The devil is a person?

[RMDY]

Ebia, do you believe taught objective truth?

 

[ebia]

Ebia, do you believe taught objective truth?

Can you rephrase the question in a less compact, less ambiguous, way please?

I find this absurd considering that Jesus rebuked people of his time for following the traditions of men. Nonetheless, I find it even more absurd to write off Satan as a "popular image" tradition of men though Jesus was tested by him in the desert. That leaves you to either deduce that Jesus was either insane, delusional, or a liar.

I seem to have lost my response to this.

I'm not writing off Satan as a popular image, I'm writing off the popular image of Satan, to try to get to what the biblical texts actually say.

 

[Adoniram]

The most obvious one being that one or both are literary devices to 'explain' David's action rather than being literally factual.

And here is the naturalistic worldview in practice. In opposition of that, the Bible does indicate that God and the devil do move and influence people.

I'm yet to be persuaded to a precise view of Satan and/or the devil. I'm open to the possibility that they are names for one or more beings, or that they are personifications of very real issues like evil, but when one strips away the accumulated traditions and assumptions I'm not sure that the bible commits one either way.

Hmmm...and to me, having no knowledge of "traditions" or such, it speaks very clearly about this. You frequently refer to the "accumulated tradition" and the "classical picture" concerning Satan. You've been asked by RDMY and not yet responded, so I'll ask again...what pray-tell is this "classical picture" and "accumulated tradition" that you object to. The only classical picture of Satan I know of is the red-suited fellow with horns, a tail, and a pitchfork. I can obviously understand your objection to that. If it's something else, what is it? Sorry to have to ask, but I'm just a simple fellow whose only knowledge of this comes from the Word of God.

 

[ebia]

And here is the naturalistic worldview in practice. In opposition of that, the Bible does indicate that God and the devil do move and influence people.

I'm not at all sure that the bible does indicate that about Satan/the devil.
You can keep telling me it does, but that isn't likely to convince me.

Hmmm...and to me, having no knowledge of "traditions" or such, it speaks very clearly about this.

Unless you somehow grew up completely isolated from Christian and Western culture of course you have been exposed to such traditions. Thinking you haven't is just an indicator that you're not aware of their influence.

You frequently refer to the "accumulated tradition" and the "classical picture" concerning Satan. You've been asked by RDMY and not yet responded, so I'll ask again...what pray-tell is this "classical picture" and "accumulated tradition" that you object to. The only classical picture of Satan I know of is the red-suited fellow with horns, a tail, and a pitchfork. I can obviously understand your objection to that.

Okay, lets start from there. There's a picture there in the culture that we can agree is baseless. If that's there in the culture then there may be other stuff that's less obvious in what we think. So, let's put on one side everything we think we know about Satan - about falling angels, assumptions about Isaiah 14, that Satan = the Devil = Beezelbub = the snake in Genesis 3 = whatever. Even the assumption that any of those are real beings. And so forth. Put all that on hold and try to start again from scratch. If we end up in the same place we started then fair enough.

If it's something else, what is it? Sorry to have to ask, but I'm just a simple fellow whose only knowledge of this comes from the Word of God.

The unfortunate fact is that none of us are free from cultural influences unless we grow up on a desert island, nor do we notice them - and the only thing we can do to mitigate against that is to look for them and be upfront about them.

 

[RMDY]

Can you rephrase the question in a less compact, less ambiguous, way please?

I might be wrong, but "in philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings." (Sorry for using a wikipedia source)

What I am asking, is, do you believe what Jesus says about Satan is true regardless whether the O.T. contains sufficient information or not?

I seem to have lost my response to this.

I'm not writing off Satan as a popular image, I'm writing off the popular image of Satan, to try to get to what the biblical texts actually say.

How can you write off the popular image of Satan when Jesus "captured the dragon, that ancient serpent, also known as the devil and Satan, and tied him up for a thousand years."(Revelation 20:2). DO you believe in this revelation? Certainly this revelation isn't about popularity because during this time the way of Jesus was under persecution by the Romans and christians were despised by many of the jewish people of their time. In fact, Paul writes that the belief of christians were not popular at all, but were considered foolish and a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23).

I doubt that Satan as we know it today was a popular image back then.


Now, wouldn't it best to trust in Jesus and the various revelations of the christian faith rather than if Satan was specifically called an angel in the O.T.? Ebia, I am talking to you as a brother here, as a fellow Anglican. I care about what you think. Just because Satan isn't specifically called an Angel in the O.T. doesn't mean he isn't one. How do you know that it wasn't common knowledge back in the days of the O.T. that Satan was an Angel? If he isn't an Angel, what is he? All devils are actually angels---beautiful beings indeed. Angels are so magnificient and beautiful that the apostle John was compelled to fall down at the feet of one particular angel and worship him (even though he knew only to worship God). Jesus revealed to John that "Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."( Revelation 12:9). Don't you deduce that this alone is enough to show that Satan is evil because he rebelled against God and was deceitful?

 

[ebia]

I might be wrong, but "in philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings." (Sorry for using a wikipedia source)

I know what the word objective means - it's your phrase I couldn't unpack, not the individual words that were problematic.

What I am asking, is, do you believe what Jesus says about Satan is true regardless whether the O.T. contains sufficient information or not?

For some value of true, yes. What quote from Jesus about Satan did you have in mind, because what sense of true we are talking about depends on what sort of text we are talking about?

How can you write off the popular image of Satan ...

My phrase "write off the popular image" is a shorthand for the expanded explaination in my post to Adoniram
Rather than try to proof-text a particular view, why not do what I suggest in that post and see where we get?

Now, wouldn't it best to trust in Jesus and the various revelations of the christian faith rather than if Satan was specifically called an angel in the O.T.?

I'm interested in figuring out what scripture does say, as I've already said. Let's not get into implying I'm not trusting scripture before we've done that work.

Just because Satan isn't specifically called an Angel in the O.T. doesn't mean he isn't one.

That's true, but I'm not going to assume something to be true just because scripture doesn't say it's false.

How do you know that it wasn't common knowledge back in the days of the O.T. that Satan was an Angel?

I don't for sure, but I would expect to see some evidence for it if that was the understanding.

If he isn't an Angel, what is he?

I don't know, but that isn't an argument.

So, assuming you're up for it, what's the first step? I would suggest the first step is to decide what texts we have to work with. Lets leave aside any text that in the first instance is about somebody else (eg Isaiah 14), and note that any texts in an apocalyptic style can't automatically be taken literally. Likewise to a lesser extent any fictional (for lack of a better word) texts like Job. I guess before we can see which texts we have to work with we need to see what biblical evidence there is that Satan, the Devil, the snake in Genesis, etc are one and the same character.

 

[RMDY]

You can't just brush off Isaiah 14.


I am going to pull open my e-sword program and see what it has to say about Isiah 14:








Scofield makes these comments:

Isa 14:12

son of the morning

Verses 12-14 (Isa_14:12-14) evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of this world-system (see "World," (Joh_7:7).

(See Scofield) - (Rev_13:8)

is the real unseen ruler of the successive world-powers. Tyre, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. (see (Eze_28:12-14) Lucifer, "day-star," can be none other that Satan. This tremendous passage marks the beginning of sin in the universe. When Lucifer said, "I will," sin began. See

(See Scofield) - (Rev_20:10).

See other instances of addressing Satan through another, (Gen_3:15); (Mat_16:22); (Mat_16:23).


From the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge Commentary:

Comparisons:

Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen: Isa_13:10, Isa_34:4; Eze_28:13-17; Luk_10:18; 2Pe_2:4; Rev_12:7-10

 

[ebia]

You can't just brush off Isaiah 14.

I'm not brushing it off, I'm saying leave it on one side because you cannot decide what to do with it until some foundational conclusions have been made. Any conclusions Scofield etc have come to is dependent on stuff we haven't yet got to - bring it in now and you're building a circular argument.

Once we've decided some things about Satan (if we manage that) then one can think about what other texts might be brought in on that basis.

We need to start with texts that are explicitly talking about Satan and build from there.

 

[Adoniram]

I'm not at all sure that the bible does indicate that about Satan/the devil.
You can keep telling me it does, but that isn't likely to convince me.



Unless you somehow grew up completely isolated from Christian and Western culture of course you have been exposed to such traditions. Thinking you haven't is just an indicator that you're not aware of their influence.


Okay, lets start from there. There's a picture there in the culture that we can agree is baseless. If that's there in the culture then there may be other stuff that's less obvious in what we think. So, let's put on one side everything we think we know about Satan - about falling angels, assumptions about Isaiah 14, that Satan = the Devil = Beezelbub = the snake in Genesis 3 = whatever. Even the assumption that any of those are real beings. And so forth. Put all that on hold and try to start again from scratch. If we end up in the same place we started then fair enough.


The unfortunate fact is that none of us are free from cultural influences unless we grow up on a desert island, nor do we notice them - and the only thing we can do to mitigate against that is to look for them and be upfront about them.

Ah...I see. Well then...it really has nothing to do with culture/tradition at all, because culture didn't come up with those things about Satan...they come from the Bible. Culture is more about the guy in the red suit, and also the idea that you espouse...that he doesn't exist at all. If you want to "put aside" what the Bible has to say about Satan, "about falling angels, assumptions about Isaiah 14, that Satan = the Devil = Beezelbub = the snake in Genesis 3," then you're right... we don't and can't know anything at all. Maybe you can do that. I can't.

Nevertheless, if, as you say, there is no Biblical proof the devil is a real being; that he is in fact, only a face that man has invented to put on the abstract concept of evil, then it begs the question... why was hell (or the Lake of Fire) created? Mt. 25:41 Jesus speaking-

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels"

Why create a "hell" as the final abode of the devil if he is merely the face of the concept of evil? Strange that God would prepare a place specifically for the devil if he in fact does not exist.

But then...maybe hell doesn't exist either. Maybe God didn't actually "prepare" a place for the devil. Maybe Jesus didn't go to "prepare" a place for believers (John 14:2). Maybe we can't trust anything at all in the Bible. Maybe it's all a lie. That seems to be what the world "culture" would have us believe.

 

[ebia]

So I can't persuade you to join me in starting from scratch and seeing what sort of picture we build from the texts alone if we do that?

 

[RMDY]

I'm not brushing it off, I'm saying leave it on one side because you cannot decide what to do with it until some foundational conclusions have been made.

Fair enough. I made my point and I am glad your not brushing it off. Besides, Scofield and the other commentary gives some biblical references, some of which we can look into.


I'll do my best to look into this subject with you, but I am not a bible scholar, so I only have a limited understanding of the O.T.

 

[ebia]

Fair enough. I made my point and I am glad your not brushing it off. Besides, Scofield and the other commentary gives some biblical references, some of which we can look into.


I'll do my best to look into this subject with you, but I am not a bible scholar, so I only have a limited understanding of the O.T.

Likewise.

So what texts do we have to help us decide if Satan, the devil, the Genesis snake, etc are the same character? Anything other than Revelation 12:9 and 20:7? Anything at all in the O.T. to link Satan and the snake?

 

[Nadiine]

Throughout Christian history, the one known as the "devil", "Satan", or various other titles is personify--made to sound like a person. Yes, this being is even personified as a person in the Bible. But then again, depending on your belief, the Bible is filled with symbolism (religious truths used through the symbolic literature) as it was written by Jews and early Christians for Jews and early Christians who used many symbols in stories and philosophy.

Anyways, is the devil really a person? Or...is "it" more a state of being? A state of negativity toward what is righteous. A state of turning away from God. Does this "devil" have to be an actual being who speaks our words and appears in flesh? Or is this devil more of a state of existence or a state of mind?

Maybe the reason the devil is personify is to show similarity to humans--we being people of faults and prone to temptation.

What is your take on the matter?

Well, Satan is alot more than some "state of being" - that is if
you believe scripture about Satan.

If we want to remove scripture, than you're left to take a wild guess
like everyone else.

Scripture tells us he's a created cherub who desired praise and
glory that God was recieving and that sin was found in him.
(ie. sin isn't created by God; it was first found in his corruption of
inner lust for God's glory).

Ezekiel 28:14
13"You were in Eden, the garden of God; . . . .

"You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.

Satan is a real spirit being - and Revelation tells us that he will
be judged and cast into the lake of fire along with 2 others
eternally.

 

[Nadiine]

Likewise.

So what texts do we have to help us decide if Satan, the devil, the Genesis snake, etc are the same character? Anything other than Revelation 12:9 and 20:7? Anything at all in the O.T. to link Satan and the snake?

I happen to believe that Satan "possessed" a snake and used it to
speak thru or channel thru.
We have to remember that Adam and Eve were the very first people
and wouldn't know what was "strange or impossible" back then like
we know today.

For her to hear a spirit inhabiting an animal probly wouldn't be too
much of an oddity back then with such limited knowledge about anything.
I also believe this is the same thing that happened when the
donkey spoke - it was a spirit that used the animal to speak thru.

We do have accounts of possessed people who sound like animals
or take on animalistic characteristics as well.

Nothing I can prove of course, but I do think they're literal events by supernatural means.