Revelation's "Satan" is not Satan!

I beleive one of the most miscontrued verses in revelation are

Rev. 12:9 said:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Click to expand...

Rev 20:2 said:

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

Click to expand...

The word "Satan" means Enemy or Advarssary. Not every word of Satan is reffering to the being that Tempted Jesus.

In Revelation a beast stands out "having seven heads and ten horns" mentioned by daniel and by John on several occassions.

Now Daniel's Dragon of seven head and ten horns by most theologians and accepted by most christians as "the last Empire"
" and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. (Dan. 7:7)

John describes a beast having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 12,13,17)
so the descriptions of these beast are the same. So in context of the descriptions then "Satan and the devil" is referring to the "Seventh Empire".

John is not being literal in his descriptions and neither is Daniel. We did not see the beast he describes when it refered to Rome, Macedonia, Persia and Babylon.
They were symbols, symbolic. That is what John is doing to the Seventh Empire, being symbolic. The empire will lie, will cheat, will be an enemy of the Church and the Jews.

Satan being bound for 1000 years is not talking about the being who tempted Jesus, but the empire, or the spirit of the empire, for it will be released yet again.

As I have said and believe, the seventh empire is the Ottoman Empire and that the empire is bound for this time period and it will be released again (Gog and Magog) which, I know a few will disagree, but the ancient locations of them are in present day turkey.

Turkey (Asia Minor) plays a vital role in the last 2000 years of history. Johns Churches are located in Turkey. The Byzantine Empire was centered in Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was centered in Turkey. Gog and magog ancient homeland is in Turkey.

So in some point in history the Ottoman Empire will be reformed and attack Israel and the King of the North (Eze. 38 and 39 and Dan. 11:40ff).

I am convinced by the description of the "Satan" that it is the seventh Empire (Ottoman Empire).

Micahyah said:

You think we are already in the millenial period then I guess?

That it started after the Ottoman empire fell?

Can't say I see any evidence of that at all.

Click to expand...

Yes you do, the gospel is the "kingdom of God" and the Gospel has been able to spread throughout the world more so now after the Ottoman Empire fell, than anytime prior to its fall. The British and the Americans are responislbe for the spread of the Gospel moreso, than any other countries. The British Empire conqured the Ottoman Empire and by doing so was able to spread the gospel, becasue they brought in missionaries and such into the Muslim world where there were none, prior to the English arriving.


It is not a literal reign.

I love this, i say "deny" one "Satan" and all of a sudden i deny the whole bible.

Honestly people did you read what i said.

I said the Satan of Revelation is not the Satan that temped Jesus (JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT) So therefore I am not denying Satan. The descri[tion in Revelation is constistant with that of the seventh Empire, last i read the one who tempted Christ (FOR THOSE WHO MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME) did not have seven heads and ten horns, he looked like a human.

Everytime "Satan" is mentioned it is not always refering to Satan.

"You are a very adept Jesuit type"

What is that mean?

Zadok7000 said:

1 Chron. 21 - which satan is this?
The proper readind is "A Satan" so the context is that is is an unknown person who talked David into the census.
Job 1 - which satan is this?
Job 2 - which satan is this?
My belief is that Job is a fictious story. But many conservatives and liberal scholars don't put much into using that "Satan" into the real Satan.
Psalm 109 - which satan is this?
That is translated accuser (which is what the word means) That verse is saying let a wicked man stand over him and let someone accuse him all the time.
Zech. 3 - which satan is this?
Again look at the context, The messiah is not Jesus, it is the Persian King and someone is accusing the Jews to the King. Again it is an unknown man accusing the Jews. Zechariah used an anology of the "Angel of the Lord" and "Satan" to describe the even of the Persian King allowing the Jews to return home and "Satan" is an unknown person preventing that, read Ezra and Nehemiah and you will see that very thing.
Matt. 4 - which satan is this?
That would be Satan who tempted Jesus as i said.
Matt. 12 - which satan is this?
No article in front of the word, so he is simply saying if one enemy cast out another will they stand together? He is simply saying there if there is no honor among thieves will they survive together.
Matt. 16 - which satan is this?
He is calling Peter Satan, for at that moment Peter was accusing him and becoming a stumbling block to him.
Mark 1 - which satan is this?
Same as mentioned above in Matt.
Mark 3 - which satan is this?
Same as above.
Mark 4 - which satan is this?
Someone who is an ememy of the truth, could be Satan or could be anyone else. The Jews did that with Paul, they accused him in order to stop his messages.
Mark 8 - which satan is this?
Same as above.
Luke 4 - which satan is this?
Cant find that, most likely referring to an accuser.
Luke 10 - which satan is this?
Good be Satan, again no context that says it is. But Jesus is speaking in an alaogory way, refering to Satan as Lightning.
Luke 11 - which satan is this?
Seems like it could be Satan.
Luke 13 - which satan is this?
A mental or physical sickness.
Luke 22 - which satan is this?
As I said Satan is real, so it is possible that is Satan.
John 13 - which satan is this?
Satan or a "Satan" (unknown person) seemed to have influenced Judas
Acts 5- which satan is this?
Context seems to say that it is Satan.
Acts 26 - which satan is this?
Again, context seems to say Satan.
Rom. 16 - which satan is this?
Satan is an accuser, so it could be someone accusing Paul or the church he is at and all he is saying that they will overcome this person accusing them.
1 Cor. 5 - which satan is this?
If you are in the church you are of God, and if you leave the church you are of the world (who is against God)
1 Cor. 7 - which satan is this?
could be false teaching or a false teacher.
2 Cor. 2 - which satan is this?
Seems to be refering to an outside force, either spirtual or physical (remember the Jews were out to get the christians.
2 Cor. 11 - which satan is this?
A false teacher will come as a "messanger of Light".
2 Cor. 12 - which satan is this?
A physcial aliement of some sort. Paul uses the word Satan to mean enemy of God, either a person, a physical hinderance, a false teaching or what is not "Christian".
1 Thes. 2 - which satan is this?
Again, someone hindered him. See above.
2 Thes. 2 - which satan is this?
See Above, a person, coming into their area with signs and wonders, something Paul did very little of.
1 Tim. 1 - which satan is this?
They were taken out of the church, handed over to the world.
1 Tim. 5 - which satan is this?
Follow the world.

And these are all different than the satan of Revelation
2:9,
People who call them selves Jews and are not, Remember Jesus said that some of the Jews are not of the line of Abraham but of the Devil.
2:13,
Context seems to say a very worldly or very anti-God area. Satan one who accuses God or is an enemy of God.
2:24,
Some form of anti-god teaching.
3:9,
see 2:9
12:9.
See what i said on this, the empire is described as having seven heads and ten horns, all through Revelation and Daniel. Therefore, i match up what is described was to what else is desribed. Simple contex to context.
20:2
The 7th empire is bound for a time period and will be released as the 8th empire. see Rev. 17:10
and 20:7
see above???

Click to expand...

G4567
Σατανᾶς
Satanas
Of Chaldee origin corresponding to G4566 (with the definite article affixed); the accuser.

H7854
שׂטן
śâṭân
saw-tawn'
From H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch enemy of good: - adversary.

I take the context of what is being said and I apply the word "Satan" to it.

I am not denying it, just simply applying context and not using presuppostions.

Let me ask a question, when you see the word Messiah or annointed one who do you think of?

If you are of the traditional thinking you will think Jesus, well that is wrong.

H4899
משׁיח
mâshîyach
maw-shee'-akh
From H4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint);

It can mean a priest to a king.

Also Cyrus is called the Messiah, so is Jesus' name really Cyrus. It says Messiah, so it must mean Jesus. But the context says it is Cyrus.
Isa 45:1 Thus says the LORD to Cyrus His anointed (Messiah, same word as annointed), Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him And to loose the loins of kings; To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:
But if I use your logic on the word Satan as to Messiah, anointed ect., then Jesus is Cyrus, Jesus is Aaron, David, every good and bad King of Israel and Judah.

But I know you will not say that or believe that. You will take the word in the context it is said, right?

I use context and the meaning and the article that may come before it.

HowardDean said:

Your position is a very minority one; this does not necessarily make it correct.

Click to expand...

Yours maybe the majority one, but it does not mean it is correct. (if 90 people jumped off a bridge, does that mean you will too?) Just because it is the majority held view, does not mean it is right. That is what i am saying. At one time the majority held that the Pope was divined inspired by God, now we have two sects of christiandom that do not or will not beleive that. Just because it is the held view of the church, whether catholic, protestant or Orthodx does not make it correct.

I take context of what is there, everyone else assumes with no context of the passage, just what they are told.

Im not out to "prove" myself right as some will think, i am simpy showing an alternative to what is out there, backed up by scripture and context (though simply going contrary with the said main belief, some will say i am preverting the word of God or "wrong" in my conclusion) that is fine, you have the right to your beliefs as I do. Obvious I believe some conclusions are wrong, but I dont need to say "so and so" is wrong here is why. Because I am confident in my beleif that what i say is correct.

brother daniel said:

Beloved voldmort,
You error out of ignorance or stubborness.
Satan is a literal foe who did tempt Jesus and now tempts you to doubt Jesus Christ, the word of God and
lean to your own understanding.

I was glad for your turning my attention to the TURKS,


Thank God we can be new creatures in Christ Jesus.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

Click to expand...

I have read what you have said in a few other post, I disagree. But i am not talking about the people of Gog and magog, they dont exist anymore or as you have said they have moved on, but I am talking about the land of Gog and magog, wich has not changed.

People wise they will have moved on or wiped out or merged with another group of people, that is speculation, but the land of Gog and magog is not specualtion and that is in Modern Day Turkey.

Like the Jews today are not the Jews of 2000 years ago or 3000 years ago, they changed, they merged with other tribes or other peoples, but the land promised to them is the same, that is the logic i use for Gog and Magog.

Bick said:

HI lordvoldemort. Yes, it is true that "satan" means basically "adversary", and that it can used when speaking of a person. But, when the article "the" is used, it is referring to the Satan, the enemy, the liar, etc. who was that way from beginning.

I don't understand why you come up with more than one Satan. Satan is given a number of names: the dragon, the serpent , the Devil, as John writes in Revelation 20:2. There can be only one Satan.

IMO, the scarlet beast is symbolic for the powers of the earth during Daniel's 70th week, out of which will come the 'Anti-Christ', a man who will be supernaturally empowered by Satan.

We are told in Rev. 17:10ff that the seven hills are seven hills on which the woman (Babylon) sat, and they also are seven kings; and the ten horns are then kings who have not yet received power,

Bick

Click to expand...

The major enemy is Satan (whoever or whatever that is) but the word Satan is used so often in the NT that its context must be taken into account, and if the context can not help then what is being described.

Revelation is a book of symbols written out in words, so if you were to see the book of revelation as it was shown to John it would be symbols and he just writes them out.

The problem is that most Christians are taught to read Revelation like they would read John or Isaiah, and that is where the confusion comes in, so when I say, Satan, is not Satan, you saw the remarks. It is because they are applying normal point by point or event by event logic to revelation. That can not happen (it is a book of symbols, each symbol represents something in time) Satan (seven heads and ten horns) represents the "spirit of the Empires" There were seven empires (Egypt, Assyria, babylon, Persia, Macedonia (Ptolomy and Selecuid), Rome [Roman (west) and Byzatine (east)] followed by the Ottoman Empire. The spirit is bound for "1000 years" and then Gog and Magog will happen.

The Ottoman empire ended in 1917 if you follow the pattern then the "1000 years" is now and we are waiting for Gog and magog and "Satan" will be released yet again.

HowardDean said:

I'm sorry, but logic tells us this is way off base.

Click to expand...

It is not logic, it is understanding of the book. I have no problem to agree to disagree. But my logic is not flawed nor wrong.

You view it one way, I was taught that way as well, five years ago, i would never bring this up, but since I started looking at what the bible said and not what the church said, i picked up new angles on looking at things.

It is all presuppostion and lenses that you see the bible in. You hold a more traditional view (Satan means "Satan" no matter where that word shows up) I, on the other hand look at context and what the word means to the passage at hand.

I used the word Messiah earlier, a priest is a messiah just as much as Jesus is. But the context says that Jesus is THE MESSIAH, but that Priest are annointed to serve in the place of God on earth.

CONTEXT CONTEXT AND CONTEXT will tell you what a word means.

Phoenix said:

Dude. Step back and rethink a bit. What is consistent and undeniable is that Satan/False Prophet/Beast is a counterfeit of The Father/Son/Holy Spirit not an empire or anything else.

Click to expand...

The Beast is an empire (seven heads and ten horns) Satan is the spirit of the empire (seven heads and ten horns)
The "false prophet" is a the leaders of the government of the first beast.

No individuals here. The Beast is, IMO, the Ottoman Empire. Satan is the "spirit" behind the empires, and the False prophet is the Caliphate that ruled the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a modern, or more recent theology. I will be hard pressed to find anything beyound the 1800's for that justification, most likely it was started by Darby or a follower of his.

As I have said, my belief comes from the bible and history. I know history and the "10 horns" ten kings, coming together, is only seen in history as the Ottoman Empire. No other empire was ever formed by ten kings uniting under one king/ruler and forming a formaible empire.

People say Europe is, well that went out the window, when it went to 11, now they are looking at 30 or so? There is no justification for that by the bible, though some keep trying.