvation process for sinners, is there any need for a prosecutor? In Lev, there are many offerings for sinners, for ignorant sin, intentional sin, and other cases of missing God's power in their lives. In all cases the sinner had to bring a "pet" animal he loved and confess his wrong doing to that animal, which the high priest brought the blood, into the sanctuary. Once a year the blood in the sanctuary was cleansed in a ceremony called Day of Atonement, where the Lord took away the sins, but also a Scape Goat also took away some sins. Only than was the salvation process fully complete. This is a salvation process for those seeking atonement for their sins. For a person who refuses atonment for their sins, the Lord judges the wicked person with judgement and after that they face the Lake of Fire. Leviticus 1:4 “Then he [the offerer] shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.” " But it is important to add that offering a sacrifice was not a work that earned salvation. As noted above, the Old Testament believers were saved by grace (God’s unearned favour) through faith, just as we are. Offering the sacrifice was an outward demonstration of inward faith in God’s promise. Without faith, the sacrifice was just an empty ritual–in fact, it was an abomination to God (cf. Isa. 1:10- " wordwisebiblestudies.com/old-testament-salvation-salvation-before-the-cross/Summary: the answer is NO. It makes God absolute to judge and forgive you alone, only GOD is fair and able to see sins in the mind. While angels might help assist, they do not get involved in the salvation process. The process is between you and your Lord. The saints are allowed to judge wicked angels and wicked humans. But no body investigates the saints. Only God does and forgives the saints alone, and takes away their sinning from all prying eyes. Hypothesis: Was there any judging, or judgement in the salvation atonement process?
Le 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. ( No ) The only place in Lev that mentions judge or judgment. So there is no judgement of sins, when the sinner seeks GOD for atonment (ie salvation). Hence no prosecutor function is required by angels or even with GOD Himself. The sinner is declared as being sinless before GOD. There is no judgement in the atonement of sinning humans asking for forgiveness. It is between the sinner and God alone. ------------------------- Dave" Discuss my discuss, rebuke the need for some angel to be involved. ---------------- Dave" Zec 3 is the example of the prosecutor Joshua has died – facing judgment Hebrew satan is there to accuse Joshua of his sin (because Joshua is a man – a sinner)Rob" Where does Zec 3 say Joshua died? It doesn't. Zec 3:1 ...Joshua the high priest standing.... No died Joshua here, Joshua is standing, alive.... What do you say of this verse Dave? ------------ Dave" The judge (God) tells the prosecutor to stand down – Divine Pardon has been grantedRob" Zec 3:2 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. Several things in this passage, Joshua is alive, dressed as a sinning human, and the Lord saves this sinner as a firebrand plucked from the fire. Dave sees this as a divine pardon, after Joshua died. This idea is bogus. Am 4:11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. Same context, GOD saved some humans, while the rest experienced Sodom's ceasing to exist fire. So being plucked as a brand from the fire, r efers to saving you alive from the affects of sin. Not a divine pardon after you die, as you claim. Isa 7:4 is another context saying the same, speaking to humans who are alive, not dead and thus pardoned as you claim. ---------------- Dave" Zec 3 is not a mystery – it is not some secret code – the story is obvious All Jews read it this way – all mainstream Christians read it this wayROb" SHow me a Jew who writes about Zec 3 referring to the high priest Day of Atonment, with reference to sanctuary salvation process. I find it difficult to find any Jewish articles on Bible materials and commentaries, such a task is not easy. Dave" Never has there been a debate within hermanutics about Zec 3ROb" Show me any Jewish commentaries on Zec 3. Dave" the word means oppose / accuse It is the context that determines how it is appliedROb" Good. Now show me that JOB or ZEC 3 is about a prosecutor, when the passages 1) refer to salvation process. Salvation process is never about judgement over sin, hence no preosecutor is required. Now show me your case. Prove to me that salvation process requires investigation of the particular sins a human has done. Dave" Hebrew satan is an angel of the Lord working for GodROb" Details please, with verses. Where does an angel help GOD in the salvation process? No such verses. Sure some angels are recording events humans do, like Book of Remembrance. But the book of Life is written by Jesus hand alone, and does not involve a prosecutor, If anything Jesus is both prosecutor and attorney regarding your atonement. Dave" he opposes you for being a sinnerROb" What a joke ! So an angel opposes the human because he is sinning? How does an angel even know the human is sinning? Sin begins in the mind, where no actions have NOT begun as yet. If GOD is love, why would God have an angel opposing the sinning human, when God does not oppose a human because he sins. God loves sinners, but hates the sinning. -------------- Discuss my discuss here Dave -------------- Dave" the Prodigal Son - that has lived in the muck - is the one that undestands compassionRob" Off topic Dave. The Bible answers this idea Lu 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. (KJV) This is NOT to say sinning helps one to understand loving rescue. But it does help the human to understand his own helplessness. Dave" Job - why the oldest book of the Tanak? God USED Job to teach mankind the lesson of remaining faithful God USED satan to USE Job to teach mankindROb" Nice but off topic ------------------------- RobPP " And clearly the Opposer opposes salvation and God's right to save sinners from their sins.Dave" Yep – Hebrew satan opposes / accuses – prosecutes the sinnerROb" Never does GOD use Investigaton of sins, to save a sinner from his sins. Bogus idea. God declared Job perfect (tom) a Hebrew word meaning "pure and sinless" This was told to the STN after GOD saved Job. Yet the STN makes excuses for Job not sinning. You hedge Job. What does a hedge function for, if a prosecutor is not attacking Job ever? Your premise makes no sense. Why would a prosecutor ask God to remove his hedge? Salvation cannot be just about saving humans from their mistakes of sin. If the free will sins, why can't God just forgive the free will, and welcome them back freely, but the salvation process is much more complex than this. Why? As soon as Adam sinned, blood was required to atone Adam. Why? If the mind body and soul was sinless, only the free will transgressed, why the complex need to atone for sin with blood? You can't answer this question, but Scripture can A mischief maker made permanent changes of mischief to Eve as soon as she sinned, thus the free will could not return to God freely, as her womb and the life of humans in the womb were compromised. The penalty for this was life for life. ie: blood. Dave" Just because a man is righteous – does not mean he is without sinROb" Correct , but there is no need for investigating the sins of the sinner by GOD or by an angel. Grace (God's kindness) overlooks the sins of the sinner and saves them as sinless. The sinner is required to confess to the sins he knows he did, so some attitude of gratitude is required on behalf of the human. The rest of atonement is with GOD and GOD only, not some angel who helps. Dave" No one has ever suggest Hebrew satan is a prosecutor in the Book of Job – the opposer opposes Job per God command / requestRob" What a flip flop ! Why does the Opposer oppose humans than Dave? Considering Job is already saved by God? Why does the opposer first oppose GOD Dave? Job 1:8 And God said to the Opposer, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? The arum creature lies, and never makes known that the Oppser is also opposing God.... 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and ...blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased ... 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. Why is the Opposer interested in JOB cursing GOD to His face? removing his hedge? taking away his blessings? and reducing the incease? Dave" All men are sinners – no man deserves salvation – it is Hebrew satan’s job to keep the sinner out of heavenROb" OK. to keep a sinner out of heaven, is the same thing as saying to keep the sinner sinning. DO you agree with this idea? Why does the Opposer want to keep humans sinning? Because that is what the Opposer does, sins all the time. Liar and murderer, for example. Dave" The only way for man to enter heaven is with the Divine PardonROb" Does this happen while alive, or after you die? --------------- Dave" God told / commanded / ordered the opposer NOT to let Job die Not that the opposer couldn't kill Job – but no one could Kill Job God made the opposer Job’s protector Did your satan rebel against God and oppose God - NORob" How come JOb's sons died, and his daughters died, and his cattle and camels all died. But Job himself was not allowed to die. JOb's wife was not killed, allowed to stay alive? She asked her husband to curse God and die. The Opposer used her against Job, hence kept her alive. But could have killed her? Who was given powers by God? and what powers could the Opposer do? All in within thy power, except thou cannot take Job's life. You focus on one aspect but neglect the other aspects of the Opposers powers. God said to the Opposer, you made me attack Job without cause. Who attacked Job? human enemies under the Opposers control? Who else? Dave" So by ordering Hebrew satan NOT to kill Job - God made Hebrew satan Job's protectorROb" weird logic to say this ------------ Dave sent me a link After a while I read the 27 pages Coogan states the expression “sons of God” is a vestige from an earlier time when the Israelites were not explicitly monotheistic.
Mark Smith explains, during Israel’s early history, it was conceived that the Lord eventually came to preside over a divine council that reflected a family-like structure; hence the expression,
sons of God. This council had gods at the lowest tier who often served as messengers. Once Israel became strictly monotheistic, the low-level godswere demoted to “angel” status because there can only be one deity. Hence, the sons of God in Job are angels
And from the earlier discussion about the meaning of the satan , it is clear this is an angel that serves in a certain capacity. Namely, the satan is to keep a lookout for potential wrongdoing by patrolling the earth. And even though God is upset with how far the divine allowance permitted this angel to test Job, it is clear God authorized all the satan’s actions. Therefore, what we have in Job is an angel that is obedient to God, whose role as the satan is unpleasant, but they are not the Satan of the NT. The Satan of the NT opposes God and assails humanity as an independent agent.Many scholars think Job was also written during the sixth century, after the destruction of Jerusalem in BC 586, amid the exile of many Jews to Babylon.---- As Wray and Mobley note themselves, the court-like proceedings in Zechariah 3 only bring us into the narrative as the verdict is being rendered ---- Kelly considers several figures from the book of Genesis. The three that were “convicted” in various sources from around this time were Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Of the three, it is tempting to select the Serpent. After all, it was the Serpent that called God a liar and helped to bring about the calamities that befell both Adam and Eve. ----- The fact that the Bible does not tell us about the origin of the NTSatan, or even what this figure is, will probably shock believers.---------- Rob " The author is using traditions of men, not really studying the topic at all, but rather quoting traditions of men. The underlined points indicate views that I could use....but Hmm? is this person a supporter of God? I think not, but I could be wrong? He promotes confusion, by quoting confusion from other sources. Not a Bible study, under the leading of the HS. ---------------------- Dave" An Academic – studies the material without biasROb" You mean they are not supporters of God, hence come with secular bias. Dave" they had the WORLD to worry about - they had the BEAST to worry aboutRob" We both agree the SHAD were devils, and we both know the NT term for this is Satanas. Question: Does the Shad, or dragon, link to a saraph being?Isa 27:1 ¶ In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish .... leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. A poetry parallel saying the same thing as three different ways. Hence the dragon = serpent = saraph being = cherub than once sinned on the mountain of GodWhile no NT accounts for the shedim, the OT does account for the origin of the shedim. ------------------- Dave" Which version of the LXX is it – if different then the textus receptusROb" But they do say the STN is LXX-devil? So this translation means the Satanas is the same as Satan but use of the translation diabolos (διάβολος ) - devil? Dave" POINT – just because Robert found a word – doesn't disprove Judaeo-Christian theologyRob" regardless Dave, the LXX all use the same word (διάβολος ) - devil? Hence your Satan is the same as the Satanas. Same creature. ---------------- Dave" Martin Luther – sure did not see your two god controversy of one god opposing anotherRob" God only judges you by the light you know, and saves you regardless of your imperfect knowledge, but because you ask for salvation. Ro 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, Job's friends did not see the RA that came upon Job, as coming from an Opposer either, they saw it coming from sin inherited within Job, he had done something wrong in the past. Dave" Which brings me to a relevant point I have spoke / studied / talked with several local church pastors – many throughout my life Some admit that I might be on to something – or that there might be some truth in what I sayROb" Hmm? it is good you have humans supporting you, after all you are a Greek scholar and a man who is an honest seeker of truth. But Truth comes from the torah and how the torah reads. You neglect Ezekiel 28, you deny the Opposer on the right hand of humans, you see the Opposer in Job only obeying God. How can an Opposer oppose humans, but obey God? Contradiction.... Humans are the apple of God's eye, hence opposing humans is also opposing God. The Opposer wants humans to keep on sinning. Cursing God to His face is a sin, by the way. The Opposer challenged God to allow the Opposer to oppose Job to test if JOb would curse God to his face. The Opposer failed the challenge. God hurt Job for no reason. Dave" Pastors must keep their audience – congregation – donors happyRob" So religion is a money making business? I pity such mockery. All money collected is to help the poor, not the rich. Eze 34:2 ...Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Selfish pastors.... Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, ...but ye feed not the flock. Selfish pastors.... Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; and Eze 34:10 neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; So the Pastors are not to feed themselves nor does the flock feed the Pastors. ------------------- NOW how did you go in discussing my discussion? 1) Job 1:8 In this verse God is speaking to the STN about how righteous Job is, and completely trusting in the salvation system, which declares a sinning human as sinless. In such a process, there is no need for a prosecutor, as GOD is wanting to save the sinner, regardless of his past sins, all is atoned for when the sinner does the process of salvation.Dave : Discuss where investigating the sins of a sinner is required by GOD or an angel, before forgiving the sinner and atoning for his sin? Notice while David was sinning, God declared about David , a man after my heart, yet was not allowed to build a sanctuary on earth. Moses was the most meek of all humans, but not allowed to see the honey land, all over one small sin, but GOD raised Moses and took him to the real land of honey in heaven , after He died. Not once is there an investigation over sin, before the Lord forgives the sinner of his sins during his atonement. Once David sinned and made Israel sin, and GOD gave David three choices and thus judged David, because the sinning in this case had public consequences. For private sinning, the LORD atones your sins without the need for investigating those sins. You prosecuting angel function is an invented idea. 2) Having a prosecutor might be helpful if any sins are not confessed and thus not atoned for, but how would a prosecutor know if any sins are forgiven, when the forgiven process is between the human and God. Dave" You did not discuss this statment. 3) Zec 3:1 ¶ And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and The Opposer standing at his right hand to oppose him.
Here the high priest is part of the salvation process as a type established on earth by GOD. It is true any sin unconfessed on the high priest would make his missions null and void and have him killed approaching the holy of holies by GOD. Lev 16 explains the process of atonement to the high priest. Is there any need for a prosecutor in Lev 16? None. Dave: Where is your discussion of this? If God wants to save somebody, a prosecutor has nothing to do with the salvation process. There is no Bible passage using such a person or angel. Shalom
|
|