Satan Is Not The Devil

[JLB777]

9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9


Satan is clearly -

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden

The Devil

Satan - The Enemy


Case closed!


JLB

 

[strangertoo]

9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9


Satan is clearly -

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden

The Devil

Satan - The Enemy


Case closed!


JLB

Not really closed, because according to Jesus almost all folks worldwide of all religions today will worship Satan AS IF he were God -Rev 13:3-4

so it is interesting to see why anyone should imagine Satan is not THE devil... that is the final fake Christ wh fools the whole world, even almost all Jews....

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Jesus and the saints have PROVED that man isn't inherently evil by being Loving to all

And it seems to me that statements like this are why the truth of who the satan really is remains a mystery to most. It will be revealed in its proper time, but many can't look the horrible thing inside them in the eye.

 

[JLB777]

Not really closed, because according to Jesus almost all folks worldwide of all religions today will worship Satan AS IF he were God -Rev 13:3-4

so it is interesting to see why anyone should imagine Satan is not THE devil... that is the final fake Christ wh fools the whole world, even almost all Jews....

I totally agree!


JLB

 

[he-man]

9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9 JLB

People who quote this must be unaware of what future tense means. I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

So it is also just as absurb to quote Isiah 14:12 and Ezekial 28 which is directed to the King of Babylon and the King of Tyrus. Babylon [from Assyrian "gate of the gods"].

Reading Isa 14:4, "That you shall take up this proverb against the **king of Babylon,** and say, How has the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!", it becomes clear that this is the king of Babylon and his nation that is being spoken of here.

While this mythological information is available to scholars today via translated Babylonian cuneiform text taken from clay tablets, it was not as readily available at the time of the Latin translation of the Bible.

Thus, early Christian tradition interpreted the passage as a reference to the moment Satan was thrown from Heaven. Lucifer became another name for Satan and has remained so due to Christian dogma and popular tradition.
Devil in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ashdowne, ‘‘AN INQUIRY INTO THE Scripture Meaning of the Word SATAN, AND ITS SYNONIMOUS TERMS, The DEVIL, or the ADVERSARY, and the WICKED-ONE’, page 40, 1794

In 1737 Sykes published ‘An enquiry into the meaning of demoniacks in the New Testament’ going further than Joseph Mede’s exposition of the ‘Doctrine of Demons’ by rejecting any belief in the existence of demons and regarding those possessed as simply suffering from mental illness, as the later work of Dr. Richard Mead. He also rejected the devil as a supernatural evil being, taking the allegory argument of John Epps.

The most infamous of Epps' unorthodox views regards the devil (1842), though he was one of a long line of Dissenters to take this view stretching back through Simpson (1804), Lardner (1742), Sykes (1737), going back to the Dutch Anabaptist David Joris (1540).[2] According to Epps, references in the Bible to the devil and Satan are, in the main, to be understood as personifications of the lustful principle in man .

Satan Sa'tan. The word itself, the Hebrew satan, is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kin 6:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Numb 22:22, 33; Psal 109:6

This original sense is still found in our Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Matt 16:23

It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, vis. (with the article) in Job 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech 2:1 and without the article in 1 Chr 21:1

There is no unambiguous reference to the Devil in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings.
Carus P. History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil

 

[Vanguard PCD]

You are partly wrong in #2. Through God's authority, He has given Satan certain freedoms in exercising control/influence over the whole world...

That is your opinion that I am wrong (neither am I saying I am right). Where does it say that God gave Satan certain freedoms and having power or influence? Please cite your source. Chapter and verse.

If he were insane at the time then the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet are thrown, the book of life and the new Jerusalem do not exist...it's all just a fabrication.

Do you know the mental state of John while he was in exile on Patmos? Do you know whether or not he suffered from malnutrition, sleep deprivation, disease, or torture? No, you do not because we don't have that information. Furthermore, was it John the Apostle or another John? There are mixed opinions even within the top levels of Christian scholars.

Which begs the question, since Revelation is prophetic (John is interpreting dreams/visions of the future) do we take it literally, metaphorically, allegorically or as an etiology? Again, mixed opinions.

Exekiel 28 shows this is true, but also shows that like Logos , the other covering cherub at the throne of God, Satan manifests as a man claiming to be God...

Actually you need to go read Ezekiel in context. Pay close attention to chapters 25-32. No where does it state or imply Satan, the devil, or any other non-human. Those chapters are talking about the judgment of Gentile nations, and their kings/pharoahs. You, like so many others, took verses out of context and applied them to your belief (or opinion).

So it is also just as absurb to quote Isiah 14:12 and Ezekial 28 which is directed to the King of Babylon and the King of Tyrus...


Thus, early Christian tradition interpreted the passage as a reference to the moment Satan was thrown from Heaven. Lucifer became another name for Satan and has remained so due to Christian dogma and popular tradition...

There is no unambiguous reference to the Devil in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings.

Someone else who has had their eyes opened!

9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9


Satan is clearly -

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden

JLB

It's never a good idea to take the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc in a debate or theological discussion. You assume that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan, although it never states that.

However, the serpent (many will say snake) was forced to crawl on its belly, eat dust, and will be stepped on by humans while it bit humans on the heel (sounds like a snake to me). It was a physical being (animal).

That is, if Genesis is a literal account. Keep in mind that the autographs were NOT written in English. They were Classical Hebrew and have been lost/destroyed. Our bibles come from copies, and from translations across multiple languages (where you lose idioms).

 

[Phantasman]

The NT writers seem to have this gnostic dualism approach. There's good, so there MUST be evil! They made Satan public enemy #1, and gave people an excuse for why bad things happen. Bah!

.

The dualism you speak of is not Gnostic, but orthodox catholic. Gnostics, as I see it, teaches no such thing, and even Satan is not a part of Gnosticism. There is, though, ignorance and wisdom. Christ brought Gods wisdom to us as we were not in truth.

 

[Passionate Chicken]

Who is the devil...good question. Let's explore this for a minute.


KJV: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.

Christianity is not about figuring out who the devil is.

Sounds like you are not at a loss for defending your first posting after posting those scriptures and the one in the King James Version that specifically say that old serpent which is the Devil and Satan when you now say Christianity is not about figuring out who the devil is.
Well if it's now why did you attempt to post a message here that declares the Devil is not Satan so as to inform Christians ?

Fail!
Just accept you double talked yourself right into it.

 

[he-man]

Actually you need to go read Ezekiel in context. Pay close attention to chapters 25-32. No where does it state or imply Satan, the devil, or any other non-human. Those chapters are talking about the judgment of Gentile nations, and their kings/pharoahs. You, like so many others, took verses out of context and applied them to your belief (or opinion).
It's never a good idea to take the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc in a debate or theological discussion. You assume that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan, although it never states that.
However, the serpent (many will say snake) was forced to crawl on its belly, eat dust, and will be stepped on by humans while it bit humans on the heel (sounds like a snake to me). It was a physical being (animal).
That is, if Genesis is a literal account. Keep in mind that the autographs were NOT written in English. They were Classical Hebrew and have been lost/destroyed. Our bibles come from copies, and from translations across multiple languages (where you lose idioms).

Great Job, please stay with us, I need all the help I can get to keep my eyes open. Thank you.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Sounds like you are not at a loss for defending your first posting after posting those scriptures and the one in the King James Version that specifically say that old serpent which is the Devil and Satan when you now say Christianity is not about figuring out who the devil is.
Well if it's now why did you attempt to post a message here that declares the Devil is not Satan so as to inform Christians ?

Fail!
Just accept you double talked yourself right into it.

Actually you failed to miss the point. The YLT does not use the traditional interpretation that the KJV does, that others have copied. It focuses more in-depth on the actual rendering of the words, not the translational attempt from 400 years ago (1611 KJV), at a time when they only had 6 partial Greek documents from which to use. When in doubt, they copied the Latin Vulgate, which is known to be a corrupt work from 1,200 years earlier.

Incidentally, I do not use the KJV anymore. But thanks for pointing out my "failure."

 

[JLB777]

That is your opinion that I am wrong (neither am I saying I am right). Where does it say that God gave Satan certain freedoms and having power or influence? Please cite your source. Chapter and verse.



Do you know the mental state of John while he was in exile on Patmos? Do you know whether or not he suffered from malnutrition, sleep deprivation, disease, or torture? No, you do not because we don't have that information. Furthermore, was it John the Apostle or another John? There are mixed opinions even within the top levels of Christian scholars.

Which begs the question, since Revelation is prophetic (John is interpreting dreams/visions of the future) do we take it literally, metaphorically, allegorically or as an etiology? Again, mixed opinions.



Actually you need to go read Ezekiel in context. Pay close attention to chapters 25-32. No where does it state or imply Satan, the devil, or any other non-human. Those chapters are talking about the judgment of Gentile nations, and their kings/pharoahs. You, like so many others, took verses out of context and applied them to your belief (or opinion).



Someone else who has had their eyes opened!



It's never a good idea to take the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc in a debate or theological discussion. You assume that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan, although it never states that.

However, the serpent (many will say snake) was forced to crawl on its belly, eat dust, and will be stepped on by humans while it bit humans on the heel (sounds like a snake to me). It was a physical being (animal).

That is, if Genesis is a literal account. Keep in mind that the autographs were NOT written in English. They were Classical Hebrew and have been lost/destroyed. Our bibles come from copies, and from translations across multiple languages (where you lose idioms).

If Genesis is a literal account?

That is your opinion that I am wrong (neither am I saying I am right). Where does it say that God gave Satan certain freedoms and having power or influence? Please cite your source. Chapter and verse.

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12


Chapter and verse.


JLB

 

[Vanguard PCD]

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12


Chapter and verse.


JLB

Very good! You dug it out of the NKJV, which is still based on the 1611 KJV and its misinterpretations. Once again, the KJV only had 6 partial documents to translate the NT from. The rest came from the Latin Vulgate.

Too bad it is not talking about Satan.

Those verses refer to a man of lawlessness that has yet to come. If you really get into the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, you'll find that it is foreshadowing either the False Prophet or the Anti-christ (neither of which is Satan).

 

[he-man]

Very good! You dug it out of the NKJV, which is still based on the 1611 KJV and its misinterpretations. Once again, the KJV only had 6 partial documents to translate the NT from. The rest came from the Latin Vulgate.

Too bad it is not talking about Satan.

Those verses refer to a man of lawlessness that has yet to come. If you really get into the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, you'll find that it is foreshadowing either the False Prophet or the Anti-christ (neither of which is Satan).

God bless the good work!

 

[Passionate Chicken]

Actually you failed to miss the point. The YLT does not use the traditional interpretation that the KJV does, that others have copied. It focuses more in-depth on the actual rendering of the words, not the translational attempt from 400 years ago (1611 KJV), at a time when they only had 6 partial Greek documents from which to use. When in doubt, they copied the Latin Vulgate, which is known to be a corrupt work from 1,200 years earlier.

Incidentally, I do not use the KJV anymore. But thanks for pointing out my "failure."

You're welcome. As you failed in the first sentence of your reply. I bolded it so you would notice. (Actually you failed to miss the point.) Yes, I did fail to miss the point. Which means I succeeded in seeing he point.

Don't try to talk down and be self righteous when you're not that good at it, OK?!

 

[Vanguard PCD]

God bless the good work!

Thanks!

I'm not here to toot my own horn or prove anything about myself. I am certainly not here to win a popularity contest. What I am here for (as well as other sites) is to try and get people to start reading and understanding the Bible in context, and not cherry picking verses out and applying them to a belief or opinion. Far too many people go by tradition instead of what Scripture actually says.

 

[JLB777]

Very good! You dug it out of the NKJV, which is still based on the 1611 KJV and its misinterpretations. Once again, the KJV only had 6 partial documents to translate the NT from. The rest came from the Latin Vulgate.

Too bad it is not talking about Satan.

Those verses refer to a man of lawlessness that has yet to come. If you really get into the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, you'll find that it is foreshadowing either the False Prophet or the Anti-christ (neither of which is Satan).

Sounds like the hiss of the serpent in the garden sowing doubt and unbelief into Eve.

Whenever someone denies scripture to hide the truth about Satan, it's obvious they have been taken captive to do his will.

Those verses refer to a man of lawlessness

The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,

Satan is working these signs through and in the lawless one.

God is authorizing this - that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

This is not a new concept.

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--'and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deuteronomy 13:1-3... for the Lord your God is testing you.

The Serpent of old - refers to Satan in the Garden of Eden.

The Devil and Satan and the Serpent of old are all referring to the same being.


JLB

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Yeah, ok JLB...you're entitled to your opinion. I can respect that. Some people are just concreted in their ways, and when presented with facts to the contrary, they go on the defensive.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, to change your beliefs, or to get into a drawn out argument over who is right/wrong. I have my beliefs, based off years of actual study (not Sunday School) and being in my MA program at seminary. Deal with it.

 

[JLB777]

Yeah, ok JLB...you're entitled to your opinion. I can respect that. Some people are just concreted in their ways, and when presented with facts to the contrary, they go on the defensive.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, to change your beliefs, or to get into a drawn out argument over who is right/wrong. I have my beliefs, based off years of actual study (not Sunday School) and being in my MA program at seminary. Deal with it.

You have exalted yourself against the knowledge of God.

The scriptures are here to teach us, not for you to find fault with.

I am consecrated in His ways, not by some college professor at a cemetery.


JLB

 

[Phantasman]

Yeah, ok JLB...you're entitled to your opinion. I can respect that. Some people are just concreted in their ways, and when presented with facts to the contrary, they go on the defensive.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, to change your beliefs, or to get into a drawn out argument over who is right/wrong. I have my beliefs, based off years of actual study (not Sunday School) and being in my MA program at seminary. Deal with it.

Are you familiar with the Codex Sinaiticus project? It is the ongoing translation of the oldest Bible found to date, older than Codex Vaticanus.

Codex Sinaiticus - Home

Staying within the compounds dictated by the Nicene Creed may cause confusion. Even this oldest Bible has Barnabas and the Shepperd of Hermes before men removed it from the current Bible.

 

[Ariel Gavriel]

Originally Posted by Ariel Gavriel View Post
If he were insane at the time then the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet are thrown, the book of life and the new Jerusalem do not exist...it's all just a fabrication.

Do you know the mental state of John while he was in exile on Patmos? Do you know whether or not he suffered from malnutrition, sleep deprivation, disease, or torture? No, you do not because we don't have that information. Furthermore, was it John the Apostle or another John? There are mixed opinions even within the top levels of Christian scholars.

Which begs the question, since Revelation is prophetic (John is interpreting dreams/visions of the future) do we take it literally, metaphorically, allegorically or as an etiology? Again, mixed opinions.

Is there any where else in the bible that shows the out come of our hope for those who believe at the end of all life? If you dismiss John then you have to dismiss the other prophetic books that relate to it ie: Daniel and Ezekiel. If he were mentally unstable would the Counsel who chose which books were to be included in the bible, keep his? It is written at the end of Revelation that no-one is to add or take away the words of this book least they come under a curse. Is it not God himself that has chosen what is to be revealed in these times and what is not? Why is his mental state in question just because you do not understand this revelation?