For JWs and LDS

[A New Dawn]

Rigid adherence to creeds over the Spirit, and to traditions over revelation... those are no different, in my mind. I believe Christ condemns them all.

TfT, I wanted to just ask about this "rigid adherence to creeds over the Spirit". How do you interpret your own statement about what "rigid adherence to creeds" means. What is it you think is the problem with a creed that would cause a problem to God? I'm just curious because a creed is just a statement of faith. It isn't a set of laws that one adheres to, and the LDS church has a statement of faith, itself. How does this adherence to creeds/statements of faith differ for the LDS than it does for the rest of Christianity?

 

[TasteForTruth]

TfT, I wanted to just ask about this "rigid adherence to creeds over the Spirit". How do you interpret your own statement about what "rigid adherence to creeds" means. What is it you think is the problem with a creed that would cause a problem to God? I'm just curious because a creed is just a statement of faith. It isn't a set of laws that one adheres to, and the LDS church has a statement of faith, itself. How does this adherence to creeds/statements of faith differ for the LDS than it does for the rest of Christianity?

The word "creed" can be understood in two ways, to my knowledge. First, it can mean "a system of beliefs." Beliefs are always the product of human will, and are the precursors to our premeditated choices. If our beliefs are founded upon God-given faith, our beliefs are true. If they are not, they may not be true. So beliefs (and therefore creeds) are subject to error. So on a purely technical level, adherence to a creed is only a problem to God if the creed contains falsehoods. On an organic level, however, adherence to a sound creed is a problem to God to the degree that man refuses to allow additional truths from God to be incorporated into the it. In the latter situation, the creed itself has supplanted God.

A second meaning of "creed" is "the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group." I suppose this could even be oral, not just written. These, too, are subject to error, unless they are given by God. And when it comes to adherence to creeds by this second definition, the same litmus test applies as with the first definition. If the creed becomes flawed, either by man's introduction of falsehood, or by his refusal to incorporate additional knowledge from God, adherence to the creed is, to such a degree, a problem.

So there is nothing innately wrong with creeds, so long as they are sound and we amend them as revelation from God dictates. This applies to the LDS creed and all Christian creeds.

That's my understanding.

 

[A New Dawn]

The word "creed" can be understood in two ways, to my knowledge. First, it can mean "a system of beliefs." Beliefs are always the product of human will, and are the precursors to our premeditated choices. If our beliefs are founded upon God-given faith, our beliefs are true. If they are not, they may not be true. So beliefs (and therefore creeds) are subject to error. So on a purely technical level, adherence to a creed is only a problem to God if the creed contains falsehoods. On an organic level, however, adherence to a sound creed is a problem to God to the degree that man refuses to allow additional truths from God to be incorporated into the it. In the latter situation, the creed itself has supplanted God.

A second meaning of "creed" is "the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group." I suppose this could even be oral, not just written. These, too, are subject to error, unless they are given by God. And when it comes to adherence to creeds by this second definition, the same litmus test applies as with the first definition. If the creed becomes flawed, either by man's introduction of falsehood, or by his refusal to incorporate additional knowledge from God, adherence to the creed is, to such a degree, a problem.

So there is nothing innately wrong with creeds, so long as they are sound and we amend them as revelation from God dictates. This applies to the LDS creed and all Christian creeds.

That's my understanding.

As we know, the Bible was not available on an individual basis till the printing press was invented, and even then, most common households did not own printed material because, for the common man, it was not a necessity, and therefore not affordable. Part of the purpose of creeds was to make the beliefs of the Bible commonly available to all, since the tenets of the creeds are based on the Bible. Having people learn creeds was a way to bring the Bible into the believer's home.

According to the Bible, the Bible contains all you need to know to be saved. What is it you (personally) feel the Bible lacks that needs revelation on a global scale (as opposed to an individual scale)? For the record, I believe that every believer believes that God continually reveals things to us through the Bible, via the Holy Spirit, but it is personal revelation to help us continue being conformed to the image of Christ. What else needs to be revealed?

 

[Phantasman]

As we know, the Bible was not available on an individual basis till the printing press was invented, and even then, most common households did not own printed material because, for the common man, it was not a necessity, and therefore not affordable. Part of the purpose of creeds was to make the beliefs of the Bible commonly available to all, since the tenets of the creeds are based on the Bible. Having people learn creeds was a way to bring the Bible into the believer's home.

According to the Bible, the Bible contains all you need to know to be saved. What is it you (personally) feel the Bible lacks that needs revelation on a global scale (as opposed to an individual scale)? For the record, I believe that every believer believes that God continually reveals things to us through the Bible, via the Holy Spirit, but it is personal revelation to help us continue being conformed to the image of Christ. What else needs to be revealed?

We are all creatures of free will to search and choose as we please. The information has never been greater than it is today. Spiritual things must be searched for with faith and understanding, but with an open mind. The mind is not open if someone merely hands you a book and says "this is the word of God" just because it was for so many years.

In my 40 years of searching, my conclusion is that Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. John says so in the first line of his Gospel. John is the only Gospel I need. Second is the Gospel of Thomas. It is Jesus speaking all the way through and is not an echo of John like Matthew, Mark and Luke. These two books are God talking to us above all of the Bible. It is all one needs.

The Jews have their Torah and their Prophets. The Catholics in Nicaea have brought Paul and one of the Apocalypse to these generations. Jesus said to preach the good news (Gospel) to all nations. Not the Bible. If we had done as he said, we would not have so many different religions.

 

[he-man]

I'm not seeing an argument that effectively refutes the verses I provided. Although, it could be a matter that your posts are hard for me to read.

Consider the RSV which translates as:
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

Then read the actual Greek:
Mat 6:13 και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου
The RSV has not given us the phrase "The Evil One" in plain unchallengeable Roman letters. "The Evil" comes out boldly enough, in Roman type, but then there is a falter, and the word "one", which is the pith of the alteration in italics.
"Why introduce such words at all if they are not in the original?"
In Genesis we find him a serpent—an animal. We say, "Here is the tempter, but where is the devil?" The narrative gives as nothing but the serpent. To add the devil to the serpent is to go beyond the record; For it condems the serpent forever as an animal Gen 3:14 upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:a pagan graft upon a simple and reasonable and divine narrative.

It is authentically recorded (and Peter commends the record to our confidence) that a dumb ass was enabled to speak in rebuke of the madness of Balaam (Num. 22:28), so why is there more nor less difficulty about the serpent.

To give Adam and Eve an opportunity for obedience of this sort,
or to terminate and set aside the obedience, the serpent provided the test. It was a divine arrangement with a divine object. The same principle was afterwards illustrated when "God did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22:1)

But then, who is the devil? (James 1:14), But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Rev. 12:7-10 is next put forward, but reading it as we are in the book itself directed to read, the scene changes altogether."I will show thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1), on which there arises the obvious reflection that if it was a representation of things future to John's day, it cannot be a history of something long before John's day. This is sufficient of itself to dispose of the passage as a proof of the popular "Devil and Satan".

"Here is the mind which hath wisdom" ( 17:9) "The seven heads are seven mountains (or hills) on which the woman sitteth, and (an additional meaning) there are seven kings (sovereignties—forms of sovereign power, succeeding each other on the seven hills), five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.... And the ten horns are TEN KINGS which have received no kingdom as yet . . . " "The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth". Was there a great city in this position in John's day? How about ROME?

Here is a clue...Thus the dragon as a whole is a political symbol—the symbol of a constitution of the things among the nations of the earth—a constitution having its centre in Rome. Now it is this symbol which is labelled THAT OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world".

How could being killed by the devil kill the devil? Heb. 2:14 And how if he killed the devil, can the devil in that case be still alive;

and how are we to understand the devil having the power of death in view of the fact that the power of death rests with God, and with God only, who inflicts it at His pleasure? (Deut. 32:39).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world" (Gal. 1:3, 4). It was to be made conditional upon a recognition and submission to what was accomplished in Christ. "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:38).

1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be slanderers διαβολους (why then is the word in the original elsewhere rendered Devil).
Parkhurst in his Lexicon, tells us that diabolos διαβολους (the word translated devil) is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. for purposes of understanding, is best to be read in English as The Liar,

The διαβολους Slanderer, or The Accuser; and then the way lies open to ask, A man committs sin from sheer wickedness to get some good for himself. The good he seeks cannot come of it. Hence, sin universally is a lie, and, when personified, is a liar.

Hence, the statement "he that denieth that Jesus"..and "You belong to your father, the devil (διαβόλο&#965, and you want to carry out your father's desire.)" John 8:44 STRONGS NT 1228: διάβολος
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

"The Lord stirred up an adversary (A SATAN) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite" (1 Kings 11:14). "Lest in the battle, he (David) be an adversary (A SATAN) to us" (1 Sam. 29:4).

"There is neither adversary (Satan) nor evil occurrent " (1 Kings 5:4).
There are New Testament instances, such as where Jesus addresses Peter as "Satan" when he opposed Christ's submission to death (Matt. 16:23):
and where Pergamos, the headquarters of the enemies of truth, is described as Satan's seat (Rev. 2:13). The adversary entering into Judas (John 13:27) leads us to inquire, What adversary ?
"It were good for that man", said Jesus "that he had not been born", showing that the sin of Christ's betrayal was charged upon the man Judas (not a supernatural being).
(Acts 5:3). Ananias and Sapphira went into the presence of the apostles
with a lie on their lips; Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" The meaning of Satan filling the heart crops out in the next sentence but one; "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?"
(verse 4); also in Peter's address to Sapphira who came in three hours after Ananias. Peter said unto her, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" (verse 9).

But supposing we had not been thus informed that the lie of Ananias was due to a compact with his wife, from selfish motives, to misrepresent the extent of their property, we should have had no difficulty in understanding that Satan filling the heart was the impulse of the flesh, which is the
great Satan.

Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies . . . (Matt. 15 :19).
By man came death (1 Cor. 15:21).
The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).
Sin hath reigned unto death (Rom. 5:21). Sin bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:15).
Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . .
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Rom.
8:5-9, 12-14). Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan

 

[A New Dawn]

We are all creatures of free will to search and choose as we please. The information has never been greater than it is today. Spiritual things must be searched for with faith and understanding, but with an open mind. The mind is not open if someone merely hands you a book and says "this is the word of God" just because it was for so many years.

In my 40 years of searching, my conclusion is that Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. John says so in the first line of his Gospel. John is the only Gospel I need. Second is the Gospel of Thomas. It is Jesus speaking all the way through and is not an echo of John like Matthew, Mark and Luke. These two books are God talking to us above all of the Bible. It is all one needs.

The Jews have their Torah and their Prophets. The Catholics in Nicaea have brought Paul and one of the Apocalypse to these generations. Jesus said to preach the good news (Gospel) to all nations. Not the Bible. If we had done as he said, we would not have so many different religions.

There is no disparity between Christ and Paul. Jesus taught us what a life that is filled with the Spirit looks like. He told us to preach the gospel. Paul applies what Christ teaches to our daily life in a way that shows us how to live out a Spirit-filled life. The way you live your life is part of preaching the gospel. Remember the saying "actions speak louder than words". If you do not live as you preach, others will find little use for what you say.

 

[Phantasman]

There is no disparity between Christ and Paul. Jesus taught us what a life that is filled with the Spirit looks like. He told us to preach the gospel. Paul applies what Christ teaches to our daily life in a way that shows us how to live out a Spirit-filled life. The way you live your life is part of preaching the gospel. Remember the saying "actions speak louder than words". If you do not live as you preach, others will find little use for what you say.

True. And Polycarp, Thomas and Barnabas brought even more to us, without needless personal reference such as women should remaining silent in church. Choose what the Catholics choose for you, or choose what you feel the Holy Spirit leads you to believe. They may not be one and the same, unless you have been taught to believe they are Sunday after Sunday.

 

[Ran77]

Consider the RSV which translates as:
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

Then read the actual Greek:
Mat 6:13 και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου
The RSV has not given us the phrase "The Evil One" in plain unchallengeable Roman letters. "The Evil" comes out boldly enough, in Roman type, but then there is a falter, and the word "one", which is the pith of the alteration in italics.
"Why introduce such words at all if they are not in the original?"
In Genesis we find him a serpent—an animal. We say, "Here is the tempter, but where is the devil?" The narrative gives as nothing but the serpent. To add the devil to the serpent is to go beyond the record; For it condems the serpent forever as an animal Gen 3:14 upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:a pagan graft upon a simple and reasonable and divine narrative.

It is authentically recorded (and Peter commends the record to our confidence) that a dumb ass was enabled to speak in rebuke of the madness of Balaam (Num. 22:28), so why is there more nor less difficulty about the serpent.

To give Adam and Eve an opportunity for obedience of this sort,
or to terminate and set aside the obedience, the serpent provided the test. It was a divine arrangement with a divine object. The same principle was afterwards illustrated when "God did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22:1)

But then, who is the devil? (James 1:14), But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Rev. 12:7-10 is next put forward, but reading it as we are in the book itself directed to read, the scene changes altogether."I will show thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1), on which there arises the obvious reflection that if it was a representation of things future to John's day, it cannot be a history of something long before John's day. This is sufficient of itself to dispose of the passage as a proof of the popular "Devil and Satan".

"Here is the mind which hath wisdom" ( 17:9) "The seven heads are seven mountains (or hills) on which the woman sitteth, and (an additional meaning) there are seven kings (sovereignties—forms of sovereign power, succeeding each other on the seven hills), five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.... And the ten horns are TEN KINGS which have received no kingdom as yet . . . " "The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth". Was there a great city in this position in John's day? How about ROME?

Here is a clue...Thus the dragon as a whole is a political symbol—the symbol of a constitution of the things among the nations of the earth—a constitution having its centre in Rome. Now it is this symbol which is labelled THAT OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world".

How could being killed by the devil kill the devil? Heb. 2:14 And how if he killed the devil, can the devil in that case be still alive;

and how are we to understand the devil having the power of death in view of the fact that the power of death rests with God, and with God only, who inflicts it at His pleasure? (Deut. 32:39).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world" (Gal. 1:3, 4). It was to be made conditional upon a recognition and submission to what was accomplished in Christ. "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:38).

1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be slanderers διαβολους (why then is the word in the original elsewhere rendered Devil).
Parkhurst in his Lexicon, tells us that diabolos διαβολους (the word translated devil) is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. for purposes of understanding, is best to be read in English as The Liar,

The διαβολους Slanderer, or The Accuser; and then the way lies open to ask, A man committs sin from sheer wickedness to get some good for himself. The good he seeks cannot come of it. Hence, sin universally is a lie, and, when personified, is a liar.

Hence, the statement "he that denieth that Jesus"..and "You belong to your father, the devil (διαβόλο&#965, and you want to carry out your father's desire.)" John 8:44 STRONGS NT 1228: διάβολος
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

"The Lord stirred up an adversary (A SATAN) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite" (1 Kings 11:14). "Lest in the battle, he (David) be an adversary (A SATAN) to us" (1 Sam. 29:4).

"There is neither adversary (Satan) nor evil occurrent " (1 Kings 5:4).
There are New Testament instances, such as where Jesus addresses Peter as "Satan" when he opposed Christ's submission to death (Matt. 16:23):
and where Pergamos, the headquarters of the enemies of truth, is described as Satan's seat (Rev. 2:13). The adversary entering into Judas (John 13:27) leads us to inquire, What adversary ?
"It were good for that man", said Jesus "that he had not been born", showing that the sin of Christ's betrayal was charged upon the man Judas (not a supernatural being).
(Acts 5:3). Ananias and Sapphira went into the presence of the apostles
with a lie on their lips; Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" The meaning of Satan filling the heart crops out in the next sentence but one; "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?"
(verse 4); also in Peter's address to Sapphira who came in three hours after Ananias. Peter said unto her, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" (verse 9).

But supposing we had not been thus informed that the lie of Ananias was due to a compact with his wife, from selfish motives, to misrepresent the extent of their property, we should have had no difficulty in understanding that Satan filling the heart was the impulse of the flesh, which is the
great Satan.

Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies . . . (Matt. 15 :19).
By man came death (1 Cor. 15:21).
The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).
Sin hath reigned unto death (Rom. 5:21). Sin bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:15).
Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . .
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Rom.
8:5-9, 12-14). Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan

For me, this was a much more readable post. Might I suggest that you also include an extra space/line between arguments/comments? That would also help me to follow what you have posted.

 

[he-man]

For me, this was a much more readable post. Might I suggest that you also include an extra space/line between arguments/comments? That would also help me to follow what you have posted.

Sure
Consider the RSV which translates as:

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

Then read the actual Greek:

Mat 6:13 και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου
The RSV has not given us the phrase "The Evil One" in plain unchallengeable Roman letters. "The Evil" comes out boldly enough, in Roman type, but then there is a falter, and the word "one", which is the pith of the alteration in italics.

"Why introduce such words at all if they are not in the original?"

In Genesis we find him a serpent—an animal. We say, "Here is the tempter, but where is the devil?" The narrative gives as nothing but the serpent. To add the devil to the serpent is to go beyond the record; For it condems the serpent forever as an animal Gen 3:14 upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:a pagan graft upon a simple and reasonable and divine narrative.

It is authentically recorded (and Peter commends the record to our confidence) that a dumb ass was enabled to speak in rebuke of the madness of Balaam (Num. 22:28), so why is there more nor less difficulty about the serpent.

To give Adam and Eve an opportunity for obedience of this sort,or to terminate and set aside the obedience, the serpent provided the test. It was a divine arrangement with a divine object. The same principle was afterwards illustrated when "God did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22:1)

But then, who is the devil?

(James 1:14), But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Rev. 12:7-10 is next put forward, but reading it as we are in the book itself directed to read, the scene changes altogether."I will show thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1),

on which there arises the obvious reflection that if it was a representation of things future to John's day, it cannot be a history of something long before John's day. This is sufficient of itself to dispose of the passage as a proof of the popular "Devil and Satan".

"Here is the mind which hath wisdom" ( 17:9)

"The seven heads are seven mountains (or hills) on which the woman sitteth, and (an additional meaning) there are seven kings (sovereignties—forms of sovereign power, succeeding each other on the seven hills), five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.... And the ten horns are TEN KINGS which have received no kingdom as yet . . .

"The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth". Was there a great city in this position in John's day? How about ROME?

Here is a clue...

Thus the dragon as a whole is a political symbol—the symbol of a constitution of the things among the nations of the earth—a constitution having its centre in Rome. Now it is this symbol which is labelled THAT OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world".

How could being killed by the devil kill the devil?

Heb. 2:14 And how if he killed the devil, can the devil in that case be still alive;

and how are we to understand the devil having the power of death in view of the fact that the power of death rests with God, and with God only, who inflicts it at His pleasure? (Deut. 32:39).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world" (Gal. 1:3, 4). It was to be made conditional upon a recognition and submission to what was accomplished in Christ. "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:38).

1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be slanderers διαβολους (why then is the word in the original elsewhere rendered Devil).

Parkhurst in his Lexicon, tells us that diabolos διαβολους (the word translated devil) is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. for purposes of understanding, is best to be read in English as The Liar,

The διαβολους Slanderer, or The Accuser; and then the way lies open to ask, A man committs sin from sheer wickedness to get some good for himself. The good he seeks cannot come of it. Hence, sin universally is a lie, and, when personified, is a Liar.

Hence, the statement

"he that denieth that Jesus"..and "You belong to your father, the devil (διαβόλο&#965, and you want to carry out your father's desire.)" John 8:44 STRONGS NT 1228: διάβολος
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

"The Lord stirred up an adversary (A SATAN) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite" (1 Kings 11:14). "Lest in the battle, he (David) be an adversary (A SATAN) to us" (1 Sam. 29:4).

"There is neither adversary (Satan) nor evil occurrent " (1 Kings 5:4).

There are New Testament instances, such as where Jesus addresses Peter as "Satan" when he opposed Christ's submission to death (Matt. 16:23):

and where Pergamos, the headquarters of the enemies of truth, is described as Satan's seat (Rev. 2:13). The adversary entering into Judas (John 13:27) leads us to inquire,

What adversary ?

"It were good for that man", said Jesus "that he had not been born", showing that the sin of Christ's betrayal was charged upon the man Judas (not a supernatural being).
(Acts 5:3). Ananias and Sapphira went into the presence of the apostles

with a lie on their lips; Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"

The meaning of Satan filling the heart crops out in the next sentence but one; "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?"

(verse 4); also in Peter's address to Sapphira who came in three hours after Ananias. Peter said unto her, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" (verse 9).

But supposing we had not been thus informed that the lie of Ananias was due to a compact with his wife, from selfish motives, to misrepresent the extent of their property, we should have had no difficulty in understanding that Satan filling the heart was the impulse of the flesh, which is the
great Satan.

Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies . . . (Matt. 15 :19).

By man came death (1 Cor. 15:21).

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Sin hath reigned unto death (Rom. 5:21). Sin bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:15).

Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . .

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Rom. 8:5-9, 12-14).

 

[Ran77]

He-man. I'll get back to this and respond to your post later. I just wanted to post a quick comment that this was sooooooo much easier for me to follow. Thank you.

 

[TasteForTruth]

As we know, the Bible was not available on an individual basis till the printing press was invented, and even then, most common households did not own printed material because, for the common man, it was not a necessity, and therefore not affordable. Part of the purpose of creeds was to make the beliefs of the Bible commonly available to all, since the tenets of the creeds are based on the Bible. Having people learn creeds was a way to bring the Bible into the believer's home.

That is understandable.

According to the Bible, the Bible contains all you need to know to be saved.

I do not necessarily share this view, which leads to the next two parts of my post in reply...

What is it you (personally) feel the Bible lacks that needs revelation on a global scale (as opposed to an individual scale)?

I believe that it is God's will that I live by every word which proceeds forth from His mouth. As such, because I believe God has spoken more words than those contained in the Bible, I believe I should live by those other words as well. So for me it is a matter of whether or not I will accept all that He has revealed about salvation. And so I believe that accepting less than all He has revealed—by refusing to live by His words not found in the Bible—would be an expression of ingratitude, and would communicate that I do not want the great blessings He desires to bestow upon me, which blessings were either more fully defined or totally defined in His recent words.

For the record, I believe that every believer believes that God continually reveals things to us through the Bible, via the Holy Spirit, but it is personal revelation to help us continue being conformed to the image of Christ. What else needs to be revealed?

To me, the question you have posed is a short-sighted question. It assumes that man knows with absolute surety that God has nothing more to reveal than He already has. And asking the question at all seems to place man in a position to judge the completeness of God's revelations. With a Being infinitely greater in knowledge and wisdom, how is it possible that God does not have more to reveal—even about salvation? That's my counter-question. But it's asked rhetorically to myself... not expecting anyone to respond.

 

[A New Dawn]

That is understandable.

I do not necessarily share this view, which leads to the next two parts of my post in reply...
I believe that it is God's will that I live by every word which proceeds forth from His mouth. As such, because I believe God has spoken more words than those contained in the Bible, I believe I should live by those other words as well. So for me it is a matter of whether or not I will accept all that He has revealed about salvation. And so I believe that accepting less than all He has revealed—by refusing to live by His words not found in the Bible—would be an expression of ingratitude, and would communicate that I do not want the great blessings He desires to bestow upon me, which blessings were either more fully defined or totally defined in His recent words.

To me, the question you have posed is a short-sighted question. It assumes that man knows with absolute surety that God has nothing more to reveal than He already has. And asking the question at all seems to place man in a position to judge the completeness of God's revelations. With a Being infinitely greater in knowledge and wisdom, how is it possible that God does not have more to reveal—even about salvation? That's my counter-question. But it's asked rhetorically to myself... not expecting anyone to respond.

I guess my answer to your question would be ...... What is the purpose of revelation? The whole Bible, Old Testament and New Testament is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Everything. Christ was revealed to us in the person of Jesus, along with his teachings and how to live one's life. That is where I come from. When the greatest revelation has already been revealed, the one who is the subject of all prior revelations, what is left to reveal? It isn't that I doubt that there isn't anything left to reveal, it's just that I don't believe that all the things that are still a mystery revolve around us needing to know it in order to be saved.

I don't believe that anything that JS revealed is really revelation in the same sense, or of the same quality, as what has been revealed before. I believe that many of his "revelations" are "how to get ahead" in nature, and are given for one's own personal glorification rather than to further reveal Christ or for His glorification.

You are free to disagree, of course.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I guess my answer to your question would be ...... What is the purpose of revelation? The whole Bible, Old Testament and New Testament is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Everything.

I agree, and yet my beliefs differ in a significant way, which certainly affects the way I answer the same questions. My understanding is that all things God does—including revelation—point toward one purpose: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children. So the revelation of Jesus Christ, central and pivotal and magnificent and infinitely important in God's plan as it is, is not the objective. Some may think that so say such is itself a sin. I simply would disagree. To fulfill that purpose—that of exalting Heavenly Father's children—is precisely what Christ suffered and died to bring about! That is my view. And that same end is the objective of revelation. I absolutely believe that God wants to give us all that He has, and that He will give it to us liberally and not upbraid, as He has literally promised, if we will accept and be true to what He has already given us, including the Bible and its revelations of Christ. That revelation is not the end, in my mind. It is the beginning of our journey to all that God offers us.

Christ was revealed to us in the person of Jesus, along with his teachings and how to live one's life. That is where I come from. When the greatest revelation has already been revealed, the one who is the subject of all prior revelations, what is left to reveal?

Again, if that very revelation were the end... if it were God's final and ultimate objective... there would be nothing left to reveal. There would also be no purpose in prolonging man's mortal existence. God's work would have been done. Complete. Nothing more needed.

It isn't that I doubt that there isn't anything left to reveal, it's just that I don't believe that all the things that are still a mystery revolve around us needing to know it in order to be saved.

I don't believe that anything that JS revealed is really revelation in the same sense, or of the same quality, as what has been revealed before. I believe that many of his "revelations" are "how to get ahead" in nature, and are given for one's own personal glorification rather than to further reveal Christ or for His glorification.

You are free to disagree, of course.

I'll respond to the rest later. Have to get up early tomorrow...

 

[strangertoo]

Hi, this is my first post. I think I will find this site edifying, as I enjoy learning about God and about my fellow believers of all Christian faiths. I have a question that is addressed to Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints. I have read about this topic from second-hand sources online, but I thought I'd check with JWs and LDS to find out what you yourselves have to say about it.

I have read that you believe yourselves to be the only "true" Christians. I'm not singling you out by any means, because I know many Catholics, Protestants, fundamentalists, and people in many other sects and denominations believe this about themselves as well. They all believe the Holy Spirit has revealed that they alone are "in the truth", and that their interpretation of the Scriptures is the only correct one. I realize a lot of people who don't even go to a church believe this about themselves, too.

Basically, it seems that anyone can make the Scriptures say whatever they want them to say and claim that the Holy Spirit has revealed their "true" meaning. In reality, however, I think this has more to do with a person's temperament, culture, upbringing, education, life experiences, pride, fear, arrogance, and many other hidden factors than with the Holy Spirit, for God is not the author of confusion.

Anyway, my question is: Do you, Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints, believe that you are the only "true" Christians, and that all others, i.e. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Quakers, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Associated Bible Students, Reorganized LDS, etc. and etc. and (sigh) etc. are NOT Christians at all?

Or perhaps, do you believe that they are indeed Christians, albeit in error?

Let me quote from A.W Tozer's Man the Dwelling Place of God:

"The Early Christians, under the fire of persecution, driven from place to place, sometimes deprived of the opportunity for careful instruction in the faith, wanted a 'rule' which would sum up all that they must believe to assure their everlasting welfare. Out of this critical need arose the creeds. Of the many, the Apostles' Creed is the best known and best loved, and has been reverently repeated by the largest number of believers through the centuries. And for millions of good men that creed contains the essentials of truth. Not all truths, to be sure, but the heart of all truth. It served in trying days as a kind of secret password that instantly united men to each other when passed from lip to lip by followers of the Lamb. It is fair to say, then, that the truth shared by saints in the apostolic fellowship is the same truth which is outlined for convenience in the Apostles' Creed." Chapter 19, The Communion Of Saints

In my opinion, anyone who can read the Apostles' Creed (without necessarily embracing the creed for its own sake) and not disagree with those few basics of the faith, whether or not he believes in the Trinity, hellfire, paradise on Earth, the WBTS, the Book of Mormon, spirit prison, the Pope, arianism, speaking in tongues, transubstantiation, calvinism, arminianism, or any number of other doctrines purported to be biblical, could be a genuine Christian and have the Holy Spirit. This goes along with my belief in the universal, as well as the local, church. I don't think it's a matter of some churches being true while others are false (not that there aren't any false churches), because the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, which is a SPIRITUAL reality that cannot be defined rationally by physical or doctrinal boundaries.

In the words of Watchman Nee, "He who regards appearance takes all the churches as true. He who judges rationally finds some to be true and others false. Only in the eyes of the one who has touched the spiritual reality is the church spiritual beyond question." Watchman Nee, in Spiritual Reality Or Obsession

So, if I believe everything that is outlined in the Apostles' Creed (which nether affirms nor denies the doctrines above) but I don't attend a Kingdom Hall or a LDS congregation, does that mean I am headed for annihilation (JW) or merely the terrestrial kingdom (LDS)? If so, I guess that's not so bad. Many (perhaps most) churches would exclude me from membership for not accepting every jot and tittle of their doctrines as well. That's why I choose to merely attend church rather than become a fully vested member.

I realize I may have rambled a bit, but thank you for your input. I don't plan on replying to any of your responses, but I look forward to reading them. Sam

Of course it doesn't matter what any man says... and obviously almost all men are mistaken because they DIFFER , that is the simplest of logic once one realises that God is not divided and religion of men is divided right down to individual beliefs...

the Truth of God is available absolutely PURE from God Himself , all Truth as promised by Jesus to his few saints...John 16:13...

but there is the clue as to why Jesus tells us that the whole world will be mistaken about God and him -Rev 13:3-4

Jesus commands Love , so to know the Truth from God one has to stop abusing folks with sin against them... so there is the answer why so few know the Truth [Matt 7:14, Jude 1:14] why only one in three million alive today follow Christ according to Jesus' statements in scripture and an estimate of world population at 6.5 billions... and the rest are destroyed [Matt 7:13] for sin [as they refuse to follow Jesus' command and accept grace frees PAST sins when one stops sinning, so they must be freed from sin by death -Rom 6:7 in order that countless many are later saved at judgement day by works after all previously sinners are freed from hell to the kingdom where men are righteous to Love or else must die a second time for freedom from sin in the next life , not having learned a thing from two lives of sin] - Rev 20:13

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

But the DEFINITION of a Christian in scripture is thus one who stops sinning , there are no denominations, just saints who are Christians and sinners who are not yet Christians ... and men can lie, so they do , but none can fool God about who are His and who are not ... saints are sealed by spirit baptism so no sinner can receive it until they stop sinning and stop intent to sin [as God looks on the heart to see what men desire , as well as on sin men do] :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

a Christian has to Love all , all the time, there is no room for any sin abusing folks, it is alien to Jesus and God and Jesus states that he will reject all who still sin when he returns... how much more definitive can one get ? :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

so it makes no sense to ask sinners if they think other sinners are Christians...

no sinner can be follow Christ until they stop sinning and Love, obey Christ..., all Christians not only stop sinning, but are baptised of the spirit and then are trialled BY SATAN to perfect their Love , baptism of 'fire'

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:


... AND God teaches ALL saints Himself -Heb 8:10-11 Christians are not even taught by saints , but by God as Jesus promised -John 16:13 ... so it is nonsense not to stop sinning and learn from God BEFORE one says what one BELIEVES...

and there is the problem in all man-made religions, denominations, sects, cuts, groups... they are just sinners taught by sinners, they never even know God or Jesus, as even the scripture would tell them if they weren't so anxious bending it to say whatever they want it to say to fit what they learned NOT FROM God, but from sinners who simply CANNOT know...sin is abuse, it is not Love :-

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

sinners do not know God at all , else they would Love ...

when we Love God tells us all Truth and clearly religion is not even vaguely close to being unified in the one Truth of Love, of God ...

so mass religion of sinners is of Satan ...

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil

and it will unite [Rev 13:3-4] in worship of a false god image created by Satan... that is why it is divided now, that is how Satan gets men to accept him, by offering unity of faith in him... God is not divided, but unity does not prove it is of God... however Satan does fool the whole world -Rev 13:3-4 all religion bar about two thousand saints alive by then... so you see Jesus never started a mass religion , only Satan did when Rome destroyed the congregations and buildings of the saints of God , scattering saints worldwide ,paradoxically forcing them to do what Jesus commanded, searching the whole world for the children of the House of Israel amongst the gentiles where God long ago scattered them [long before God scattered the 'Jews']

so saints lost their churches long ago , meet only in two's or threes occasionally today as there are but about two thousand saints alive at any one time in this earth... Jesus' figures...confirmed by Jude 1:14 as literal ... just tens of thousands of saints in all history and the church of saints of God never dies out... so it also never is a mass religion, never a sect, just a scattered band of saints hardly ever meeting in their work caring for the poor worldwide and seeking always the next generation of folks who will Love, not sin any more...

 

[he-man]

He-man. I'll get back to this and respond to your post later. I just wanted to post a quick comment that this was sooooooo much easier for me to follow. Thank you.

Sure, I will wait...

Consider the RSV which translates as:
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

Then read the actual Greek:

Mat 6:13 και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου
The RSV has not given us the phrase "The Evil One" in plain unchallengeable Roman letters. "The Evil" comes out boldly enough, in Roman type, but then there is a falter, and the word "one", which is the pith of the alteration in italics.

"Why introduce such words at all if they are not in the original?"

In Genesis we find him a serpent—an animal. We say, "Here is the tempter, but where is the devil?" The narrative gives as nothing but the serpent. To add the devil to the serpent is to go beyond the record; For it condems the serpent forever as an animal Gen 3:14 upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:a pagan graft upon a simple and reasonable and divine narrative.

It is authentically recorded (and Peter commends the record to our confidence) that a dumb ass was enabled to speak in rebuke of the madness of Balaam (Num. 22:28), so why is there more nor less difficulty about the serpent.

To give Adam and Eve an opportunity for obedience of this sort,or to terminate and set aside the obedience, the serpent provided the test. It was a divine arrangement with a divine object. The same principle was afterwards illustrated when "God did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22:1)

But then, who is the devil?

(James 1:14), But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Rev. 12:7-10 is next put forward, but reading it as we are in the book itself directed to read, the scene changes altogether."I will show thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1),

on which there arises the obvious reflection that if it was a representation of things future to John's day, it cannot be a history of something long before John's day. This is sufficient of itself to dispose of the passage as a proof of the popular "Devil and Satan".

"Here is the mind which hath wisdom" ( 17:9)

"The seven heads are seven mountains (or hills) on which the woman sitteth, and (an additional meaning) there are seven kings (sovereignties—forms of sovereign power, succeeding each other on the seven hills), five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.... And the ten horns are TEN KINGS which have received no kingdom as yet . . .

"The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth". Was there a great city in this position in John's day? How about ROME?

Here is a clue...

Thus the dragon as a whole is a political symbol—the symbol of a constitution of the things among the nations of the earth—a constitution having its centre in Rome. Now it is this symbol which is labelled THAT OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world".

How could being killed by the devil kill the devil?

Heb. 2:14 And how if he killed the devil, can the devil in that case be still alive;

and how are we to understand the devil having the power of death in view of the fact that the power of death rests with God, and with God only, who inflicts it at His pleasure? (Deut. 32:39).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world" (Gal. 1:3, 4). It was to be made conditional upon a recognition and submission to what was accomplished in Christ. "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:38).

1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be slanderers διαβολους (why then is the word in the original elsewhere rendered Devil).

Parkhurst in his Lexicon, tells us that diabolos διαβολους (the word translated devil) is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. for purposes of understanding, is best to be read in English as The Liar,

The διαβολους Slanderer, or The Accuser; and then the way lies open to ask, A man committs sin from sheer wickedness to get some good for himself. The good he seeks cannot come of it. Hence, sin universally is a lie, and, when personified, is a Liar.

Hence, the statement

"he that denieth that Jesus"..and "You belong to your father, the devil (διαβόλο&#965, and you want to carry out your father's desire.)" John 8:44 STRONGS NT 1228: διάβολος
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

"The Lord stirred up an adversary (A SATAN) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite" (1 Kings 11:14). "Lest in the battle, he (David) be an adversary (A SATAN) to us" (1 Sam. 29:4).

"There is neither adversary (Satan) nor evil occurrent " (1 Kings 5:4).

There are New Testament instances, such as where Jesus addresses Peter as "Satan" when he opposed Christ's submission to death (Matt. 16:23):

and where Pergamos, the headquarters of the enemies of truth, is described as Satan's seat (Rev. 2:13). The adversary entering into Judas (John 13:27) leads us to inquire,

What adversary ?

"It were good for that man", said Jesus "that he had not been born", showing that the sin of Christ's betrayal was charged upon the man Judas (not a supernatural being).
(Acts 5:3). Ananias and Sapphira went into the presence of the apostles

with a lie on their lips; Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"

The meaning of Satan filling the heart crops out in the next sentence but one; "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?"

(verse 4); also in Peter's address to Sapphira who came in three hours after Ananias. Peter said unto her, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" (verse 9).

But supposing we had not been thus informed that the lie of Ananias was due to a compact with his wife, from selfish motives, to misrepresent the extent of their property, we should have had no difficulty in understanding that Satan filling the heart was the impulse of the flesh, which is the
great Satan.

Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies . . . (Matt. 15 :19).

By man came death (1 Cor. 15:21).

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Sin hath reigned unto death (Rom. 5:21). Sin bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:15).

Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . .

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Rom. 8:5-9, 12-14).

 

[Ran77]

I posted verses from Revelation as an argument against your statement that basically said it was impossible for anything that could set itself up as God's opponent and is somehow polytheistic. And this is your response:

Consider the RSV which translates as:

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

Then read the actual Greek:

Mat 6:13 και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου
The RSV has not given us the phrase "The Evil One" in plain unchallengeable Roman letters. "The Evil" comes out boldly enough, in Roman type, but then there is a falter, and the word "one", which is the pith of the alteration in italics.

"Why introduce such words at all if they are not in the original?"

The KJV gives this translation:

Matt. 6: 13

13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

It doesn't say evil one. It says evil. Which would negate your objection to having "one" added to the text. I am not going to defend why the RSV translate it as such. I don't use that version.

However, Strong's gives the following meaning for the word:

G4190 - Poneros

1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships

2) bad, of a bad nature or condition


Neither of these indicate that they are talking about satan directly and neither of them refute the possiblity that satan, and the angels that followed him, rebelled against God and as such oppose Him. They are part of a prayer that asks to be delivered from hardships / bad nature.

In Genesis we find him a serpent—an animal. We say, "Here is the tempter, but where is the devil?" The narrative gives as nothing but the serpent. To add the devil to the serpent is to go beyond the record; For it condems the serpent forever as an animal Gen 3:14 upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:a pagan graft upon a simple and reasonable and divine narrative.

It is authentically recorded (and Peter commends the record to our confidence) that a dumb ass was enabled to speak in rebuke of the madness of Balaam (Num. 22:28), so why is there more nor less difficulty about the serpent.


To give Adam and Eve an opportunity for obedience of this sort,or to terminate and set aside the obedience, the serpent provided the test. It was a divine arrangement with a divine object. The same principle was afterwards illustrated when "God did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22:1)

But then, who is the devil?

Who is the devil? Satan is the devil. Looking at the verses I posted from Revelations, he is clearly identified.

Rev. 12: 9

9 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.


The great dragon = old serpent = devil = satan. All of those terms refer to satan. And what serpent is older than the one listed in the Garden of Eden? None! I'm not exactly sure who you think the serpent is that talked with Adam and Eve, but the evidence I see from the Bible tells me that it is satan.

Not to mention, this does absolutely nothing to refute that satan rebelled and opposes God.

(James 1:14), But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Rev. 12:7-10 is next put forward, but reading it as we are in the book itself directed to read, the scene changes altogether."I will show thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1),

on which there arises the obvious reflection that if it was a representation of things future to John's day, it cannot be a history of something long before John's day. This is sufficient of itself to dispose of the passage as a proof of the popular "Devil and Satan".

Hmmm . . . it was at this point that it struck me that this sounds like something copied from another source and posted here. Are you Robert Roberts? Because if you are not, you are violating the copyright law by posting his work without giving proper credit to him as the author.

Here is the link: The Evil One Part 2


:o


Wow! You are just copy and pasting. You are not even bothering to post your own comments. That's bad form.


:o

 

[he-man]

I posted verses from Revelation as an argument against your statement that basically said it was impossible for anything that could set itself up as God's opponent and is somehow polytheistic.
Hmmm . . . it was at this point that it struck me that this sounds like something copied from another source and posted here. Are you Robert Roberts? Because if you are not, you are violating the copyright law by posting his work without giving proper credit to him as the author.
Here is the link: The Evil One Part 2

No, you just were so intent on critizing my post that you failed to observe the very last line which gives the source: http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=61353997

Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan

So how about addressing what I posted and cut the criticisms!

Not to mention the clay tablets:
SA´TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew saÆtaÆn, is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Num. 22:22, 32; Ps. 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, viz. (with the article) in Job 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech. 2:1, and (without the article) in 1 Chron. 21:1. Nelsons Electronic Bible

The word devil is derived from the Greek word diabolos ("to slander"), and the term devil can refer to a greater demon in the hierarchy of Hell. At the same time, the term devil is also derived from the same Indo-European root word for deva, which roughly translates as "angel."

It is easy to see how modern religions adapted the satan to mean "fallen angel".
Only rationalists like Maimonides and Abraham ibn Ezra, clearly denied (devils) their existence. Their point of view eventually became the mainstream Jewish understanding.

The Greek word daemon, daemon, appears in the works of Plato and many other ancient authors, without the evil connotations apparent in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek originals of the New Testament.

Some say that Isaiah 14:12. "How are you fallen from heaven, O bright star [or shining one], son of the morning [or son of dawn]! how are you cut down to the ground, you who ruled the nations!" is about the "devil". Part of this is due to the fact that the term bright star or shining one is translated in Latin to lucifer, which means morning star. Now, the context of the verse and a bit of knowledge of history reveals that this is about the Babylonian empire. One of the main dieties of Babylon was "Ishtar", who was the "god" who was the morning star.

Shining one, son of dawn is the morning star. The prophet was avoiding the use of the name of the not-god Ishtar. Reading verse 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.

The idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic—you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.The notion of an angel having free will is alien to Judaism.
HaSatan acts as a servant of God, not as an opponent or even disobediant child. Angels cannot sin, they cannot fall. Soc.Culture.Jewish NewsgroupsFrequently Asked Questions and Answers

Through His prophet Isaiah, God profoundly states, "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and CREATE evil; I am God, I do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).

Consider this: If there were such an opponent and foe of God (Satan) as Christianity claims, don't you think God is capable of eliminating His created angel with a mere breath - or thought (anthropomorphically speaking)? If God spoke him (Satan) into existence; God could simply quit speaking and Satan would simply cease to exist.
Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets, Jewish Publication Society, 1962, Philip Birnbaum, Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1991, Aryeh Kaplan, Jewish Meditation, Schocken Books, 1985.).

Here is a clue...Thus the dragon as a whole is a political symbol—the symbol of a constitution of the things among the nations of the earth—a constitution having its centre in Rome. Now it is this symbol which is labelled THAT OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world".

How could being killed by the devil kill the devil? Heb. 2:14 And how if he killed the devil, can the devil in that case be still alive;
Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan

 

[Ran77]

No, you just were so intent on critizing my post that you failed to observe the very last line which gives the source: http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=61353997

Wrong! There is no source given in post 169, which is the post I quoted and the post I responded to.

If Robert Roberts wants to show up and debate his arguments with me, I'll be happy to oblige. But why should I waste my time responding to cut and paste jobs posted by you? You aren't discussing it. You are just slapping down the thoughts and efforts someone else has supplied.

Look me up when you can provide your own arguments to the debate.

 

[TasteForTruth]

It isn't that I doubt that there isn't anything left to reveal, it's just that I don't believe that all the things that are still a mystery revolve around us needing to know it in order to be saved.

I understand that. Again, for me it is a matter of not counseling God, but receiving counsel at His hand.

I don't believe that anything that JS revealed is really revelation in the same sense, or of the same quality, as what has been revealed before.

No one can make you value any of them. Personally, I think the revelation on the three degrees of glory is among the most expansive revelations ever given to man.

I believe that many of his "revelations" are "how to get ahead" in nature, and are given for one's own personal glorification rather than to further reveal Christ or for His glorification.

You are free to disagree, of course.

Neither of our opinions bears on whether or not the revelations were from God.

 

[he-man]

Wrong! There is no source given in post 169, which is the post I quoted and the post I responded to.
Look me up when you can provide your own arguments to the debate.

You were the one who wanted it reformatted! But I did post it here>

Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan

Your problem is that you do not have any answers! Here are a few more for you:
For Newton, therefore, demons were figures for disordered psychotic states. The cases of demon-possession in the Synoptic Gospels do not describe the activity of literal devils, but instead reflect the (mistaken) beliefs of first-century Jews.’

‘Newton goes on to say that to beleive that men or weomen can really divine, charm, inchant, bewitch or converse with spirits is a superstition of the same nature wth beleiving that the idols of the gentiles were not vanities but had spirits really seated in them.’

‘Newton laid the blame for the rise of the pagan doctrines about demons in the Church at the door of his ecclesiastical nemesis Athanasius, whom he also saw as responsible for introducing Trinitarianism and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. In his “Paradoxical questions concerning Athanasius”, Newton contends that Athanasius advanced the notion of a conscious existence of the soul in the intermediate state between death and resurrection.’

Later than Muggleton, but earlier than Bekker, Newton came to the same conclusion as both of them – that the devil in Scripture was never the supernatural evil being of ‘orthodox’ theology, and that all temptation comes from the lust of the heart:

‘The logical corollary to Newton’s views on evil spirits is that those who claim to be tempted by a personal devil are deluded and provoked by their own fleshly imagination. Newton’s “Paradoxical questions concerning Athanasius,” an important manuscript held at the Clark Library dating from the early 1690s, makes this clear’
The “Devil”, then, is a symbol of lust and an vivid hypostatization of idolatry in aggregate. This language cannot be reconciled with the orthodox position.’
SOURCE: Stephen Snobelen, ‘Lust, Pride, And Ambition: Isaac Newton And The Devil’, pages 7, 8,9,10,11,12 November 2002

Early Bible fundamentalist Unitarians and Dissenters like Lardner, Mead, Farmer, Ashdowne and Simpson, and Epps taught that the miraculous healings of the Bible were real, but that the devil was an allegory, and demons just the medical language of the day.

Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology.

Originally, only the epithet of "the satan" ("the adversary") was used to denote the character in the Hebrew deity's court that later became known as "the Devil." (The term "satan" was also used to designate human enemies of the Hebrews that Yahweh raised against them.)

The article was lost and this title became a proper name: Satan. There is no unambiguous reference to the Devil in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings.
SOURCE: T. J. Wray, Gregory Mobley The birth of Satan pp.66-68
has been erroneously interpreted by some to mean Satan, "the Devil", but such is not the case. The Hebrew Bible views ha-satan as an angel ministering to the desires of God, acting as Chief Prosecutor.
SOURCE: Carus P. History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil
Thomas Hobbes (1651); Arthur Ashley Sykes (1737); Richard Mead (1755); 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
Burke, J. Christianity in the Witch Hunt Era, 2008

In 1737 Sykes published ‘An enquiry into the meaning of demoniacs 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.

Not only did Epps reject the orthodox church establishments, but he also rejected a number of the mainstream Christian doctrines. He rejected the doctrine of the immortal soul, emphasising instead resurrection as the escape from death. In this vein, the second coming of Christ is also emphasised. He taught that Hell is the grave, not the place of torment of mainstream Christianity. He also spoke out against the glorification of war-heroes: "the honour of the British flag is a specious phrase which blinds men's eyes to right and wrong", he said.

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).

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 and at the Dock Head Church to demonstrate that the devil is not a personal being.

David Joris (c. 1501–1556), Against this is his rationalist approach to the topic of the devil and supernatural evil. David Joris anticipated the views of Thomas Hobbes, John Epps and Dr. John Thomas in interpreting the devil as an allegory

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil