Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Literature

[Dave]

"The Intimate and Ultimate Adversary: Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Literature (Journal of Early Christian Studies)"

Satan in early Gentile Christian communities:
An exegetical study in Mark and 2 Corinthians
Thomas J. Farrar, 5 January 2014

God is amazing – I absolutely feel God in my life and ministry!

Robert – has chosen to be the forum antagonist
First he attacked the word “Gnostic” because the Roman Edit has convinced him the word is bad
Next he attacked the “Archon” because it is not a Hebrew word
Next he attacked the NT Greek word G4567 Σατανᾶς – Satanas - of Chaldean origin

His personal attack upon me:
My work is error and I stand alone in my research / study there is no one that agrees with me.

I have directed Robert to many articles / postings / and even books all discussing the difference between OT Hebrew satan (G4566) the heavens prosecutor, and angel of the Lord working for the Lord
– and –
NT satanas (G4567) who is represented at the evil / malevolent villain of Dante and Milton
Robert ignores all academic evidence of the truth claiming no one else teaches about NT satanas

God is amazing – I absolutely feel God in my life and ministry!
"PDF By Thomas Farrar <[e-mail]> Unsubscribe
Sun, Dec 10, 4:59 AM (23 hours ago) to me"

Background – this author is NOT a preacher, or an admitted representative of any specific denomination. He is a Faculty Member at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville, where he teaches mathematical statistics.

His comments are directed toward a “Bible-based, Unitarian, Restorationist denomination
Also founded in 1848 along with the Millerites / Ellen White’s SDA – who broke away for the Baptist
Also founded around a man named Dr. John Thomas (1805-1871), who broke from the Disciples of Christ.
Also based upon a BOOK - Elpis Israel (1848)

(google) What do the Christadelphians believe?
Members of the faith believe that Jesus was human, not divine, although he was the son of God. They do not believe in Hell or Satan. Everyone who dies, according to Christadelphian theology, goes into an unconscious state from which only believers will be resurrected during the Second Coming of Jesus.
(wiki) Since Christadelphians teach a bodily resurrection and judgment at the return of Jesus Christ to earth, the controversy was over who would be resurrected and called to judgment.

The parallels between this argument and the argument between Robert and I are staggering
Robert also teaches Jesus was a man – NOT God
To Robert the divinity of Jesus is biology and existed before biology was created
To Robert if Jesus is God – then He is a different god – because Jesus prayed to God

Robert also does not believe in hell
It is just sleep until you are resurrected in the body to be cast into the Lake of Fire
And very few being saved
Millerites / Ellen White’s SDA is known as an Advent group because they preach the coming of the Bahai Islamic Madih
Christadelphians are what I have always known as the Unitarians known for preaching Jesus was just a man – virgin birth not possible – no hell no afterlife

Satan in early Gentile Christian communities:
An exegetical study in Mark and 2 Corinthians
Thomas J. Farrar
www.dianoigo.com

1. Introduction
2. The Christadelphian doctrine of Satan
3. Old Testament background to the word satanas
3.1. Satan in the Hebrew Old Testament
3.2. Satan in the Greek Old Testament
3.3. Satan in the Apocrypha
4. Satan as a proper name in the New Testament
4.1. Satan as a proper name in Mark

1. Introduction
This is part of a series of exegetical articles on the subject of the devil and Satan, and more
specifically on evaluating the soundness of the Christadelphian view of the matter by a detailed
analysis of biblical passages. … The focus of this article is more specifically on the significance of the word Satan (Greek: satanas) in the New Testament. …

2. The Christadelphian doctrine of Satan
In the book with which he effectively launched the Christadelphian movement c. 1848, Elpis
Israel, Dr. John Thomas … The first Christadelphian to write a major treatise on the subject of the devil and Satan was Robert Roberts, …

(Robert Roberts? The parallel is amazing)

In summary, one observes that there is a spectrum of Christadelphian views on the ‘definiteness’
of Satan within the New Testament (see figure below). On the far left is the view that there is no
definitive or quintessential New Testament Satan; rather, this is just a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ which can take on any number of meanings as the context dictates. This extreme is
represented by Thomas Williams. On the far right is the view that there is a definitive or
quintessential New Testament Satan: the great adversary, the carnal mind. ‘He’ is the referent of
all references to Satan in the New Testament. This extreme is represented by Peter Watkins. The
other Christadelphian writers lie somewhere between these two extremes, emphasizing to some
extent the definitiveness of the great adversary but allowing for references to other satans in
some passages.
--------------------------------------------------
20 Heaster 2012: 158.
21 Buzzard 2000.
22 Burke 2007: 22.
23 Burke 2007: 29.
24 Burke 2007: 93.
---------------------------------------------------

3. Old Testament background to the word satanas
The New Testament was originally composed in Greek.25 However, satanas, as it occurs 38
times in 36 verses of the New Testament, is not a Greek word. How then did it find its way into
the New Testament? Some background is needed here.

3.1. Satan in the Hebrew Old Testament
In Hebrew, satan is a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ and, less frequently, a verb meaning to
oppose or to accuse. It often carries a forensic connotation. Its most widespread use is of human
adversaries (usually individuals but can also be a collective noun): 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1
Kings 5:4; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6. In Num. 22:22, 32 it refers to the angel of the Lord. In
Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3, the word satan occurs with the article – it is now ‘the adversary’ rather
than ‘an adversary.’ The consensus among biblical scholars is that ‘the adversary’ here refers to a
heavenly being (though not necessarily the same individual in both cases):

“In the Hebrew Bible, anyone or any creature can be a satan, an adversary. But at some
point, the concept illustrated by the word satan in the Bible began to be personified into
the being we have come to know as Satan. This being is mentioned eighteen times in
three books in the Hebrew Bible: once in 1 Chronicles (21:1), three times across two
verses in Zechariah (3:1-2), and fourteen times within the first two chapters of the book of Job. In reality, both in Zechariah and Job, the definite article is used, literally ‘the
satan.’ Still, these two books personify ‘the satan,’ introducing us to a being with agency,
and so the NRSV translates these occurrences with the proper name, Satan. (The definite
article in Hebrew can sometimes introduce proper names.) Even if it is not referring to
the proper name Satan, they are referring to an office or role occupied by a heavenly being.”26
The word satan carries a legal connotation, particularly in Psalm 109 and Zechariah 3 where in
each case the or a satan “functions as prosecuting attorney.”27 Fokkelman likewise translates the
------------------------------------------
25 A few have argued that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this view is
rejected by the majority of textual scholars. Even if it were true, there are no extant copies of Matthew in the ‘original’ Semitic language.
26 De La Torre & Hernandez 2011: 57. For similar summaries see Boyd 1975: 16; Hooks 2006: 63-64;
Laato 2013: 4-5.
27 Petersen 1984: 189.
---------------------------------------

satan in Job as “the Prosecutor” (of God’s heavenly council).28 In Job and Zechariah the satan(s)
are not in open rebellion against God like the Satan of the New Testament, but there are hints of
antagonism. In Zechariah 3, the satan “opposes God in a malicious way, as v. 2 clearly
indicates.”29 In Job, too, there are hints of antagonism between God and the satan: “you incited
me against him to destroy him without reason” (Job 2:3). It has further suggested that the
preposition ‘before’ (al) in Job 2:2 means “in defiance of God.”30
A similar kind of adversarial heavenly being is found in 1 Kings 22:19-23/2 Chr. 18:18-22,
although the word satan does not occur there.

The most disputed satan text in the Old Testament is 1 Chr. 21:1. Here, satan occurs without the
definite article, which some say indicates that it is the proper name of a specific being appointed
to the office of adversary. Kelly says that “Almost all modern translators and interpreters of this passage say ‘yes’ to this interpretation.”31 Nevertheless it has been challenged by scholars such as
Day,32 Japhet33 and Stokes.34 Japhet understands this ‘satan’ to be an anonymous human
adversary while Day and Stokes maintains that it is an indefinite celestial being.

In summary, then, it would be anachronistic to read a later concept of Satan back into the Old Testament, and indeed, from a historical perspective there may be “no single Satan figure of the Old Testament.”35 Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see how the concept of a specific angelic being called The Adversary could be inferred – as it was by the Jews – by putting together the key satan texts of Job 1-2, Zech. 3:1-2 and 1 Chr. 21:1.36 And, as Branden observes, these passages “do not strictly rule out the possibility of identifying the adversary as the personal Satan of the intertestamental literature and the New Testament.”37

3.2. Satan in the Greek Old Testament
In the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., the Jews of Alexandria produced a Greek translation of the Old
Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). This version of the Old Testament was effectively the
Bible of the earliest Christians, especially those who did not understand Hebrew (whether
diaspora Jews or Gentiles). This is evident in the New Testament writings themselves:
“Because Christianity originated mainly within Greek-speaking Judaism, Christians
naturally used the Greek versions of Scripture. At first, as the NT shows, this was done without comment or apology.”38
-----------------------------------------------
28 Fokkelman 2012: 18.
29 Klein 2008: 136.
30 Hooks 2006: 72.
31 Kelly 2006: 29.
32 Day 1988.
33 Japhet 1993: 374-375.
34 Stokes 2009.
35 Brown 2011: 203-204.
36 See, for example, Russell 1977: 203-204.
37 Branden 2006: 17.
38 Dines 2004: 75.
--------------------------------------------------

In light of the importance of the Septuagint to the New Testament writers and early church, it is
worth considering how this version of the Old Testament handled the Hebrew word satan.
Because the work of translation was carried out by many different people over a period of
decades, there was some diversity in the approach.

In some instances (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4) the Septuagint translators rendered
satan with the Greek word epiboulos, an adjective (functioning as a noun) which means “plotting against; treacherous.”39

In other cases, the word satan was translated with the Greek noun diabolos (enemy,
adversary40, slanderer41): 1 Chr. 21:1; Ps. 108(109):6; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2. In the latter two cases
the article was carried over from the Hebrew to the Greek: ho diabolos, ‘the enemy’. It has a
more negative connotation than the word satan. In Num. 22:22, 32 satan was translated with
the Greek verb diabolē, which refers to false accusation, slander, quarrel or enmity, and in this
case specifically to the act of withstanding.42 This shows that the word need not imply
wickedness, since it is used here of the angel of the Lord. Kelly suggests that the translators consciously “avoided calling the Angel of Yahweh a diabolos” here.43

It is worth that the Septuagint translators tended to render satan with a form of diabolos when
the word refers to an angelic being, and with epiboulos when it refers to a human. This may not
be a conscious decision but it still results in differentiation for the reader of the Septuagint.
The translator(s) took an altogether different approach in 1 Kings 11. In the Hebrew the word
satan appears thrice, in vv. 14, 23 and 25. In v. 14 (a reference to a man, Hadad the Edomite, as
an adversary of Solomon) the Septuagint transliterates the word satan into Greek rather than
translating it. The same is true in v. 23 (which in the LXX forms part of v. 14). In v. 25, however,
the Septuagint translated satan with the Greek verb baruthemeo, meaning “to be indignant.”44
Why did the translator transliterate instead of translating in this case? It is a difficult question.
The majority of scholars understand the Septuagint to have been written primarily to meet the needs of

“Greek-speaking Jewish communities of Egypt, especially Alexandria.”45 It is likely that
by the time of translation in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., the Hebrew word satan had already
taken on a special significance due either to its theological (see above) or legal46 importance.
Perhaps because of this, the translator felt Greek-speaking Jews would understand the term and
there was no need to translate it. This is not the Old Testament satan text where we would most
expect to see this occur, but the different translators had their own idiosyncrasies. Indeed, the
translator(s) of 1 Kings deal with the Hebrew word satan in three different ways, two of which
are unique compared with the rest of the Septuagint.
-------------------------------------------------------
39 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 168.
40 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 101.
41 Arndt, Danker & Bauer 2000: 226.
42 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 101.
43 Kelly 2006: 31.
44 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 77.
45 Dines 2004: 44.
46 von Rad states, “So far as we can see, the word has a special place in the judicial life of Israel. The
satan is the enemy in a specific sense, i.e., the accuser at law.” (von Rad 1964: 73.)
------------------------------------------------------
We can summarise our brief survey of the Old Testament testimony by stating that the word
satan does function as a common noun meaning adversary (often with a legal connotation). It is
used of various parties, both human and angelic. However, there are two passages in which the word occurs with the definite article (‘the satan’) to refer to a specific office (or even individual)
within the heavenly court (Job 1-2; Zechariah 3). There is one further passage where the word
may be used as a proper name, Satan (1 Chronicles 21). Furthermore, satan in all three cases was
translated in the Septuagint as diabolos, and in the case of Job and Zechariah, with ho diabolos
(the accuser; the slanderer). In all three of these passages there is general agreement among Old
Testament scholars that the referent of the word satan is an angelic being. Thus we have a clear precedent for taking ‘the satan’ and ‘the slanderer’ (devil) in the New Testament to refer to an
angelic being.

3.3. Satan in the Apocrypha
The transliterated Greek term ton satanan also occurs once in the deutero-canonical portion of
the Septuagint (often referred to as the Apocrypha) in The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach
(sometimes called Ecclesiasticus). Brenton translated Sirach 21:27, “When the ungodly curseth
Satan, he curseth his own soul,” and the New English Translation of the Septuagint rendered, “When an impious person curses the satan, he curses his own soul.” By contrast, the NRSV renders, “When an ungodly person curses an adversary, he curses himself.” As the translations show, some have taken ‘satan’ here to mean adversary in the ordinary sense,47 while others, in view of the definite article, take it to refer to ‘the satan’ or Satan in a specialized sense.

For Hart, the meaning was that “not Satan, but the man himself is responsible
for his sin.”48 If this reading is correct, Sirach implicitly confirms the existence of a personal
Satan but warns against using him as an excuse for sin. More recently, however, numerous
scholars have argued that Sirach was denying Satan’s existence and identifying him with innate
human wickedness: “The satan of Sir. 21:27 is primarily the personal adversary, but the skillful
ambiguity of the saying is aimed also to stigmatize the ‘impious’ belief in the existence of the
heavenly enemy.”49 And again, “For Sirach, therefore, the devil does not exist: Satan is only a
metaphor to indicate our worst instincts.”50 51

However, while Ben Sira was “reluctant to enlarge upon the subject of angels” in light of his
conservative worldview,52 he does not explicitly oppose belief in a personal Satan. His main concern is to combat “deterministic approaches, according to which divine determinism extends
to human sin.”53
----------------------------------------------------
47 Skehan & Di Lella 1987: 311-312. See also Brunton 1927: 109-110; Quinn & Wacker 2000: 146.
48 Hart 1909: 154.
49 Boccaccini 2008: 36.
50 Sacchi 1996: 223. See also Capelli 2005: 142; Tennant 2012: 116; Kelly 2006: 75.
51 Harrington is more guarded in his analysis, stating, “Ben Sira proposes a modified dualism in which
everything (good and evil) remains under God’s sovereignty (see Isa. 45:7) and appeals somewhat
vaguely to the divine plan working itself out in the ‘nature of things.’ He does not present a strong Satan
figure who leads the children of darkness to do the deeds of darkness.” (Harrington 2005: 52)
52 cf. Bamberger 2010: 55.
53 Brand 2013: 95.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation. In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the
adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court. In these texts the
Septuagint translated the word satan with diabolos, thereby laying the foundation for the use of
the latter term in the New Testament.

The Septuagint also transliterated the Hebrew word satan into Greek on one occasion where it
refers to a human adversary (without the article). The apocryphal book of Sirach transliterated
satan with the article into Greek. Here, it may be a reference to one’s human adversary but is
more likely a polemic against blaming a personal being called ‘the satan’ for one’s sins, possibly
denying the existence of such a being and identifying him metaphorically with the evil impulse
(yetzer hara) in man.

4. Satan as a proper name in the New Testament
The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is
transliterated from Aramaic,54 but ultimately derives from Hebrew.55 It usually occurs with the
article and would thus be translated literally into English as ‘the satan’ or, if taken as a proper
name, Satan (proper names in ancient Greek are often preceded by the article, so if one were to
translate the New Testament woodenly one would have references to ‘the Jesus’).

This raises an important question: is ho satanas a proper name? There is widespread agreement
amongst scholars that indeed, Satan always functions as a proper name in the New Testament.56
Indeed, Christadelphian writer Peter Watkins all but conceded this point when he said that “Satan in the New Testament is always a special adversary – the great adversary.” However, as
we saw earlier, Christadelphian writer Duncan Heaster claimed that satanas in the New
Testament is simply a transliterated Hebrew word (Aramaic, technically) with the same generic
meaning that it takes in the Old Testament.

Is this feasible? Well, there are quite a number of transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words in
the New Testament. Some of them are proper names, including people’s names (such as Thomas
and Bartimaeus), angels’ names (such as Michael and Abaddon) and place names (such as
Sodom and Golgotha). Others are not proper names but common nouns (such as mamonas,
raka and rabbi) or other expressions (such as Amen, talitha cumi and Maran atha). Thus,
prima facie we have a basis for arguing that satanas in the New Testament is either a proper
name, Satan, or a transliterated Hebrew-Aramaic word meaning ‘adversary.’ Which is it?
First of all, it is known that Satan was being used as a proper name in Jewish writings prior to or
contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Book of Jubilees 10:11; 23:29; 50:5,57 the
Testament of Job,58 and The Assumption of Moses.59 As we noted earlier, this may even be the
-----------------------------------------------
54 Strong 2009: 1668; Partridge 1970: 157; Millard 2005: 144.
55 A textual variant in 2 Cor. 12:7 reads satan rather than satanas, which would be a transliteration
directly from Hebrew. However, textual scholars have regarded satanas as the original reading.
56 Bell 2007: 10; Guiley 2009: 222; Arndt, Danker & Bauer 2000: 916.
57 Schaferdiek 1971: 154.
58 Garrett 1998: 41.
59 Branden 2006: 17.
------------------------------------------------
case in the Old Testament in 1 Chronicles 21, as well as in the Apocrypha in Sirach 21:27
(although in the latter case it may be a polemic against the existence of the being so named).
Thus we have a precedent for taking Satan as a proper name in the New Testament.
Secondly, let us compare satanas with other transliterated Hebrew-Aramaic expressions in the
New Testament which are not proper names. In this study we are focusing especially on the
Gospel of Mark and the epistles to the Corinthians because of their audiences.

4.1. Satan as a proper name in Mark
A strong case can be made that Mark’s Gospel was written primarily to “a Greek-speaking
audience that did not know Aramaic…gentile Christians, familiar with both the gospel traditions
and the Judaism of the first century.”60 A well-supported tradition holds that Mark wrote his
Gospel for the church at Rome.61 That his readers did not know Aramaic is evident from the fact
that he provides translations of several Aramaic expressions into Greek (Mark 5:41; 7:34; 14:36;
15:34). That their familiarity with Jewish customs was limited can be seen from the explanation
provided in Mark 7:3-4.

Mark uses other Hebrew-Aramaic terms in his Gospel which he does not explain: Amen (Mark
3:28; 6:11; etc.), Gehenna (Mark 9:43, 45, 47), Hosanna (11:9-10), pascha (14:1), rabbi (Mark
9:5; 11:21; 14:45), rabboni (Mark 10:51); sabbaton (Mk 1:2 etc.), and satana (Mark 1:13, 3:23,
26; 4:15; 8:33).

In the case of pascha, this term was probably well known to Gentile Christians as 1 Cor. 5:7-8
implies that they observed the Passover festival in some form.62 Anyone with a slight knowledge
of Judaism would have known about the Sabbath, and indeed the term is transliterated nearly
100 times in the Septuagint.
Hosanna is an Aramaic term from synagogue liturgy meaning “Save us!”63 that was taken over
by the early church64 (and continues to be used in songs of praise to this day!)
Gehenna refers to a place, the Valley of Hinnom, but thereby refers metaphorically to the place
of final punishment. This term could not have been translated into Greek without retaining at least the

‘Hinnom’ or ‘Henna’ as a transliterated name (as the Septuagint did, e.g. pharanx
huiou Ennom, Jer. 7:32). It is thus effectively a proper name, and the transliteration rather than translation of the ‘Ge’ prefix probably means that it had become a technical theological term in
the early church (as it did in rabbinic Judaism as well).

Since John provides translations for the terms rabbi and rabboni in his Gospel (1:38; 20:16), it
stands to reason that Gentile readers could not necessarily be assumed to know these Aramaic
terms. Mark may have assumed his readers would recognize that these terms were equivalent to
------------------------------------------------
60 Stein 2008: 9-10.
61 Stein 2008: 10.
62 See Marshall 1980: 117.
63 Millard 2005: 140.
64 Dormeyer 1998: 147.
-------------------------------------------------
the Greek didaskalos, which he used more frequently and in an almost identical way (as a form
of respectful address).

Thus, in the case of all the other transliterated Semitic terms in Mark, we have either a
translation into Greek, or a plausible explanation for how the term would have been known to
the early church. However, for the term satanas there is no obvious explanation. As we saw
above, the similar transliteration satan occurs in just one obscure text in the Septuagint, and
without the article at that. This is hardly grounds for Mark to assume that his readers would
know what he was talking about when he referred to ho satanas with the article.
Simply put, if we look for other transliterated Semitic terms in Mark which occur with the article
and are not translated for the reader, all we will find are proper names: ho iesous (Jesus) and
ton ioannen (John) in Mark 1:14, ho herodes (Herod) in Mark 6:17, to pilato (Pilate) in Mark
15:1, etc.

It must therefore be concluded that in Mark, ho satanas is the proper name or title of a specific
entity or at very least the technical term for a specific theological idea which had become wellknown
in the church. It cannot be allowed to vary in meaning from one passage to another. As
Gibson explains,

“The figure whom Mark designates as the perpetrator of Jesus’ Wilderness temptation,
whether called Satan or one of a host of other names, was not an ‘unknown quantity’. On
the contrary, in Mark’s time and in the thought world which Mark and his audience
shared, Satan’s identity and the activities characteristic of him were both well-defined and widely known.”65
“ho Satanas is here at Mk 1.13a a proper name, not a common noun, and denotes a
particular being, a distinct personality”66
Hence, “Satanology is an important theme for Mark”67 as opposed to a scattering of references to
various adversaries.

Christadelphians might claim that ho satanas is the ‘proper name’ of a personification of evil
desires, which became established in the early church as a technical theological term. As we saw
earlier, numerous scholars interpret Sirach 21:27 as identifying ho satanas with evil desires and
rejecting the idea of a personal being called ho satanas. From this premise one could argue that
the early church followed this wisdom tradition and rejected the apocalyptic tradition which
viewed Satan as the proper name of a personal being.

One problem with this view is that, if it were the case, we would expect the New Testament to be
explicit about it and clearly differentiate between the true, figurative doctrine of Satan and the
false, literal doctrine of Satan. The need to be explicit about this would have been especially
----------------------------------------------
65 Gibson 2004: 58.
66 Gibson 2004: 58 n. 54.
67 Dochhorn 2013: 104.
-------------------------------------------
great in books with a great deal of apocalyptic imagery, such as Matthew and Revelation, since
the doctrine of a real, personal Satan was firmly entrenched in apocalyptic Judaism.68
Instead, the New Testament writers consistently assume that their readers know what they
mean by ho satanas. Even more remarkably, they consistently refer to ho satanas as though
he were a person, as Christadelphians acknowledge. This is the last kind of figurative
language that would be expected from a church seeking to distance itself from the view that ho
satanas was a personal being!

This problem comes to the fore in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 3:23, 26 ho satanas clearly refers to a
personal being, equivalent to Beelzebul, the prince of demons (Mark 3:22). This person is the
referent of ho satanas here even if it is claimed that Jesus did not believe in his existence but
only assumed it for the sake of argument (itself a dubious claim in view of the parable in Mark
3:27).69

Since we have already seen that satanas in Mark functions as a proper name or title and not a
generic term for adversary, we are required to infer that satanas has the same meaning in Mark
1:13 and 4:15 as it has in 3:23-26, especially since satanas occurs with the article in all three
texts.70 It can be said with near certainty that Mark would not use the transliterated Aramaic
term ho satanas with the article to refer to two or three71 different ‘satans’ without defining ‘the
satan’ clearly in each case.

Given that ho satanas functions as a proper name in Mark, in order to avoid the conclusion that
it is the proper name of a personal being we must either interpret ho satanas in Mark 1:13 and 4:15 as ‘the alleged personal Satan believed in by the Jews,’ or else interpret ho satanas in Mark
3:23-26 as the personification of the evil desires. Neither option is plausible. In this case, the
implication of taking Satan as a proper name is that Satan refers to a real personal being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
In the Hebrew Bible, anyone or any creature can be a satan, an adversary
in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation
In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court.

(yester ra) - denying the existence of such a being and identifying him metaphorically with the evil impulse (yetzer hara) in man.

1- anyone can be a satan – because the word just means accuser / oppose
2-Hebrew satan is an angel of the Lord working for the Lord (heavenly court)
3- (yester ra) - Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by his own desire / lust.
4- This is NOT Jewish demonology
5- Jewish demonology revolves around the shedim / other gods / and demons

The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is transliterated from Aramaic,
there are quite a number of transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words in the New Testament.

the conclusion that
… we must either interpret ho satanas in Mark 1:13 and 4:15 as ‘the alleged personal Satan believed in by the Jews,’ (Hebrew satan)
or else interpret ho satanas in Mark 3:23-26 as the personification of the evil desires. (yester ra)

Neither option is plausible. In this case, the implication of taking Satan as a proper name is that Satanas refers to a real personal being.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down—the ancient serpent, called the devil and satanas, who deceives the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels (messengers) were thrown down with him.

Dave Conclusion
OT Hebrew satan (G4566 of Hebrew origin) = Heaven’s Prosecutor
is NOT the same person / entity / angel (messenger) as
NT satanas (G4567 of Chaldean origin) = the BEAST of Revelation – the old dragon – the ancient serpent – that we call devils and satanas
James Tabor calls it the BIGGEST PARADYGM SHIFT IN THE HISTORY OF THOUGHT

The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the BEAST that deceive the whole world
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the serpent
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the serpent and the serpent’s seed

The only question that remains between Robert and I
The Catholic interpretation of Ezk 28 and Isa 14 that The BEAST of Revelation was once a good-guy angel of the Lord that Rebelled out of pride – proclaimed himself the god of evil – took 1/3rd of all God’s angels away from God for the purpose of opposing God’s right to rule the universe, because Robert’s SDA satan hates God and opposes God.

Robert – cannot deny this false tradition – because he entire theology is built upon it
Ellen White’s SDA tradition revolves around two gods in heaven locked in a cosmic struggle – a god of tov only that creates –and- a god of ra a second creator that created himself is responsible for the fall of God’s creation

Dave –
Jewish belief #1 – God is absolute – Anything that has come into being was made by God for God. God is absolute – His creation is exactly as He Willed it to be.
Jewish belief #2 – God tests His people. - Why does God test His people? Deu 8:2 … in order to humble you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His mitzvot or not.
Jewish belief #3 - Why does God do it? - To reveal Himself, to reveal His power and glory
(to prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God)

Isa 45:5 I am Adonai—there is no other. Besides Me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not known Me,
Isa 45:6 so they may know, from the rising to the setting of the sun, that there is no one besides Me. I am Adonai—there is no other.
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness (choshek). I make shalom (tov) and create calamity (ra). I, Adonai, do all these things.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and apart from Him nothing was made that has come into being.

Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, (G746 - Archon / Principalities)

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones or angelic powers or rulers (G746 - Archon / Principalities) or authorities. All was created through Him and for Him.

Rev 4:11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, For You created all things, and because of Your will they existed and were created!”

Authoritative Teaching
And 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.

POINT – Catholic – Fallen Angels that fell from pride – rebelling, hating, and opposing God’s right to rule the universe – IS A CATHOLIC MYTH – and never existed before the Roman Catholic Church used it as a Machiavellian enemy that only a Priest – the Church and the Pope could save you from

The Gnostic Alternative
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was chaos and waste, darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the surface of the water.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good. So God distinguished the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” So there was evening and there was morning—one day.
Gen 1:31 So God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good. (tov)

Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness (choshek). I make shalom (tov) and create calamity (ra). I, Adonai, do all these things.
H2822 – חֹשֶׁךְ - chôshek
the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

POINT – the order = Creation – Darkness / Ignorance – LIGHT – separation – Day 1 – all tov

Gnostic -
Step 1 - God created the heavens (plural)
These are spiritual realms – filled with spiritual beings – messengers (angels) + others (Host)
Judaism + Gnostic – this includes man – spiritual man

Step 2 - God created earth
God’s Laws of Nature – God’s Laws of Thermodynamics - matter comes with ENTROPY
Without entropy there is no movement – no translation or transmutation of energy
Each creation = a step down in E (entropy)

Jewish – God is in the Highest Heaven – the 7th Heaven
Jewish – man is in the lower world
Gnostic – heavens (plural) = 10 D = 7 D (heavens) above) and we are 3D matter at the bottom
Gnostic – each D (heaven) = a step down in E (entropy
Matter comes with ENTROPY

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. - to devour

POINT – the order = Creation – Darkness / Ignorance

The Hypostasis of the Archons
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'.

The BEAST (First Archon) was the first sentient creature of matter
Opening his eyes – his only thought was of SELF – I am alone – there is no one but me
Saying this he sinned against the entirety

Robert cannot understand why this is not the original sin the changed all of creation
1- all of creation has not happed yet – still Day 1
2- a voice came from heaven and said – sorry you’re wrong
What was said = IGNORANCE of God
IGNORANCE is not a sin – as later defined as transgression of God’s Commandments

Step 3 - “Let there be light!”
“The Light” = Christ – the image of God in the matter –
The Light that illuminates and expels the Darkness
Rev 12:5 - a son, a man child, who is to rule - unto God, and unto his throne.
John 8:12 - Jesus - said, “I am the light of the world”
Psalm 18:28 - For it is you who light my lamp; the LORD my God lightens my darkness.
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation

Step 4 - God distinguished the light from the darkness.
God divided the light from the darkness.
God divided the light from the darkness.
John 8:12 – Jesus - said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

The Hypostasis of the Archons
Now when Yaldabaoth saw him (Sabaoth) in this great splendor and at this height, he envied him; and the envy became an androgynous product, and this was the origin of envy. And envy engendered death; and death engendered his offspring and gave each of them charge of its heaven; and all the heavens of chaos became full of their multitudes. But it was by the will of the father of the entirety that they all came into being – after the pattern of all the things above – so that the sum of chaos might be attained.

POINT - Jewish belief #1 – God is absolute – Anything that has come into being was made by God for God. God is absolute – His creation is exactly as He Willed it to be.
Dave – all God’s Plan – all God’s Will

Step 5 – Day 1 – the Gnostic First Age – the first link in Dispensation
-----------------------------------------------------

Gnostic – Day1 – the Gnostic First Age - represents God’s entire message to man
1- a creation – order - a beginning
2- an opportunity to do right – but choose wrong = a chaos
3- the introduction of salvation – via the LIGHT – Jesus Christ – the image of God with creation

Gnostic Second Age
1- God creates planet Earth and a location called Eden
order - a beginning
2- an opportunity to do right – but choose wrong = a chaos
Gen 2:17 – the first Commandment give to man
Gen 3:6 – Eve transgressed the Commandment of God
The definition of sin
3- the introduction of salvation – via the LIGHT – Jesus Christ – the image of God with creation

Scripture says – NOAH
Gnostic / Jewish Midrash / Kabbalah –

The First Book of Adam and Eve
14:3 Again said God unto Adam, "All this misery that thou hast been made to take upon thee because of thy transgression, will not free thee from the hand of Satan, and will not save thee.
4 "But I will. When I shall come down from heaven, and shall become flesh of thy seed, and take upon Me the infirmity from which thou sufferest, then the darkness that came upon thee in this cave shall come upon Me in the grave, when I am in the flesh of thy seed.
5 "And I, who am without years, shall be subject to the reckoning of years, of times, of months, and of days, and I shall be reckoned as one of the sons of men, in order to save thee."
6 And God ceased to commune with Adam.

22: 6 Then God said again unto Adam, "Because thou hast borne fear and trembling in this land, languor and suffering treading and walking about, going upon this mountain, and dying from it, I will take all this upon Myself in order to save thee."

24: 4 Then came the Word of God to Adam, and said unto him, "O Adam, as thou hast shed thy blood, so will I shed My own blood when I become flesh of thy seed; and as thou didst die, O Adam, so also will I die. And as thou didst build an altar, so also will I make for thee an altar on the earth; and as thou didst offer thy blood upon it, so also will I offer My blood upon an altar on the earth.

5 "And as thou didst sue for forgiveness through that blood, so also will I make My blood forgiveness of sins, and blot out transgressions in it.

Gnostic Third Age
1- Noah and sons star over
2- Nimrod – Tammuz – Ishtar – Babble – chaos
3- Abraham and Israel – the Light unto the world

Gnostic Forth Age
1- Israel
2- Religion become a tool for the rich and powerful
Weakened it become occupied and oppressed
3- The First Coming of Jesus Christ

Gnostic Fifth Age
1- Age of the gentile
2- Today
3- The Second Coming of Jesus Christ

Ecc 3:1  For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: 

Ecc 1:9  That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 

Ecc 1:10  Is there a thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been long ago, in the ages which were before us. 

Ecc 1:11  There is no remembrance of the former generations; neither shall there be any remembrance of the latter generations that are to come, among those that shall come after. 

Dave - all God's Plan - all God's Will

Gnostic Christianity 101

[rob]

You write an interesting account of your theory Dave.

You reach different conclusions than me, using Christadelphians article:

Christadelphians" In all three of these passages there is general agreement among Old Testament scholars that the referent of the word satan is an angelic being. Thus we have a clear precedent for taking ‘the satan’ and ‘the slanderer’ (devil) in the New Testament to refer to an angelic being.

ROB" Christadelphians see Satan as an angel being, not a creature called archon-satanas (spirit body with some matter).
DUH - of couse the archon (satans - devils - demons) are messenger spirit beings
I have bee saying this - and you have been denying it

The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is transliterated from Aramaic,54 but ultimately derives from Hebrew.55 It usually occurs with the article and would thus be translated literally into English as ‘the satan’ or, if taken as a proper name, Satan (proper names in ancient Greek are often preceded by the article, so if one were to translate the New Testament woodenly one would have references to ‘the Jesus’)

ROB" Christadelphians see Satanas as the satan in the OT.
You missrepresent - you lie to make a point

The New Testament was originally composed in Greek.25 However, satanas, as it occurs 38 times in 36 verses of the New Testament, is not a Greek word.
The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is
transliterated from Aramaic,54 ------ but ultimately derives from Hebrew.55

transliterated from Aramaic, = of Chaldean origin

However, as we saw earlier, Christadelphian writer Duncan Heaster claimed that satanas in the New Testament is simply a transliterated Hebrew word (Aramaic, technically) with the same generic meaning that it takes in the Old Testament.

ROB" Christadelphians see Satanas as the satan in the OT.
You missrepresent - you lie to make a point

The majority of scholars understand the Septuagint to have been written primarily to meet the needs of “Greek-speaking Jewish communities of Egypt, especially Alexandria.”45 It is likely that
by the time of translation in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., the Hebrew word satan had already
taken on a special significance due either to its theological (see above) or legal46 importance.

In summary, then, it would be anachronistic to read a later concept of Satan back into the Old Testament, and indeed, from a historical perspective there may be “no single Satan figure of the Old Testament.

In summary, in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation. In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the
adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court.”

First of all, it is known that Satan was being used as a proper name in Jewish writings prior to or contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Book of Jubilees 10:11; 23:29; 50:5,57

ROB" Christadelphians note Jews have in later times, a Satan being.
Yep - and you totally reject the Book of Jubliees
10% of the nephilim remains to father the Rephiem - and when you kill a Nephilim in 3D form -- his spirit remains on earth as our evil spirits
Yep - and you totally reject the Book of Jubliees
Of course satanas is a being - THE BEAST OF REVELATION IS REAL


On the contrary, in Mark’s time and in the thought world which Mark and his audience shared, Satan’s identity and the activities characteristic of him were both well-defined and widely known.”65 “ho Satanas is here at Mk 1.13a a proper name, not a common noun, and denotes a particular being, a distinct personality

ROB" Christadelphians see Satanas as the satan in the OT, with a distinct personality.

I did not read of anything where Christadelphians treat satanas differently to satan, and they do not speak of satanas as another being termed archons.
The point of the paper was to correct the false beliefs of the Christadelphians
This is part of a series of exegetical articles on the subject of the devil and Satan, and more
specifically on evaluating the soundness of the Christadelphian view of the matter by a detailed
analysis of biblical passages. … The focus of this article is more specifically on the significance of the word Satan (Greek: satanas) in the New Testament. …

I thought this thread was about proving scholars support your views of Satanas and Archons?
This paper defends that G4567 is of Chaldean origin
and is a different entity all togeher from G4566 of Hebrew origin

I am happy to discuss your discussion, show me your scholarly articles / passages.
(must have words like satanas and archons) 

Evidently you deny that
Rev 12:9  - great dragon - was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and satanad (G4567), the deceiver of the whole world; (demons)
Is Our real struggle - our real enemy as Christians
Eph 6:12  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities (archon), against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (demons)
Who were created by God for God
Col 1:16  for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; (demons)
To be used by God
Gen 3:15  and I will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the serpent's seed and her seed:
If The BEAST - - the serpent - that we call devils and sanatans (demons)
Are not our real struggle as Christians - who is?

SHalom

[rob]

Dave edited my post, rather than making your own post?

Dave writes:

The point of the paper was to correct the false beliefs of the Christadelphians

ROB" OK so the Author is not supporting your view, is he Dave?

This paper defends that G4567 is of Chaldean origin
and is a different entity all togeher from G4566 of Hebrew origin

ROB" It does? Where? I did not read that anywhere, I must be dull in reading, or the words are not plain and easy to fathom?

Maybe the language is big words to confound the simple reader?

"it would be anachronistic to read a later concept of Satan back into the Old Testament," belonging to a period other than that being portrayed:

Confound the reader with big fancy confusions.... like doctors do with diseases...

Like your James Tabor, talking your view without using the words satanas and archons.

Come on Dave, show me a sentence with satanas in it and with archons in it, that any layman can read easily.

Even Bing can't find any, though I doubt it has access to the entire Internet of data.

Are you having trouble with my request?

You asked me for a pre Roman supporter of Ezekiel 28? Well I found Rabbi Jonathon Cahn, speaking of the "anointed cherub" as a fallen angel called Satan.

If a Jew sees this idea post Roman and post Catholic edit, than there must be a Jew who also saw this verse before the Catholics did.

Even the oft-cited example of the Satan as a rogue angel is a gross misunderstanding. Satan is merely the name of an angel whose divinely assigned task is to seduce people towards sin. This angel is also the prosecutor who levels charges in front of the heavenly court against those who succumb to his crafty seductions.

How can a good angel have two functions

1) seduce humans to sin'
2) prosecute humans for their sins

This is a conflict of interest? A prosecutor is not allowed to help a human do a crime and than prosecute the human for the crime. That is not allowed.

Really these Jews write some weird stuff.

SO by definition the angel is NOT a prosecutor in our human court definitions after all?

This angel is also the prosecutor who levels charges in front of the heavenly court against those who succumb to his crafty seductions.

An accuser of the humans is a better term.

In the Sinai files Jews write that angels do guard the ten commandments.

QUestion: How can angels do that if they do not have free will to sin?

Really these Jews write some weird stuff.


I prefer to support Rabbi Cahn on his angel and fallen angel satan idea, it follows the torah completely.

You have to show me your satanas and archon sentences written by scholars.
I am still waiting for your evidence.

Shalom

[Dave]

ROB" OK so the Author is not supporting your view, is he Dave?
This paper defends that G4567 is of Chaldean origin
and is a different entity all togeher from G4566 of Hebrew origin
ROB" It does? Where? I did not read that anywhere, I must be dull in reading, or the words are not plain and easy to fathom?
I AGREE 100%

Maybe the language is big words to confound the simple reader?
Yep – you spend all your time here stumbling over words

"it would be anachronistic to read a later concept of Satan back into the Old Testament," belonging to a period other than that being portrayed:

Confound the reader with big fancy confusions

First you say - Where? I did not read that anywhere, I must be dull
Then you post my point and then define it

Like your James Tabor, talking your view without using the words satanas and archons.
Yep – you spend all your time here stumbling over words

You asked me for a pre Roman supporter of Ezekiel 28? Well I found Rabbi Jonathon Cahn,
Did Rabbi Cahn say this before 300AD and the Roman Catholic Church was invented
A pre-Roman source?
Be honest – if that is possible

Even the oft-cited example of the Satan as a rogue angel is a gross misunderstanding. Satan is merely the name of an angel whose divinely assigned task is to seduce people towards sin. This angel is also the prosecutor who levels charges in front of the heavenly court against those who succumb to his crafty seductions.

How can a good angel have two functions
1) seduce humans to sin'
2) prosecute humans for their sins
This is a conflict of interest? A prosecutor is not allowed to help a human do a crime and than prosecute the human for the crime. That is not allowed.
Really these Jews write some weird stuff.

the oft-cited example of the Satan as a rogue angel is a gross misunderstanding

Yes – your Catholic satan tradition does not fit scripture
Yes – your Catholic satan is NOT validated precept upon precept, line upon line

Satan as a rogue angel is a gross misunderstanding

The ARCHON are OUR REAL STRUGGLE - 1) seduce humans to sin'
Hebrew satan - 2) prosecute humans for their sins

In the Sinai files Jews write that angels do guard the ten commandments.
QUestion: How can angels do that if they do not have free will to sin?
Really these Jews write some weird stuff.
Why is it necessary to be able to sin to serve your god?
Sounds like something a satan worshiper would say

[rob]

Greetings Dave

Dave" Why is it necessary to be able to sin to serve your god?

ROb" Are you dull? if the angels guard the laws of GOD and they have no free will to sin, why would they bother guarding the laws of GOD, because they cannot sin?

But Jews can around this idea by saying a second definition to sin, is by righteously wandering away from GOD.

But wandering away is still using free will, hence a sin. Why is it so hard to make Jews see their logic makes no sense? When I read the Sinai files it is clear angels have intelligence and can reason, therefore have free will to sin. A mozzie has no free will to sin, the male mozzie still eat nectar, but the female mozzie wandered away from God's ideal plans so in order to survive, she drinks blood instead to nurture her babies. So in this example the female mozzie does not sin, because it has no free will, nor can it reason like humans can. Are angels that low down the creation chain? I don't think so.


The problem I find with Jews is they do not read Ezekiel 28, but Rabbi Cahn does and did, and uses the knowledge to speak of the return of shedim to the USA.

So not all Jews are fixated by traditions and precepts of men. Some like Rabbi Cahn do see the torah as the torah really is. Another Rabbi who raised the question of Ezekiel 28 is Rabbi Apple, remember Dave? So it seems to me some Jews do read the torah as the torah reads.

Dave" This paper defends that G4567 is of Chaldean origin
and is a different entity all togeher from G4566 of Hebrew origin

Rob" Why would you bother to post a paper that confirms this idea? Really Dave I already agree that satanas is a so called loan word and it different to the Hebrew word satan. So? You are supposed to show readers that satanas and archons are used in sentences by scholars? Can't you do this simple task?

SHalom

[Dave]

Dave" Why is it necessary to be able to sin to serve your god?
ROb" Are you dull? if the angels guard the laws of GOD and they have no free will to sin, why would they bother guarding the laws of GOD, because they cannot sin?
You need to post scripture – you do not know what you are talking about

But Jews can around this idea by saying a second definition to sin, is by righteously wandering away from GOD.
SIN = the transgression of God’s Commandments
RA = the movement away from God

But wandering away is still using free will, hence a sin.
Yes – to reject God is a sin – 1st Commandment
Yes – to replace God with the WORLD = sin - agree

Why is it so hard to make Jews see their logic makes no sense?
What is complicated?
FREE WILL = the ability to choose God or choose the WORLD

When I read the Sinai files it is clear angels have intelligence and can reason, therefore have free will to sin.
FREE WILL – has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence
FREE WILL = the ability to choose God or choose the WORLD
FREE WILL = the ability to choose God or choose the WORLD – regardless of your IQ

A mozzie has no free will to sin,
I agree – the 10 Commandments do not apply to BEAST
You disagree – the Beast sinned first – the BEAST caused the original sin according to you
1 John 3:8 – sinned from the beginning – you cannt repeat it enough

The problem I find with Jews is they do not read Ezekiel 28,
Correct – you cannot witness Jesus as the Messiah
You demand they accept both Jesus and satan as gods –
You only offer two for one

Dave" This paper defends that G4567 is of Chaldean origin
and is a different entity all together from G4566 of Hebrew origin
Rob" Why would you bother to post a paper that confirms this idea? Really Dave I already agree that satanas is a so called loan word and it different to the Hebrew word satan.

When have you denied all of your own pro-evil -satan teaching of the OT?
When have you admitted that – all OT reference to ha satan has nothing to do with the BEAST of
Revelation
When have you admitted that OT satan is just an angle of the Lord working for the Lord?

When did all of your satan theology change?

So? You are supposed to show readers that satanas and archons are used in sentences by scholars?

The question is not about demons Dave, but WHO are the demons? WHERE did the demons come from?
Answer – They are all the BEAST – the serpent race – that we call devils and satanas (G4567) – DUH
Answer – They are all the demons of the OT – other gods and shedim (Beelzebub)
They are called archon by the first and second century Pentecostal Messianic Jews (Christians)
God established a Contest between man and man’s seed –vs- the serpent and the serpent’s seed – Gen 3:15
They are our real struggle – Eph 6:12
They were created by God for God – Col 1:16
They were created for God – His Plan – His Will – Rev 4:11
If the BEAST exist – God made him – John 1:3

My quest to you is show me your theories, from scholars using words like "satanas" and "archons", which you have not done as yet.

Eph 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Col 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

OUR REAL STRUGGLE as Christians is with the:
the NON-FLESH AND BLOOD principalities ARCHON (G746), against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. - invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities ARCHON (G746) or powers

WHO were all created by God for God

If OUR REAL STRUGGLE as Christians is NOT with the:
Rev 12:9 - the great dragon - the old serpent, - that is called the Devil and satanas (G4567), the deceiver of the whole world;

Then who are the Principalities of Eph 6:12 – in Ellen White imaginary denial land

Why do you work so hard to deny the spiritual realm and the evil spirit demons that hinder man’s worship of the HS?

[rob]

Greetings Dave"
Dave" You need to post scripture – you do not know what you are talking about
Rob" the Sinai files is not scripture, it is totally invented by a Jewish writer. And adopted as Jewish truth by traditions.

Very few Jews follow sola torah, as I do. Some like Jewish Rabbi Cahn does though, so that is very refreshing for me.

Dave" SIN = the transgression of God’s Commandments
RA = the movement away from God
ROb" nice, but not backed up by the torah.

So are you denying the torah definition of sin?

Dave" Yes – to reject God is a sin – 1st Commandment
ROB" wow Dave you agree with me.

SO when angels decided to break faith with elohiym powers first commandent law, I am your saviour, they shape shift (without a Creator - impossible) and had sex with women adam kind (also impossible). So these angels would have had to have sinned. Yes I agree.

But the gen 6 verse is not speaking of angels at all, but humans.

There were two human lines in Adam's day, Cains line and Seth's line. The two were distinct. Until one day they mingled by interbreeding marriages, forbidden by the oral torah.

All humans in Adam's day were really big and tall. 


Dave" FREE WILL = the ability to choose God or choose the WORLD
ROb" Why do you write so weird? GOD owns the world too. God owns everything, except free will to choose.

So the question is choose GOD or not choose GOD.

Why must you add matter as some enemy of GOD?

You even quib GOD creating entropy in matter. That is wrong Dave.

GOD engineers matter as He wishes. Any way God wishes. SO why make a big deal over entropy as RA ?

Either GOD is all TOV or all RA, or God is both tov and ra? Which of these three is it?

ALL RA, hardly as God is love.

Both TOV and RA? No the ten laws do not allow for both TOV and RA, only TOV only.

But you preach matter is some enemy against GOD, as if GOD intentionally uses RA on purpose, this idea is bogus.

When entropy came into the world of matter, is because GOD withdrew his powers from matter. GOD is always in control and always over matter as a power.

Even when SIN came, GOD had to respond, and GOD allowed SIN to be observed.
So the choice is choose GOD or not choose GOD.

Be honest and stop making GOD is a creator of both tov and ra, Ask yourself why does God create ra when required? Answer because creatures wish to sin.


Dave" FREE WILL – has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence
ROB" I beg to differ, there is only one verse about this theme

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;

Reason is about higher intelligence to choose. (Free will in not in the torah as a word, hence the only word we have is "reason")

An earthworm cannot choose, because it has not higher powers to think, neither can a mozzie.

Dave" You disagree – the Beast sinned first – the BEAST caused the original sin according to you
ROB" because the beast was a cherub that sinned. I have Jewish Rabbi Cahn supporting my view.

You don't have any scholar supporting your view that the beast has no free will and thus cannot sin, and was designed by GOD to be archons who are satanas beings.

I am still waiting for some scholar who agrees with this idea?

Dave" You demand they (Jews) accept both Jesus and satan as gods –
ROB" Hmm? but Rabbi Cahn supports my view, so not all Jews support precepts of men and follow traditions of Jews, some Jews read the torah as the torah reads.


Dave" When have you admitted that OT satan is just an angle of the Lord working for the Lord?
ROb" I haven't.

Your paper presented didn't say that either. Come on Dave, be honest and start posting a scholar who supports your view.

So? You are supposed to show readers that satanas and archons are used in sentences by scholars?

Dave" When did all of your satan theology change?
ROb" It hasn't. I support Rabbi Cahn, and you said you supported rabbi Cahn, but you don't. He uses the Ezekiel 28 verse, but you refuse to.

Your support of Rabbi Cahn has changed. Not mine.

My quest to you is show me your theories, from scholars using words like "satanas" and "archons", which you have not done as yet. Still waiting.

Dave" WHO were all created by God for God
ROB" do you really support the idea that the non moral sinning these archons do, is designed and fully supported by GOD?

Weird notion that GOD would design sinning creatures to tempt humans to morally sin. Punish humans for moral sins, but not punish archons for non-moral sins. Really Dave, make a contradiction over sins.

So the world killing Job's children is a non moral sin act by archons in Job, is it? Nothing to do with a prosecutor angel?

In my view GOD cannot design sin, nor create sin, nor even allow RA into his creation by any means.

So why was the earth form and void and in darkness? Because sinning angels were already living on earth.

Not because God creates out of chaos.

Previously earth was nice and functional until sinning angels were banished there.

So you really believe GOD designs non-moral sinning creatures intentionally? weird.


Dave" Why do you work so hard to deny the spiritual realm and the evil spirit demons that hinder man’s worship of the HS?
ROB" Who says man is to worship the HS? Are you OK Dave?
Show me a Bible text?

We are to worship the Father and the Son via the Medium of the HS, not worship the HS directly? Is this an idiom on your part?

Why would the Father design non-moral creatures to take away worship of humans to Himself?

Develop free will?

Why does free will need developing with temptations to wander away from the Father?

Would you design a car with faulty brakes Dave on purpose? Would a surgeon leave the scissors inside the body of a human intentionally? Would you tempt your wife with adultery on purpose to test her faithfulness? Is that fair? Is this an act of love?

So you are saying the Father is not functional at all? Testing free will implies the function is not functional?

Something wrong in your logic. Please try to answer all these questions.

Shalom

[Dave]

Dave" You need to post scripture – you do not know what you are talking about
Rob" the Sinai files is not scripture, it is totally invented
Why do you post bull shit here?

Dave" SIN = the transgression of God’s Commandments
RA = the movement away from God
So are you denying the torah definition of sin?
Dave" Yes – to reject God is a sin – 1st Commandment
ROB" wow Dave - you agree with me.
DUH - Dave" SIN = the transgression of God’s Commandments
-----------------------------------------------------

SO when angels decided to break faith with elohiym powers first commandent law, I am your saviour,
Not the First Commandment

they shape shift (without a Creator - impossible)
We have had this discussions many times – you overwhelming response to anything and everything = I do not believe = we believe you – God hears you

As I have said many times – they never change – they can make you see
Just as a hypnotist can make you cluck like a chicken – or eat an onion and think it an apple
They ARCHON can make you see the differently

David Ike saw a reptilian – it morphed into a man in a suit
The reptilian never changed – it just made David Ike see an illusion

and had sex with women adam kind (also impossible).
The serpent – is biological – and does procreate – serpent’s seed

So these angels would have had to have sinned. Yes I agree.
Yes – and they are locked away – Jude / 2Peter

But the gen 6 verse is not speaking of angels at all, but humans.

Job 1:6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.
No sons of men in heaven

Jud 1:6 And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

If these two verse are not about angels messengers in Gen 6
Then – Paul is wrong – there is no real struggle – serpents and the devils / demons / and all satans (pl) are locked away –
Then – John is wrong – the BEAST is not thrown down to deceive the whole world – the beast is thrown down to chains in prision awaiting judgment day

Dave" FREE WILL = the ability to choose God or choose the WORLD
ROb" Why do you write so weird?
So the question is choose GOD or not choose GOD.
Just a word game

You even quib GOD creating entropy in matter. That is wrong Dave.
The Laws of Nature are God’s signature – Intelligent Design – balanced and functional

GOD engineers matter as He wishes.
You just said he couldn’t

Dave" FREE WILL – has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence
ROB" I beg to differ,
Why does your Ellen White god hate the stupid – mentally challenged – learning disabled – or retaded

Dave" Why do you work so hard to deny the spiritual realm and the evil spirit demons that hinder man’s worship of the HS?
ROB" Who says man is to worship the HS? Are you OK Dave?
Show me a Bible text?
We are to worship the Father and the Son via the Medium of the HS, not worship the HS directly?
Just more word games
Answer – TRINITY - DUH

[rob]

Greetings Dave
Dave" DUH - Dave" SIN = the transgression of God’s Commandments
ROB" You never saw the commandment laws as eternal and things GOD himself guards, so to never sin either.

But now you say humans have to follow them as well as angels. why not GOD too?


Dave" Just as a hypnotist can make you cluck like a chicken – or eat an onion and think it an apple
They ARCHON can make you see the differently
ROB" OK I can accept this, a powerful creature GOD created to test free will, don't you think? unfair to grant a creature so much power against humans?

Why do you agree that some angels did sin in Gen 6, and are locked away for sins?

But other creatures God made to tempt humans to sin, who never morally sin? called archons?

ROBPP" So the question is choose GOD or not choose GOD.
Dave" Just a word game
ROb" I don't think so.


Dave" Why does your Ellen White god hate the stupid – mentally challenged – learning disabled – or retaded
ROb" who said she did?

Dave" Just more word games
Answer – TRINITY - DUH
ROB" you don't have a trinity Dave, three expressions of the same being is one being, not trinity.

Eze 1:6 And every one had four faces,

Here is a cherub with four faces. Does this make the cherub a quadinity? Hardly. Just one cherub.

I can't use a Jewish Rabbi to support my view, because you call me BS and garbage, so you hold little for what I say anymore. You even ignore Scripture I present.

Even if another Jew reads as I do, you still term this BS.

You even didn't like Rabbi Apple opinions either.

Would not matter who I bring to the table, you will not agree with any evidence presented.

Shalom

[Dave]

Dave" DUH - Dave" SIN = the transgression of God’s Commandments
ROB" You never saw the commandment laws as eternal and things
Correct – the before the Command were given they did not exist
and your teaching is NOT scriptural

Rom 4:15 for the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.
Rom 5:13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

But now you say humans have to follow them as well as angels. why not GOD too?
No I don’t – and why this discussion is coming to and end
You are not academically honest –
you will be as dishonest as you need to be to protect your satan as a god in heaven

Why do you agree that some angels did sin in Gen 6, and are locked away for sins?
Because it is what scriptures tell us
Angels messengers of the BEAST – archon – serpent’s seed – devils – demons - satanas
Fathered the Nephilim – they and their Nephilim children caused the FLOOD

Yes they sinned – they violated the commandment to BEAST – reproduce after your own kind
Proving that the URGE of (yester ra) is strong –
The archon procreated in the invisible spirit realm – once in more human form – they procreated in man

Yes they sinned – they violated the commandment to BEAST – reproduce after your own kind
And they are all locked away and waiting for judgment day
-------------------------------------------------------

ROBPP" So the question is choose GOD or not choose GOD.
Dave" Just a word game
ROb" I don't think so.
The question is always – choose the creator – or creation (created things)
Yes – you are just playing a word game

Dave" Why does your Ellen White god hate the stupid – mentally challenged – learning disabled – or retaded
ROb" who said she did?
You and her teach you must be intelligent to b saved – so if you are not intelligent you do not have a chance at salvation – this is an example of the unrequited love your god displays?

Dave" Just more word games
Answer – TRINITY - DUH
ROB" you don't have a trinity Dave, three expressions of the same being is one being, not trinity.
Just more Robert word games

[rob]

Greetings Dave

Dave" The question is always – choose the creator – or creation (created things)
Yes – you are just playing a word game
ROB" wow you really are off track

which is important GOD or his creation?

What does the first commandment say?

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

No other elohiym powers before my face.

And the Jesus version is

Ho 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

NO saviour but me.

Again not a single mention of God's creation.

I am not playing word games, I read the torah as the torah reads, correctly.

You are way off track my friend.

Stick to the torah as the torah reads.

The first commandment is only about GOD.

Dave" You and her teach you must be intelligent to b saved – so if you are not intelligent you do not have a chance at salvation – this is an example of the unrequited love your god displays?
ROB" You sir should apologize to your readers for mocking people and ideas at your emotional whims. Ellen White says nothing of the thing you refer, nor do I?

It you can't talk, you can pray in silence in your mind, the most common method of communion Rob uses. If you can't pray formally with bent knee, God accepts your prayers while driving a car seated, or lying on your back in bed.

What on earth are you trying to say?
===================

Now I downloaded hundred of pages of the Caesar's Messiah and did a 5 Hebrew word study, looking up hundreds of references taking over an hour to read and search and compare to Ellen White.

Testing Caesar's Messiah


(1) God 323 references
(a) Hebrew word Yeshua, which can mean either "God saves" or, as in
the case of Jesus, "Savior."
(The Hebrew word "yasha" does not mean "god saves" )

And she will have a son, and you are to name him
Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Matt. 1 :20-21

ROB" The Hebrew word "yasha" means "save or rescue"

(b) to be addressed by members of
the Roman senate as "Master and god.

ROB" The word GOD does not mean "master"

(c) My explanation is that it is a revelation that Jesus was a "god"
and not "God."

ROB" False

(d) The length of the interval due
to the fact that during this period Titus created not one but two reli-
gions that worshiped his father as a god, as well as the New Testa-
ment's companion piece, War of the Jews.

ROB" A possible correct alignment of GOD as a Father?

(1b) fruit 5 references....

ROB no references to God

(1C) authority
ROB no references to God

(1e) father 113 references

The name is a composite of the
Hebrew bar (son) and abba (father), meaning "son of the Father." In
some early manuscripts his name is given as Jesus Barabbas.

ROB Interesting.

Summary of GOD :

Weak reference to father
no reference to fruit
no reference to strong authority
Therefore FAILED to support Hebrew word meaning.
=======================================

COmpare with Ellen White

Pure religion and undefiled before the Father is this Good deeds are the fruit that Christ requires us to bear.

CTr 257.2} I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.

COL 216.1} Every means that the love of God could devise would be put in operation that they might become trees of righteousness, bringing forth fruit for the blessing of the world.

{COL 301.2} "Herein is My Father glorified," Christ says, "that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples." John 15:8.
==========================================

(2) Authority 9 references

ROB no references to GOD

COmpare to Ellen White
{PC 129.3} The truth of the word of God is of sufficient authority and power.

{1NL 93.1} If the father is a Christian, he represents the divine authority of God,
=============================================
(3) powers no references

ROB: FAILED

COmpare to Ellen White

{Ev 307.2} They are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus they are united with the three great powers of heaven.


{DA 671.1} In describing to His disciples the office work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with the joy and hope that inspired His own heart. ..The Holy Spirit, was the highest of all gifts that He could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power.

{Ev 614.2} The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father.

{Ev 615.1} There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and The Holy Spirit, the representative of Himself, is the greatest of all gifts.
======================

(4) unit (echad) 10 references

ROB No references to anything of note

ROB FAILED

COmpare to Ellen White

{AH 99.3} He who gave Eve to Adam as a helpmeet performed His first miracle at a marriage festival He ordained that men and women should be united in holy wedlock, to rear families whose members, crowned with honor, should be recognized as members of the family above.

{AA 164.1} Every agency will be subordinate to the Holy Spirit, and all the believers will be united in an organized and well-directed effort to give to the world the glad tidings of the grace of God.

{Ev 307.2} They are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus they are united with the three great powers of heaven.
=========================

(5) : "Tamiyd" : "Continual". / can also mean daily

(5a) continual - 1 hit

(5b) daily - 24 references

while Josephus refers to the "end of the daily sacrifice.
if any one shouLd deprive thee of thy daily food, thou
wouldst esteem him to be an enemy to thee;

I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me
not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

ROB FAILED

COmpare to Ellen White

{EW 74.1} Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry.

{AA 50.1} For the "daily" baptism of the Spirit every worker should offer his petition to God.

{CCh 347.6} As Christ's ministration was to consist of two great divisions, each occupying a period of time and having a distinctive place in the heavenly sanctuary, so the typical ministration consisted of two divisions, the "daily" and the yearly service, and to each a department of the tabernacle was devoted. As Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf. {CCh 347.7}

As Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf. {CCh 347.7}

Every morning and evening a lamb of a year old was burned upon the altar, with its appropriate meat offering, thus symbolizing the daily consecration of the nation to Jehovah, and their constant dependence upon the atoning blood of Christ....He says, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." . . . {FLB 196.4}

Those who make a profession of faith, and yet remain unchanged in habit and practice, are represented in the parable by the man who came to the feast without a wedding garment. There are many who, while they believe what they read about Christ, do not believe in Christ. They do not receive Him as a personal Saviour. Their names may be registered on the Church roll, but they do not bring Christ into the daily life; and God can not accept them. {RH, February 26, 1901 par. 8}
===============================

ROB summary of testing 5 words so far

CAESAR'S MESSIAH scored ZERO

Ellen White Messages scrored 100%

================================
Words tested were

ab as fruit and father also God
el as strong authority also God
elohiym as powers also power also family powers
echad as unit also united also oneness
Tamiyd : as "Continual". also daily

----------
word meanings came from Jeff Benner
----------------

Ellen White magnifies the torah, and explains the torah, while the Caesar's Messiah does nothing like this. In fact is entirely a false pile of writing. There is no need testing a further 25 Hebrew words, the rest of the testing yields terrrible results already.

Shalom

[Dave]

Dave" The question is always – choose the creator – or creation (created things)
Yes – you are just playing a word game
ROB" wow you really are off track

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Ho 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
I am not playing word games, I read the torah as the torah reads, correctly.

1- who are these other gods – if they are not created beings?
2- How can your god be the savior god – if they are two different gods?

Dave" You and her teach you must be intelligent to be saved – so if you are not intelligent you do not have a chance at salvation – this is an example of the unrequited love your god displays?
ROB" You sir should apologize to your readers for mocking

Dave" FREE WILL – has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence
ROB" I beg to differ,

===================

Now I downloaded hundred of pages of the Caesar's Messiah
But you cannot download 22 pages of my paper and proof read it for me

Testing Caesar's Messiah
(The Hebrew word "yasha" does not mean "god saves" )
ROB" The Hebrew word "yasha" means "save or rescue"
Robert’s word game

(b) to be addressed by members of the Roman senate as "Master and god.
ROB" The word GOD does not mean "master"

(c) My explanation is that it is a revelation that Jesus was a "god"
and not "God."
Correct you teach pagan crap - REJECTED

The name is a composite of the
Hebrew bar (son) and abba (father), meaning "son of the Father." In
some early manuscripts his name is given as Jesus Barabbas.
ROB Interesting.

Ellen White magnifies the torah, and explains the torah,
Ellen White teaches against monotheism
Even without your multiple gods family thing – she teaches satan is a god

while the Caesar's Messiah does nothing like this.
Caesar’s Messiah teaches Emperor Flavin is a god

In fact is entirely a false pile of writing.
Yep – this is the only criticism of Caesar’s Messiah – I don’t believe it
All of it is consistent with the prophesies of the coming Messiah

And experts you your very same method to prove it correct
No one denies that it is consistent with the prophesies of the coming Messiah

[rob]

Dave" 1- who are these other gods – if they are not created beings?
2- How can your god be the savior god – if they are two different gods?

ROB" Rabbi Cahn puts it this way

infinity plus infinity plus infinity equals infinity.

You can divine infinity into three pieces of the pie and each piece is still all infinity.

Listen to Cahn video on trinity if you care to

Infinity is not a different elohiym power as you claim.

For example

Eve was not DNA different to Adam. She was built not formed and not created.

She was designed as echad, NOT yachad.

Understand what I am saying.

No new DNA words was added to Eve, yet her loving style is different to Adam.

So here we see infinity in humanity as an example of echad.

These are my ideas from Robert, not from Cahn or Ellen White, but my tutor the HS talks to me about the Hebrew torah. Do you care to listen to my reading of the torah? My understanding alone?

Study the word meanings of echad verses yachad.


Dave" But you cannot download 22 pages of my paper and proof read it for me
ROB" I certainly did, 8.3 MB

and read over 400 references and 400 sentences, just what do you take me for? in one hour too.

Dave" ROB" The Hebrew word "yasha" means "save or rescue"
Robert’s word game
ROB" Look up all references to yasha and see if any is secular

Ex 2:17 And the shepherds <ra`ah> came <bow'> and drove them away <garash>: but Moses <Mosheh> stood up <quwm> and helped <yasha`> them, and watered <shaqah> their flock <tso'n>.

Here yasha has a secular meaning to "rescue and save somebody in need"

So yasha does not mean "god saves"

Daave" Correct you teach pagan crap - REJECTED
ROB" I did n't say that Caesar messish said this, not me. Cant you read?

Dave" Ellen White teaches against monotheism
ROB" No she does not

infinity plus infinity plus infinity equal infinity

Where is poly infinite in this? Nowhere

Listen to Rabbi Cahn if you care to

Dave" Caesar’s Messiah teaches Emperor Flavin is a god
ROB" so? not the testing method. I was evaluating if "ab" means "god" or "fruit"

Dave" And experts you your very same method to prove it correct
No one denies that it is consistent with the prophesies of the coming Messiah
ROB" did you read my studies.

Caesars Messiah gets a score of Zero and Ellen White gets 5/5 for the 5 Hebrew words studied.

Come on Dave, start getting honest.

I did a study of her Hebrew words 25/25 all correct. What is the probability of achieving this?

She never understood Hebrew? Never wrote Hebrew? Never spoke Hebrew. Yet wrote her english as hebrew? Uncanny? It is proof of inspiration.

Have to go to work now, take you time pondering my studies.

Shalom

[Dave]

Dave" 1- who are these other gods – if they are not created beings?
2- How can your god be the savior god – if they are two different gods?

ROB" Rabbi Cahn puts it this way
infinity plus infinity plus infinity equals infinity.
You can divine infinity into three pieces of the pie and each piece is still all infinity.
OK – this is a good representation of the TRINITY

Infinate God - exist outside of creation - larger than creation - no man can see Him
Infinate God can reach out to man as invisible Spirit - the Holy Spirit is not a new and different God
The Holy Spirit is God - the spirit of God
Infinate spirit can reach out to you in the visible image of a man - Christ
Christ is not a new and different God - it is just God souljourning in human form
Christ is God

Exo 33
God - that no man can see
The Glory of God tht we can experiece but cannot see
The image - the back - the 3D form - Christ

Trinity 3 in 1 - each of the same essence - cosubstancial - each are God

Coin + heads + tails = 3 in 1
Coin + 2 sides
God in two forms (1) invisible - spirit/Holy (2) one visible - image/Christ

How does this apply to your teaching of 3 different gods working together as a team

Infinity is not a different elohiym power as you claim.
You are the one claiming 3 different gods forming the godhead
God and Christ have to be two different gods because Jesus Christ prays to God
There has to be at least two different gods for love to exist – it is relational

Rabbi Cahn supports who? Me or You?

For example DNA - new DNA - biology has absolute zero relevance
---------------------------------------------------

Dave" But you cannot download 22 pages of my paper and proof read it for me
ROB" I certainly did, 8.3 MB
My paper is only - 217 KB (222,748 bytes)
You cannot even lie without lying
-------------------------------------------------------

Dave" Ellen White teaches against monotheism
ROB" No she does not
You have been her personal representative here
You have taught the idea of the TRINITY is wrong
Instead you have 3 or more gods working together in a polytheistic pantheon

Are you lying or is she lying?

infinity plus infinity plus infinity equal infinity
How is the same as your teaching of 3 or more gods working together as a team?
How is the same as there MUST be at least two gods so relational love can exist?

Where is poly infinite in this? Nowhere
I agree – and you have contradicted everything you have taught here for four years

Mr FLIP FLOP serious Bible student Christian

[rob]

Greetings Dave

Dave" OK – this is a good representation of the TRINITY

How does this apply to your teaching of 3 different gods working together as a team

Rob" Yes Rabbi Cahn is wonderful with Maths

Infinity + Infinity + Infinity = Infinity

Not as you claim three Infinity gods.

Second you state 3 gods working as a term. This is yachad.

Not echad, designed oneness. Not working as a team at all.
-----------------------

Dave" My paper is only - 217 KB (222,748 bytes)
You cannot even lie without lying

ROb" What are you saying here? If you want me to read your book just email it me, I receive 1MB attachments all the time, your entire book is not even 1/2 a MB?

DAVE" Instead you have 3 or more gods working together in a polytheistic pantheon
ROB" Infinity + Infinity + Infinity = Infinity

Not as you claim three Infinity gods.

You are making a mathematical mistake.

Dave" How is the same as your teaching of 3 or more gods working together as a team?
ROB" I have never taught three gods working together as a team. This is pagan idea, and also is yachad, not echad.

Dave" I agree – and you have contradicted everything you have taught here for four years
ROB" I am not flip flop, you just do not read my words.

Shalom