Mik,
Your not understanding at what I'm saying in my previous posts. I don't believe that evil spirits are an effluence from God although in certain texts of the OT they are portrayed as such (1Samuel 18:10). The OP is saying that satan was a generic term for adversary or accuser not a separate being who is a chief of fallen demons as understood today . And insinuates these early texts are the only one which are true about the nature of Satan or possibly demonic beings
Angel is a generic term as well in both Hebrew and Greek which means messenger. John the Baptist is called an angel in Mark 1:2
In Genesis angels are described as either humans (Genesis 18:1-3) or as a fire and are recognized as visitations of the very God Himself albeit in a disguised form. Thus using this same reasoning We should discard a belief in angels as actual spiritual creatures.
My argument is that it's irrelevant what was believed in some primitive point in time as Christians we interpret in light of the gospel. Using the OP approach can also mean to discard archangel Michael and Gabriel, they are never mentioned in the Torah and their appearance in Daniel can be explained as an anomaly of a later corruption
Your not understanding at what I'm saying in my previous posts. I don't believe that evil spirits are an effluence from God although in certain texts of the OT they are portrayed as such (1Samuel 18:10). The OP is saying that satan was a generic term for adversary or accuser not a separate being who is a chief of fallen demons as understood today . And insinuates these early texts are the only one which are true about the nature of Satan or possibly demonic beings
Angel is a generic term as well in both Hebrew and Greek which means messenger. John the Baptist is called an angel in Mark 1:2
In Genesis angels are described as either humans (Genesis 18:1-3) or as a fire and are recognized as visitations of the very God Himself albeit in a disguised form. Thus using this same reasoning We should discard a belief in angels as actual spiritual creatures.
My argument is that it's irrelevant what was believed in some primitive point in time as Christians we interpret in light of the gospel. Using the OP approach can also mean to discard archangel Michael and Gabriel, they are never mentioned in the Torah and their appearance in Daniel can be explained as an anomaly of a later corruption
Last edited:
Upvote
0