Origin of Satan

Radrook said:

He was once an Apostle but turned against Jesus. He was also a thief.

The Wonderful Truth: Judas the thief

Click to expand...

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.


If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit in Matthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.


Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testament references. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.


Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.


1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.


One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value. It would also appear that Matthew in mentioning this was using the literary technique of haggadic midrash in referencing Zecharia 11:12-13.

JackRT said:

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.


If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit in Matthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.


Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testament references. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.


Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.


1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.


One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value. It would also appear that Matthew in mentioning this was using the literary technique of haggadic midrash in referencing Zecharia 11:12-13.

Click to expand...

Your statement regarding Matthias added to the apostles is not true

Not only does Peter stress that the one added to the ministry had to have accompanied the Lord throughout HIS physical ministry, he had to be present a witness of HIS taken up (into the clouds) with them

And HE was indeed taken up from their presence before they cast lots

Please review Acts 1

Also, Jesus already knew who would betray HIM and as well said, not all are clean

Are you suggesting that Judah who was declared both as the one who betrayed HIM and unclean does have a part in HIS MINISTRY

Even when scripture clearly says the one who shared my bread has lifted up his hand against me

As well, let another take his office

miknik5 said:

Your statement regarding Matthias added to the apostles is not true

Click to expand...

Here is the statement that you are concerned with: "Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness." (bolding is yours)

This statement is perfectly correct. Matthias might have indeed witnessed the resurrection but not as "one of the twelve" because he wasn't elected to that status until 50 days later.

Radrook said:

The scripture you re referring to is in relation to people who have either become Christians and then for some reason, either persecution, succumbing to temptation, turned back to the world.
Before they might have been sinning out of ignorance. But once they gain accurate knowledge then their sinning is no longer based on ignorance so they are worse off than they had been prior to learning the truth. If such a person had been under demonic attack prior to becoming a Christian then that persons risks coming under attack again with a vengeance.



Christians on the other hand don't have to walk around in fear of being Satanically possessed or molested. We have the greatest power I the universe on our side and nothing can overcame that power.



BTW
Knowing what Satan or his demons look like isn't important. It's knowing their schemes that is essential in order to protect ourselves.

Click to expand...

Is it also irrelevant if they are jealous of our salvation?

On Youtube user I was talking to said they aren't hopeless beings who wish they could go back-they hate people and want us to sin because their nature loves evil, and they are too evil to regret being eternally lost-now.

Logically speaking, even if they did rebel and were cast out from Heaven, yet if they want to get back to Heaven, to get right with God, to serve him in all humility and honesty, they should get it. Yet the problem is, demons do not want to go back, they hate Heaven, they hate God. I personally believe that Satan with demons are condemned to the lake of fire the same way the city of Nineveh was condemned to destruction, which means that if Satan would repent right now, if he would give an order to all his angels to stop living in wickedness and to serve God with all they heart, soul and mind, you now what would happen? Evil would disappear out of existence, there would be no Hell, our world would become like Heaven. But Satan isnt repenting, he is rebelling to the end with great pride and therefore his judgement stays.

Click to expand...

Still not clear as to what your point is: are you saying you do not believe that there are demons, or devils?

AlexDTX said:

Still not clear as to what your point is: are you saying you do not believe that there are demons, or devils?

Click to expand...

My point is-It is not relevant speculating about them-all we need to know is that they are evil and our enemies.

Superhero Sam said:

My point is-It is not relevant speculating about them-all we need to know is that they are evil and our enemies.

Click to expand...

My question is addressed to He-man, not you. My apologies for the confusion.

JackRT said:

Here is the statement that you are concerned with: "Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness." (bolding is yours)

This statement is perfectly correct. Matthias might have indeed witnessed the resurrection but not as "one of the twelve" because he wasn't elected to that status until 50 days later.

Click to expand...

Did Peter speak correctly when he explained the necessary credentials of one called an apostle?

NAMELY:

Acts 1:
15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

(Notice that after His resurrection and ascension and before Pentecost there were no longer twelve)

AlexDTX said:

My question is addressed to He-man, not you. My apologies for the confusion.

Click to expand...

Do you agree speculating on evil is a waste of time?

It doesnt matter why certain beings hate good and love evil. it is irrelevant.

JackRT said:

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.


If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit in Matthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.


Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testament references. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.


Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.


1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.


One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value. It would also appear that Matthew in mentioning this was using the literary technique of haggadic midrash in referencing Zecharia 11:12-13.

Click to expand...

There's another suggestion which you never mention

That Paul, knowing an apostle is "one who has seen the LORD" counted Peters selection of Matthias as included Matthias in his understanding as "the twelve" and did indeed, knowing the scriptures and knowing the outcome of Judas' fate, agreed with Peter's numbering and calling Matthias as in with the twelve approved apostles

he-man said:

To this day, Christian baptism requires a person to solemnly" renounce the devil and all his works" and to accept exorcism. Rereading biblical and extra biblical accounts of angels, I learned first of all what many scholars have pointed out: that while angels often appear in the Hebrew Bible, Satan, along with other fallen angels or demonic beings, is virtually absent. ....

Click to expand...

The evil and evil one do no not exist (because the God is source of Existence), but the evil and the evil ones are the PROBLEM with solution in hell.

Superhero Sam said:

Do you agree speculating on evil is a waste of time?

It doesnt matter why certain beings hate good and love evil. it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Evil does not take much to speculate since it is all around. I am trying to find the balance between what Jesus said about being wise as serpents yet harmless as doves and what Paul said about being wise on what is good yet simple concerning evil.

You will remember from the scriptures that Paul does not count himself as one of the twelve but as one born abnormally last

That is to say, unlike the first 12, he didn't walk with CHRIST during HIS public and earthly ministry but came in later and afterwards

Though he does call himself an apostle:

Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen THE LORD?

That's what he says
And that is his distinction in identifying himself, though last, as one who indeed had seen THE LORD)

AlexDTX said:

Evil does not take much to speculate since it is all around. I am trying to find the balance between what Jesus said about being wise as serpents yet harmless as doves and what Paul said about being wise on what is good yet simple concerning evil.

Click to expand...

It means not to assume and have a preconceived notion or motive (all that is hidden shall be revealed) other than to love what is good and to desire to do what is good and to pray and never cease from praying for the salvation of the souls of men

Alex, I hope you're not offended by my butting in

Superhero Sam said:

Is it also irrelevant if they are jealous of our salvation?

On Youtube user I was talking to said they aren't hopeless beings who wish they could go back-they hate people and want us to sin because their nature loves evil, and they are too evil to regret being eternally lost-now.

Click to expand...

If indeed they have hope-it is a hopeless hope based on a hopeless cause since they cannot overpower God and establish a permanent presence in his universe.

Daniel 2:44 ►
New International Version
"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

Click to expand...

Genesis 3:15 ►
New International Version
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Click to expand...

We mustn't forget that essentially that is what they are complaining about-being in submission to God. Not being able to establish their own sense of right and wrong without his interference.

That is the idea that was implanted in the mind of Eve, a sense of dissatisfaction-of being bullied by her creator who in Satan's eyes was not giving his creation a fair shake by preventing them from being a law unto themselves.

This issue, or the temptation to view things in that way, wasn't simply directed at Adam and Eve-it was simultaneously directed at all the holy angels as well and it was up to them to either agree or to remain loyal.

Everything else Satan and his demons do or think can be better understood within that framework.

BTW
Jealous of our staying alive by taking sides with God fits into that framework.
Jealous that humans are able to be saved by accepting God's sovereinty as they had done before deciding not to doesn't.

miknik5 said:

Alex, I hope you're not offended by my butting in

Click to expand...

Not at all. Heman's thread makes no sense to me. Your comment is excellent. I was not thinking in terms of judging people's motives, but rather the extensive research I have done on the aristocracy and how they are trying to create a global government with all of us as dumbed down worker bees. It makes me angry when I consider the GMO sold as "food", the chemtrails that poison the air, and the endless wars they put us through regarding us as only cannon fodder. And they have greatly undermined the church with their ecumenical movement and government subservience themes.

So, the fruit of the Spirit in me becomes overshadowed by that anger, and I battle it so as not to rob myself of love God wants me to have for all people, including the enemies of mankind.

AlexDTX said:

Not at all. Heman's thread makes no sense to me. Your comment is excellent. I was not thinking in terms of judging people's motives, but rather the extensive research I have done on the aristocracy and how they are trying to create a global government with all of us as dumbed down worker bees. It makes me angry when I consider the GMO sold as "food", the chemtrails that poison the air, and the endless wars they put us through regarding us as only cannon fodder. And they have greatly undermined the church with their ecumenical movement and government subservience themes.

So, the fruit of the Spirit in me becomes overshadowed by that anger, and I battle it so as not to rob myself of love God wants me to have for all people, including the enemies of mankind.

Click to expand...

And still we have to guard our hearts and give to alll who ask without showing favoritism


And I tell you when evil runs rampant, there will be also those who at first looked to the wrong treasures who will be looking from us for the TRUE TREASURE

And we cant withhold THAT TREASURE from anyone

he-man said:

How about the JewishEncyclopedia.com SATAN – ...likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a ...distinct being was not then known.

Click to expand...

I never said that Satan as a distinct being was known in the Torah. My argument is depending on the texts, many early OT texts do not even recognize angels as distinct spiritual beings neither. Hence evil and holy spirits proceed out of God as an effluence or sometimes certain men or a fire are recognized as God himself.
We know angel is a generic word for messenger which is precisely what John the Baptist was likewise the word Satan has its generic meaning of adversary. If anything Numbers 22:32 plants the first seeds of a distinct being in oppodition to God's will. The angel of the Lord opposes Balaam because he went afoul from God and made his donkey to speak, then it presupposes a like spirit allowed a serpent to speak whose in opposition to God.

There's only ONE HOLY SPIRIT

not many
Angels and demons do not proceed from GOD

John The Bsptist was not an angel
Though he was indeed a herald and a witness to CHRIST

And not to angels

For GOD did not enflesh HIS SPIRIT and come into the world to save angels