Satan as we know him today was never mentioned in the whole of the Old Testament

VanillaSunflowers · Aug 25, 2016

Strong in Him said:
I know.
But they may not have had that understanding in the OT. The devil existed; they may not have actually called him Satan, but I'm sure he didn't mind that. In fact, I think he prefers it when people don't believe he exists.

What's that old saying? The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is leading people to believe he doesn't really exist?

The first mention of Satan is in Genesis. The tempter of Eve.

VanillaSunflowers · Aug 25, 2016

If we're now asking about the Tanakh then yes, the Devil is mentioned in the Jewish Tanakh as well.

From this article: Ask the Rabbi
The Jewish View of Satan
Question: Christianity proclaims that one should love his enemies. Isn’t this wrong? Satan is the enemy of mankind, and mankind is the enemy of Satan. When will people stop following error and evil?

Answer: It is very important to understand the difference between the Jewish understanding of Satan and the Christian understanding of Satan.

First of all, in doing a quick search of the Hebrew and Christian bibles, we find a remarkable difference. In the Jewish bible (Tanakh), we find three separate references to Satan...

And:
"So, to reiterate, in Judaism Satan is an agent of G-d, who provides opportunities for us to grow, to respond to our passions and desires by producing things of value in this world and to become stronger spiritual people."

throughfiierytrial · Aug 25, 2016

LoAmmi said:
(Hope I'm not breaking the rules here, can't remember if I'm allowed to post)

Look at all of Isaiah 14. Remember that Israel was exiled to Babylon by the Lord. But Babylon became an oppressor of the people exceeding that which the Lord wanted. The beginning speaks of the restoration of Israel from its capitvity and then it says (I'm using a Christian translation here):

3 On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

When the Lord brings the people back, they will take up this taunt against the King of Babylon. So anything else said after that is said by the people of Israel. Now, I understand that the New Testament casts this chapter in a different light, but on its own the context shows it's about the King of Babylon who falls due to oppressing Israel.

Psalm 110:1:
The Lord says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

This is only one OT prophecy of the Messiah spoken/written by King David; it reveals itself as such. OT prophecy has a dual nature...you seem quite unwilling to accept this fact.

Prophecy and the reason for its nature is explained here...
Isaiah 28:9-14:
“Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there.”
Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.

14 Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.

aiki · Aug 25, 2016

StTruth said:
This comes under apologetics because it's one defence of our faith that we can use against people who argue against it. One argument that I have always heard is why didn't God destroy Satan?

If I were an apologist, my reply would be simple. Satan does not exist. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Satan (as we know him today) ever mentioned. If you want to show me to be wrong, please post one verse at a time and let me deal with each. Otherwise it can lead to a lot of confusion.

So, you have been shown a number of instances in the OT where Satan appears and acts. He is, then, very clearly mentioned in the OT - in contradiction to your claim above.

You want to dismiss all references to Satan in the OT as figurative or as referring to a being who is not the Satan spoken of in the NT. So far, you seem to rest your view upon a liberal reading of the OT. But doing so does not, of itself, refute more conservative interpretations of the OT passages which mention Satan. There is good textual reason to think the Satan of the OT was not primarily figurative and is the same evil character we are warned of the NT. Take Genesis 3 for example. You begin with the assumption that the account is figurative. Why? You don't really say. But pay attention to verse 15:
Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

Who is the "he" spoken of here by God? In light of the fact that it is only the woman's seed mentioned and not the man's as well, it is evident that God is speaking of Christ, virgin born, incarnated without the seed of a man. Why does God, speaking to the snake, say, "He shall bruise your head..."? Is this particular reptile immortal? How is it that Christ bruises its head? Well, if it is not merely a snake but the Tempter called Satan who is acting through, or has taken the form of, a snake, then it is very evident how Christ has "bruised his head":

Colossians 2:15
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Hebrews 2:14
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

It doesn't seem to me, therefore, that a purely figurative reading of this account is necessary or better interprets the narrative. You may opt to read the account this way, but you haven't shown that doing so is mandated by the text. I have demonstrated above that a more straightforward, more literal reading is readily supported by the text.

StTruth said:
Because Satan is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, it is reasonable to say that there is no such entity as Satan. It cannot be that the OT totally failed to mention such an important character.

Three or four times you say quite unequivocally that Satan is not mentioned in the OT and when you are offered several OT verses that show that he is, you shift the goalposts and add a further qualification that, although he is mentioned, he doesn't seem to be the same character called the devil we are warned of in the NT. You have shifted the goalposts once already and escaped having to acknowledge that your claim about Satan in the OT is mistaken; what's to stop you from shifting the goalposts again, and again whenever you are shown to be in error?

You were shown this passage:

Zechariah 3:1-2
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him.
2 And the Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"

You responded:

StTruth said:
This is from a vision. It's full of allegory. I've said earlier that you can't have the existence of a being or an entity referred to in a vision where there are many allegorical images. You can't use such a vision as evidence for the existence of such a being.

I'd like you to explain the allegory in the above passage. You say it is "full of allegory," in fact. How so? Is Zechariah's vision itself an allegory? Did he not actually have a vision? If not, how do you establish this? If so, what part of the narrative above is figurative? Is there in fact no "Angel of the Lord" (who appears a number of times throughout the OT in circumstances unrelated to visions: Ge. 16:7; 22:11; Ex. 3:2; Nu. 22:22; Jdg. 2:1- 4; 6:11, etc.)? Who or what is the "Angel of the Lord" supposed to personify? How do you know? If there is an actual "Angel of the Lord" (and the OT seems to make it very plain that there is) why is he, a literal being, speaking to Satan who is not? Why would the Angel of the Lord rebuke a figurative being? It seems very evident to me that not all things within a vision are necessarily figurative. Some things may be understood to be actual, to be real, and in this instance both the Angel of the Lord and Satan can rightly be regarded as such.

StTruth said:
The Adversary in Job is a servant of God who continues to obey God and take orders from God. He sees God in a meeting once a week and reports to God what he sees as a part of his continuing duty to God. He is clearly portrayed as one of God's angels whose duty is to tempt men to see the extent of their devotion to God. He is God's compliant angel. That's not the Satan as we know him today.

First, the passage in Job 1 that relates Satan's conversation with God does not say Satan was a "servant of God." All it says is that Satan came before God among a group of angels (aka "sons of God"). In fact, the wording of the passage sets Satan distinctly apart from the sons of God. Second, the passage does not say Satan reported to God once a week in fulfillment of some angelic duty. He entered into God's presence but only to challenge God, not report what he had seen "roaming to and fro upon the earth." Why would such a report even be required by an omniscient, omnipresent Creator-God? Third, Satan is not described as a "compliancy angel." There is no indication in the passage that Satan was acting in accord with his duties in this capacity. Rather, his behaviour before God is incredibly insolent, and challenging, and very, very nasty - just like the devil spoken of in the NT.

All these things aside, though, the OT description of Satan in Job does not contradict what is said of him in the NT. There is nothing said of Satan in the OT that precludes him also being the Accuser spoken of in the NT. I may describe my mother as an excellent cook, and conversationalist, and avid reader but this hardly describes all that could be said about her. Am I justified, then, in saying that my sister's description of my Mom as quick-witted, creative and sensitive is about someone else because it does not agree precisely with my description of our mother? Of course not. That would be silly. But this is essentially what you're trying to do with the description of Satan in Job. It doesn't say exactly what the NT says about Satan, so it must be speaking of a different being than the Satan mentioned in the NT. But this is silly for the same reason illustrated in my Mom example.

Selah.

StTruth · Aug 26, 2016

aiki said:
So, you have been shown a number of instances in the OT where Satan appears and acts. He is, then, very clearly mentioned in the OT - in contradiction to your claim above.

You want to dismiss all references to Satan in the OT as figurative or as referring to a being who is not the Satan spoken of in the NT. So far, you seem to rest your view upon a liberal reading of the OT. But doing so does not, of itself, refute more conservative interpretations of the OT passages which mention Satan. There is good textual reason to think the Satan of the OT was not primarily figurative and is the same evil character we are warned of the NT.

Hi aiki,

Thanks for your post. I beg you to read my post #39 in which I carefully and quite ably dissected each of the verses where "Satan" is mentioned to show that each of them does not in fact refer to the Satan as we know him today but either to an obedient angel in God's retinue of angels or as a metaphor for something else. Here is a re-post of my post #39. The links provided take you to the posts that deal with each of the biblical verses.

StTruth said:
IMPORTANT NOTE TO EVERYONE. PLEASE READ THIS SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR DUPLICATION

Hi folks,

Thanks for your many answers. But if you quote:

Gen 3, please see my answer in post #18
Job, please see my answer in post #11
Is 14, please see my answer in post #5
Ez 28, please see my answer in post #5
Zec 3, please see my answer in post #12
1 Chr 21:1, please see my answer in post #13

Oh, and if you are interested in how the name 'Lucifer' came about, read my post #68.
Thanks.

Cheers

StTruth

aiki said:
Take Genesis 3 for example. You begin with the assumption that the account is figurative. Why? You don't really say. But pay attention to verse 15:
Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

Who is the "he" spoken of here by God? In light of the fact that it is only the woman's seed mentioned and not the man's as well, it is evident that God is speaking of Christ, virgin born, incarnated without the seed of a man. Why does God, speaking to the snake, say, "He shall bruise your head..."? Is this particular reptile immortal? How is it that Christ bruises its head? Well, if it is not merely a snake but the Tempter called Satan who is acting through, or has taken the form of, a snake, then it is very evident how Christ has "bruised his head":

I hope you understand why I do not in this thread wish to see an OT verse in the light of what the NT writers say. It's not because I reject the NT. No, I do not. I just want to know whether what I have read is true. That the OT understanding of "Satan" is different from ours. According to a book I've read, our understanding of "Satan" is shaped by the thinking of early Christianity which creates a whole new spiritual entity which we call Satan today. Referring to NT writers will only show that the writer of that book (who happens to be the head of religion in Princeton, no less) is correct in the suggestion that Satan (as we know him today) is a creation of the early church.

The "he" you pointed out is any man (which probably includes woman). Gen 3 is a tale about how the snake came to be what it is. Everything in Gen 3 tells us it's a snake the writer is talking about. At no point is any suggestion made of another being. We have to focus only on Gen 3 and not to imbibe information from elsewhere as we are apt to do because we are trained in the NT. The passage merely says that God is punishing the snake to make it crawl on its belly and to make it eat dirt (the ancients thought the snake's tongue that is always out of its mouth showed that the snake was eating dust simply because they didn't know then that it was sensing vibrations to look for prey). The other punishment is there would be a natural enmity between the snake and us humans and it'll strike our heels (as snakes tend to do) and we'll hit its head (as we often do when we see a snake).

aiki said:
It doesn't seem to me, therefore, that a purely figurative reading of this account is necessary or better interprets the narrative. You may opt to read the account this way, but you haven't shown that doing so is mandated by the text. I have demonstrated above that a more straightforward, more literal reading is readily supported by the text.

I'm sorry but a straightforward reading shows that it's a snake. You are allowing other information (from NT, from church teaching etc) to influence your reading so that "snake" becomes "Satan" to you. That doesn't explain how the very first verse says that the snake was the most crafty of all the animals. Mind you, ANIMALS!!! Your interpretation also does not explain the punishment that makes it crawl on its belly and eat dirt. You have to make up more metaphorical meanings in order to see Satan when a snake is clearly mentioned. To call your reading "straightforward" is certainly a misunderstanding of the term "straightforward". A snake is a snake is straightforward but a snake actually means Satan is far from straightforward.

aiki said:
Three or four times you say quite unequivocally that Satan is not mentioned in the OT and when you are offered several OT verses that show that he is, you shift the goalposts and add a further qualification that, although he is mentioned, he doesn't seem to be the same character called the devil we are warned of in the NT. You have shifted the goalposts once already and escaped having to acknowledge that your claim about Satan in the OT is mistaken; what's to stop you from shifting the goalposts again, and again whenever you are shown to be in error?

I did not shift the goalposts at all. You have misread the OP. Look at it again. I am even CLEAR in the title which reads:
"Satan as we know him today was never mentioned in the whole of the Old Testament". When you wrote "Three or four times you say quite unequivocally that Satan is not mentioned in the OT..." you are totally mistaken. I didn't say that. You have totally ignored my words in bold. Nobody has changed the goalposts; only you have misunderstood the plain words that appear not only in the OP but also in the very title itself.

aiki said:
You were shown this passage:

Zechariah 3:1-2
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him.
2 And the Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"

You responded:

I'd like you to explain the allegory in the above passage. You say it is "full of allegory," in fact. How so? Is Zechariah's vision itself an allegory? Did he not actually have a vision? If not, how do you establish this? If so, what part of the narrative above is figurative? Is there in fact no "Angel of the Lord" (who appears a number of times throughout the OT in circumstances unrelated to visions: Ge. 16:7; 22:11; Ex. 3:2; Nu. 22:22; Jdg. 2:1- 4; 6:11, etc.)? Who or what is the "Angel of the Lord" supposed to personify? How do you know? If there is an actual "Angel of the Lord" (and the OT seems to make it very plain that there is) why is he, a literal being, speaking to Satan who is not? Why would the Angel of the Lord rebuke a figurative being? It seems very evident to me that not all things within a vision are necessarily figurative. Some things may be understood to be actual, to be real, and in this instance both the Angel of the Lord and Satan can rightly be regarded as such.

You are totally mistaken again. That's not what I said in my reply. I will quote verbatim what I wrote in my post #12 which anyone can check the accuracy of if they will only scroll above to page 1 of this thread:

This is from a vision. It's full of allegory. I've said earlier that you can't have the existence of a being or an entity referred to in a vision where there are many allegorical images. You can't use such a vision as evidence for the existence of such a being. Many visions have lions or eagles with supernatural powers. You can't say there are supernatural lions or supernatural eagles. The visions are to tell a tale and what's seen in the vision is nothing more than symbolisms of something else. Just like the vision of the ten-headed dragon in Rev. You can't say such a creature exists in reality.

What I'm saying is a vision always has strange creatures and because of that, you cannot say what a person sees in a vision of a creature is an indication that such a creature exists in reality. That is what a vision means!!! Of course, in a vision, you can ALSO have things that do actually exist in reality but it also has things which do not. Surely you can understand that. I gave a few examples. Eg the vision of the ten-headed monster in Revelation. It's supposed to symbolise something (which is the hallmark of a vision). You can't on the basis of a vision insist that the ten-headed monster mentioned in Rev is a real entity that exists in our world. If I may add one more example. There is a vision in Daniel of a huge statue with legs of clay (this is from memory so if I'm mistaken, please don't use the mistake as an example that I'm totally wrong). I think the body is made of iron or something. You can't say such a statue actually exists in reality. What is seen in a vision alone cannot be used as an argument for the actual existence of that thing in reality. Do you get my point? So, if you are going to base the existence of a satanic being on PURELY a vision, that would be a mistake. Zech 3 must be dismissed because it's a vision.

aiki said:
First, the passage in Job 1 that relates Satan's conversation with God does not say Satan was a "servant of God." All it says is that Satan came before God among a group of angels (aka "sons of God"). In fact, the wording of the passage sets Satan distinctly apart from the sons of God. Second, the passage does not say Satan reported to God once a week in fulfillment of some angelic duty. He entered into God's presence but only to challenge God, not report what he had seen "roaming to and fro upon the earth." Why would such a report even be required by an omniscient, omnipresent Creator-God? Third, Satan is not described as a "compliancy angel." There is no indication in the passage that Satan was acting in accord with his duties in this capacity. Rather, his behaviour before God is incredibly insolent, and challenging, and very, very nasty - just like the devil spoken of in the NT.

If you cannot see that Satan in Job is hugely different from the Satan as we know him to be today, I have nothing further to say. Let's just leave it to other readers to see who is right. Of course if the reader already has a preconceived notion of what he should or should not believe, NOTHING will change his mind. But that's not the sort of reader I'm seeking to argue against. You can't argue with such a person.

aiki said:
All these things aside, though, the OT description of Satan in Job does not contradict what is said of him in the NT. There is nothing said of Satan in the OT that precludes him also being the Accuser spoken of in the NT. I may describe my mother as an excellent cook, and conversationalist, and avid reader but this hardly describes all that could be said about her. Am I justified, then, in saying that my sister's description of my Mom as quick-witted, creative and sensitive is about someone else because it does not agree precisely with my description of our mother? Of course not. That would be silly. But this is essentially what you're trying to do with the description of Satan in Job. It doesn't say exactly what the NT says about Satan, so it must be speaking of a different being than the Satan mentioned in the NT. But this is silly for the same reason illustrated in my Mom example.

Selah.

You are totally wrong. The OT does not speak of the existence of a satanic being as we know him today. The only time Satan is mentioned in the OT, we see an angel who takes instructions from God, asked by God to give his opinion and given by God specific instructions what to do and what not to do. We see a "Satan" mentioned in a vision but NEVER in reality. We see a snake being described as the most crafty of all animals and how God punishes it by making it crawl on it belly like a snake does, etc. We see Satan being said to have influenced David to call for a census and in a parallel text in the Bible we see that it's actually anger that caused David to do that.

Your analogy of your mother is absolutely wrong. In both examples your description of your mother is based on a real person who exists. The same with your sister's description. Both of you are describing the attributes of an existing person and there is no question that both of you accept the existence of your mother. If you talk about a snake and your sister talks about my father, it would be wrong for someone else to say that the snake is actually your mother and any reference to my father is really a reference to your mother. Do you see the difference and why your analogy fails totally?

Cheers,

St Truth, the patron saint of TRUTH

Strong in Him · Aug 26, 2016

StTruth said:
All I want to show by this thread is that Satan (as we know him to be today) is not an entity mentioned in the OT.

That's not ALL you want to show though, is it? Because you have already stated your conclusion, "he doesn't exist".

I, and others, have said that sin, sickness, evil and so on were certainly around in the OT and without doubt come from the devil, another name for whom is Satan. This IS who we know him to be today; that revelation, and teaching, was given by Jesus.
Even if the word "Satan" had never been used in the OT, we can see that he exists; yet he is mentioned by name, and the verses have been provided. But you have come up with reasons why those verses don't mean what they say, claiming that you have "ably dissected" them. Sorry, but it sounds to me like you have already reached a conclusion and are not going to be swayed from it.

StTruth · Aug 26, 2016

Strong in Him said:
That's not ALL you want to show though, is it? Because you have already stated your conclusion, "he doesn't exist".

I, and others, have said that sin, sickness, evil and so on were certainly around in the OT and without doubt come from the devil, another name for whom is Satan. This IS who we know him to be today; that revelation, and teaching, was given by Jesus.
Even if the word "Satan" had never been used in the OT, we can see that he exists; yet he is mentioned by name, and the verses have been provided. But you have come up with reasons why those verses don't mean what they say, claiming that you have "ably dissected" them. Sorry, but it sounds to me like you have already reached a conclusion and are not going to be swayed from it.

You seem to have a peculiar disability to see the reasons I have stated. Instead of looking at what I have said and argue on the points raised, you seem to prefer to talk about things not connected to the subject matter. You prefer to say things like I have "already reached a conclusion" when it's not true. In fact, it does look like that's a conclusion I will have to reach and the same goes for anyone else who can think through this matter rationally.

Can you try to see what has thus far been discussed. Gen 3 is brought up but as I have shown, Gen 3 talks about NOTHING else apart from a snake. No Satan at all. I have also shown why the Satan in Job is hugely different from our concept of Satan and this has been confirmed by a scholarly believer in Judaism. I have shown that the Kings reference to Satan actually means mere anger in 2 Sam which talks about the same incident of King David calling for a census. I have also shown that the Zech 3 reference to Satan was nothing more than what a prophet saw in a vision and I have explained why entities seen in a vision cannot be the basis for saying that such entities exist in reality. I have given examples from other recorded visions in the Bible. So what else has been brought up to show a reference to Satan in the OT? Of course the references to the King of Babylon and the Prince of Tyre were references to and about real humans.

Surely you can see from all this that I am right in saying at the outset that the OT makes no mention of Satan as we know him today? I'm sure you can see it if you will only give the matter a thought. It is you who ought to do something about your fixed mind about your own beliefs and to examine the evidence that has so far been raised. You must understand that beliefs however dearly you hold them can be mistaken.

Strong in Him · Aug 26, 2016

StTruth said:
You seem to have a peculiar disability to see the reasons I have stated. Instead of looking at what I have said and argue on the points raised, you seem to prefer to talk about things not connected to the subject matter.

I've discussed your OP, what I think you are saying and my response to it in post 129.

StTruth said:
You prefer to say things like I have "already reached a conclusion" when it's not true.

I think it is.

StTruth said:
My stand is simple - Satan does not exist. He is never mentioned in the OT. Satan is only mentioned in the NT but I believe it's allegorical. But that's a different topic. We'll just confine Satan to the Old Testament.

Because Satan is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, it is reasonable to say that there is no such entity as Satan. It cannot be that the OT totally failed to mention such an important character.

You stated right from the start that you believe Satan doesn't exist. The reason you give for that is that he is not mentioned in the OT, and the OT would obviously mention such an important character.
The OT DOES mention Satan - you just don't accept it because you have already set out your position.

I, and others, have said that Satan is another name for the devil - the source of sin, sickness and evil. Such a character obviously exists in the OT because sin existed in the OT. What we know of him today, is that Satan is responsible for sin, evil, and that witchcraft and the occult are from him too.
Whether or not an OT character would have known, believed or stated it in those terms may be open for debate - I said all that too. But then that's true of almost everything else; people grow in knowledge, make new discoveries, gain understanding etc etc. Jesus isn't mentioned by name in the OT, the Holy Spirit was only given to a few people and no one talked about the Trinity. Does that mean that they didn't exist? Of course not.

StTruth said:
In fact, it does look like that's a conclusion I will have to reach and the same goes for anyone else who can think through this matter rationally.

Only if you stick to your original statement that because he is not mentioned in the OT (to your satisfaction), then that is proof that he doesn't exist.
But it isn't - at all.
If you want to know whether or not Satan exists, you have to consider the NT and what Jesus said and taught about him. You claim to believe everything Jesus said, so why would you not consider his teaching on the subject?

StTruth said:
Can you try to see what has thus far been discussed. Gen 3 is brought up but as I have shown, Gen 3 talks about NOTHING else apart from a snake. No Satan at all.

No.
Genesis 3 talks about Adam and Eve being tempted to disobey and turn away from God - the One who made them - and follow their own desires and own path. Something, or someone, wanted them to do that; reject their Creator and his plan for their lives. God himself didn't want that, so who did? Clearly the devil, the evil one, Lucifer, Satan or whatever name you prefer to call him by.
I asked you where that temptation to reject God came from, and you said "from the snake", as though a reptile, in itself, has the power to turn someone away from the living God. Again, it is a false conclusion to say that because genesis 3 doesn't mention the name Satan then Satan can't exist.

Genesis 3 does not mention a snake but a serpent and elsewhere it is written "that old serpent, the devil" (I will need to look up the reference.)

StTruth said:
I have also shown why the Satan in Job is hugely different from our concept of Satan and this has been confirmed by a scholarly believer in Judaism.

You don't seem to get it; OUR concept of Satan is that he is the devil, the accuser, a liar and a murderer from the beginning, the father of all lies, the prince of darkness. We know this because Jesus told, and taught, us. He is the source of sin and evil, and as such was certainly in the Garden of Eden. Paul also talked about the devil and spiritual warfare, and he had been a Pharisee.
If you're saying that people in the OT didn't have this understanding, then they probably didn't; so what?

StTruth said:
I have shown that the Kings reference to Satan actually means mere anger in 2 Sam which talks about the same incident of King David calling for a census. I have also shown that the Zech 3 reference to Satan was nothing more than what a prophet saw in a vision and I have explained why entities seen in a vision cannot be the basis for saying that such entities exist in reality. I have given examples from other recorded visions in the Bible. So what else has been brought up to show a reference to Satan in the OT? Of course the references to the King of Babylon and the Prince of Tyre were references to and about real humans.

You have shown to your satisfaction. But you have said elsewhere that you don't accept prophecy - that words from the Lord referred only things that were happening at that time.

StTruth said:
Surely you can see from all this that I am right in saying at the outset that the OT makes no mention of Satan as we know him today?

Surely you can see that you have this round the wrong way?
You are taking what we today, as Christians, know to be true of the devil - that he is the source of sin, death and evil - asking if they had that knowledge of him in the OT, and concluded that they didn't.
Why would you expect them to? Why are you apparently demanding that people who lived hundreds of years ago have the same knowledge and understanding that we, who have been taught by Jesus, have? That's like saying that our great, great, 100xgreat grandfathers were inadequate because they didn't know what ipads are.

StTruth said:
You must understand that beliefs however dearly you hold them can be mistaken.

Ditto.

LoAmmi · Aug 26, 2016

throughfireytrial said:
Psalm 110:1:
The Lord says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

This is only one OT prophecy of the Messiah spoken/written by King David; it reveals itself as such. OT prophecy has a dual nature...you seem quite unwilling to accept this fact.

Prophecy and the reason for its nature is explained here...
Isaiah 28:9-14:
“Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there.”
Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.

14 Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.

It isn't a lack of accepting "fact" it is that I see no reason to believe it covers multiple things when I read the text. If it's two why not three? Or ten? Or an infinite amount? If it can mean anything, it means nothing.

JackRT · Aug 26, 2016

StTruth said:
the idea that we have of Satan came about in early Christianity and not from the Jewish faith or the OT. I just wanted to see if that is correct.

It is correct.

throughfiierytrial · Aug 26, 2016

LoAmmi said:
It isn't a lack of accepting "fact" it is that I see no reason to believe it covers multiple things when I read the text. If it's two why not three? Or ten? Or an infinite amount? If it can mean anything, it means nothing.

You were willing to piece out the other text, yet not this...why? You also did not respond to the Isaiah passages which characterize prophecy..."a little here, a little there" among the rest of the text. This is a basis for accepting the dual nature of prophecy and symbolism in the OT...this and then too that it was all fulfilled.

LoAmmi · Aug 26, 2016

throughfireytrial said:
You were willing to piece out the other text, yet not this...why? You also did not respond to the Isaiah passages which characterize prophecy..."a little here, a little there" among the rest of the text. This is a basis for accepting the dual nature of prophecy and symbolism in the OT...this and then too that it was all fulfilled.

The Psalm is about David himself. I see nothing in the text itself to suggest it was about the Messiah.

The part in Isaiah is about people who take the Torah and simply follow the rules without understanding the reasoning behind them. When the Torah becomes just another set of rules, you have missed the point of it. I don't see anything in the text that says it's about the dual nature of prophecies at all.

Aryeh Jay · Aug 26, 2016

StTruth · Aug 26, 2016

Aryeh Jay said:
Is that what your translation says?

Hahaha. Of course not. No Bible translation ever says that. Many can't seem to see that it's not Satan just because they were told since their toddler years that it is Satan they read in Gen 3. I was told a lot of things as an altar boy but I know how to separate fact from fiction; I can see what's really there and what's injected into it by some other people. But not everyone can see that. I may be young (by the standard of most folks in CF; most are old folks) but I have a keen spiritual acumen that is sometimes more insightful than what much older people have. It's so clear to me but their eyes seem closed. Nowhere in Gen was Satan ever mentioned. Certainly not in the Garden of Eden scene. Gen makes it very clear the serpent was more crafty than the OTHER ANIMALS. It's an animal, folks, not Satan. It's nothing more than the good old snake, garden variety I shouldn't wonder.

Aryeh Jay · Aug 26, 2016

Strong in Him · Aug 26, 2016

Satan is another name for the devil.
If it wasn't the devil who tempted Eve to disobey God, ruined Adam and Eve's relationship with God and brought sin, sickness and death into his world to destroy it - who was it? A holy angel? Some cherubim? Or maybe God himself wanted to sabotage his own creation?

Therefore, whether Satan is identified and named, or not, it was him; he was behind it.

Strong in Him · Aug 26, 2016

StTruth said:
It's an animal, folks, not Satan. It's nothing more than the good old snake, garden variety I shouldn't wonder.

A simple, ordinary garden snake; something which was created by God, somehow had the power to bring sin, sickness and death to human beings, and decay to all creation?

I don't think so.

God declared all that he had created to be good - where is your evidence that any animals were against their Creator or had the power to defy him? Whereas there IS Scriptural evidence that Lucifer, Satan, rebelled against God, was thrown out of heaven and lived on the earth. You choose not to believe it because you have already made your mind up.

VanillaSunflowers · Aug 26, 2016

Aryeh Jay said:
Serpent

הַנָּחָ֑שׁ

Satan

הַשָּׂטָ֖ן

Yep, not even close.

Still was the adversary of God.

Aryeh Jay · Aug 26, 2016

VanillaSunflowers · Aug 26, 2016

Aryeh Jay said:
God created the Tree of Knowledge and put it in the garden.

God told Adam not to eat.

Adam told Eve not to eat.

Eve listened to the snake and chose to eat; the snake did not force her.

Adam chose to accept the offered fruit from Eve.

Humans brought “sin” into the world by disobeying God, not a snake.

And how did that snake enter paradise ?
God brought sin into the world.

Satan as we know him today was never mentioned in the whole of the Old Testament

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life

Truth-Lover

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Dispassionate

Well-Known Member

Truth-Lover

Dispassionate

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Well-Known Member

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life

Similar threads