Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So much discussions about Hell, someone needs to bring some realistic theology into this subject. Hell is a fanatasy IMO, and has nothing to do with anything scripturally. I believed it at one time, but that was because I took the creeds over the scriptures, now that is over, thank God.
The character of Satan is quite literal in the Book of Job. Similarly in the Zohar (Qabbalah), the figure of Satan is a 'real' being set apart to challenge Moishe (Moses) about the nature of the Revelation at Sinai (see also Simcha Torah). Finally in Talmud this is expounded in Sanhedrin 26b as Satan as the Yetzer ha'Ra or 'bad influence' more or less. Satan plays a role in Rosh Hashana where special prayers are employed before the Shofar in order to confuse Satan. The free will Judaism concerns itself with, is the ability to make decisions and act on good and evil. That is why you always need that yetzer hara, the evil option to be an option. That is what "Satan" is in Judaism; a simple plot device giving people free will- a plot device that has no realm, no intentionality or direction of it's own. Any knowledgeable Jew can find a robust Hallachic explanation for this argument, and quite possibly, Abraham, probably Moses as well, wouldn't even understand the concept of "soul" nor exactly use the Hebrew [or Akkadian] verb related to the Arabic aslama to represent their relationship with God. Ancient Hebrew vs...say modern normative Jewish, the definition of "soul" had nothing metaphysical about it. The notions vested in the English definition of "soul" are substantially different from the Hebrew view of it, indeed the Hebrew view of the Universe, as we continuously uncover in Preterism, most notably, Covenant Creation.
In ancient Israel, the soul is considered and interpreted as a very simple thing....
Blood = Soul
Etymologically, there is a whole spectrum of related words that substantiate this linguistically. From the earth/dirt/clay (adama) to man (adam) to the color red (adom) to blood (dam), as well as the shoresh (root). That's how it is for the majority of the Tanach, and the whole of the Chumash. Some of the prophets definitely extended the older definition. But Moses himself, I would say would agree with the said position as we repeatedly see this very relationship or synonymy Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11; Deut 12:23 etc.
This idea resonates to this very day in normative Judaism. The whole of Koshrut is founded in it actually. Consumption of blood is a grave iniquity... if "nefesh", etc, was mere "spirit" (anachronistically) it would de facto abrogate Koshrut, yet nothing of the kind has ever occurred, and today we just have slightly contradictory philosophic overlay, a consequence of Judaism being affected by newer, foreign, ideas throughout the ages, such as it had been during the 2nd Temple period with the influx of Hellenistic philosophies and theologies.
The Hebrew religion never had a "hell" equivalent to Orthodox Christian or Islamic Hell, or any other Indo-European tradition. Actually nothing remotely like it. It was comparable as an idea to the Mesopotamian netherworld, and to a lesser degree the old Greek variation, which itself was inspired by near eastern religion. Literally the dust beneath your feet, that is "haunted" by buried bodies, for example. Even into the late 2nd Temple period, the Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees on the subject of rivers running through cemeteries. The former claimed that it was a general corrupting factor, the latter denied it but accepted that cemeteries in themselves should be avoided by the kohanim. All this revolves around the cycle of life/death in ancient Judaism, from the earth life is imparted in man, and then drained back into the earth.
While it is true that nefesh resides in the blood, this has little to do with the soul of man called neshama which was breathed into the nostril directly by God, whereas only the body of a man was made from earth, hence his name Adam from adama. The account in Bresheet, man, Adam, and not all subsequent men (individually), and women, are imparted upon. What precisely is being animated, non preexisting "man" or existing "clay/earth" which are semantically flipped in the Tanach? Inversely, can a man live without life-blood? When you die you return to what state? When an animal dies it returns to what state?
Is blood, any blood allowed for consumption? Does the Tanach make an isolated distinction between human blood and animal blood? If a man is starving, is it ok for him to consume blood? Does the Jewish tradition not instruct those to avoid eating blood under any circumstances, even if the rest of Koshrut is violated? Furthermore, where do animals come from according to the Tanach? In Bresheet 1:24 does it not say Vayomer hashem totseha'arets nefeshchayah leminah behemah.... Genesis 1:30 goes on to say:
For every beast of the field, every bird of the sky, and everything that walks the land, that has in it a living soul, all plant vegetation shall be food.'
It remained that way. [Ulechol-chayat ha'arets ulechol-of hashamayim ulechol romes al-ha'arets asher-bo nefesh chayah et-kol-yerek esev le'ochlah vayehi-chen.]
Was Adam allowed to eat animals, with "living souls"? Or was he instructed to eat things other than those things created with a "Living Soul"? Pretty much like the rest of the creatures imparted with "living souls, and made from earth?" Furthermore, we should keep in mind Ezekiel 24:6-8
Is not Hell is the suffering of the Neshamah, the divine soul that rests in man upon returning to its source in God? Did not Korah and his followers go down, living, into sheol when the earth opens up beneath them? Numbers 16:31-33 Does that not suggest, that possibly Sheol (the "pit") is literally under the ground? That it is not a metaphysical construct, like Christian/Muslim/Zoroastrian/Platonic concept of Hell, Heaven and Purgatory? Plato wished us to see beyond the curtain, and appreciate perfection that exists pristine elsewhere; the Jew Philo would extol and reiterate this in his commentary/targum on the Chumash. But what exactly has this to do with the Hebrews and their religion? Before class B Hellenism penetrated the heart of Judea (in the mid 2nd Temple Period) these ideas where as alien to the Judean as Christian metaphysics.
Paul expounded on the carnal man inside all of us and its effects or source Rom 7:14;8:7; 2 Cor 10:4 etc. If Carnality was not a metaphysical/incorporeal state or being, but rather a simple, straightforward, biologically and physically human attribute in all of us, wouldn't it be safe to say that quite probably Satan himself, is just another angle of interpretation to this conundrum of beliefs? Is it possible that Satan, is merely the adversarial counterpart to the incessant nature of the human being, animalistic in many of it traits, the gumption to be above all others, regardless of how he attains it? Being a far more advanced proleptically being such as ourselves? Our ability to foresee, project or predict, pits the human being in a far better position than any animal per se, which gives man the upper hand in general concepts such as "survival of the fittest." Yet, according to Judaism/Christianity and the faiths that surrounded it Acts 17:23 or sprung from it, man in general, has acquired a moral codex and law Rom 2:14
‘Satan’ is a Hebrew word that means ‘adversary’ and in the Old Testament it is translated as adversary on 10 occasions, although on 16 other occasions it is left untranslated as Satan. There is not just one Satan. Any adversary is a Satan. In the account of Balaam and his ass in Numbers 22, we are told in Num 22:22 that the angel of the Lord was an adversary (Satan) to Balaam and stood in the way when he tried to do what God had told him not to do. Clearly the angel was helping to prevent Balaam from wrong doing. In other cases there are a wide range of different types of adversaries that are included under the label of Satan. In no case is the Satan a supernatural being that torments the wicked in hell.
In nearly every case, the Satans that are mentioned are human beings. For example, see 1 Kings 11:15,23,25 . They came into existence like all human beings do, and were given the free will to decide whether they were going to be helpful or harmful.
Paul and the Apostles had to deal with various adversaries when they preached the Gospel. In Rev 2:13 the Roman authorities are called Satan. In 1 Cor 7:5 Paul says that sexual desire can be a Satan. In 2 Cor 2:11 Paul is referring to some members within the Corinthian Church as Satan because they had taken no action against one of their members who had been involved in gross immorality (1 Corinthians 5.) Now he rejoices that these adversaries had not succeeded in dividing the Church and the matter had been resolved.
One of the few places in scripture where a Satan interacts with God in any direct way is in Job. There, Satan (Job’s opponent) comes before God to discuss the man Job. Satan complains that Job is only righteous because God protects and blesses him. He says that if Job were made to suffer, he would not be so righteous. God responds by giving Satan the power to make Job suffer. Then Job suffers a series of disasters including the loss of all his possessions, the death of his ten children and a severe skin disease. We are told that it was God who brought about the series of disasters (see Job 2:3; 19:2130:21; 42:11 etc.); Satan himself did not have the power to do it on his own...God gave him the power.
Job is clearly a drama and it largely consists of a series of speeches by Job and his companions. No doubt it was based on real events, but it has been stylised in a particular dramatic form. Possibly, Satan in Job is a personification of human pride; specifically the jealous pride of Job’s companions.
If the devil were an enormously powerful supernatural being which tormented the wicked in hell, then it would be very difficult indeed to explain why God would create such a being. However the Bible does not teach that the devil is a supernatural being, or that it torments the wicked in hell. The Bible nowhere describes the devil as a creation of God. However, people often have the wrong idea about what the Bible means by ‘devil’ and ‘satan’. It is significant that the word ‘devil’ does not occur at all in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word ‘satan’ is not a personal name, it is a word meaning ‘adversary’. It is used of different adversaries in different places. In Numbers 22:22 it is used of an obedient angel (as a verb), in 1 Kings 11:14, 23-24 and Psalm 109:68 it is used of mortal men, in 1 Chronicles 21:1 it is used of an enemy nation, and in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33 it is used of Jesus’ disciple Peter, when he was opposing Jesus. Throughout the Bible, God is described as the only source of supernatural disaster and evil: Judges 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14-23; 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22-23; 2 Chronicles 18:21-22; Job 1:12,16,21; 2:6,9,20; 5:17; 6:4; 9:4; 10:2; 11:5-6; 19:21; 27:2; 42:21; Psalm 78:49; Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Micah 1:12; 2 Corinthians 12:7; Romans 1:25-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.
No one can be found in the Old Testament who believed in a supernatural evil being called ‘Satan’.
For example, all the individuals in the book of Job believe his disasters came from God, including Job (Job 1:21; 2:20; 6:4; 10:2; 19:21; 27:2), Job’s servant (Job 1:16), Job’s wife (Job 2:9), Job’s three friends (Job 5:17; 8:4; 11:5-6), Job’s acquaintances and relations (Job 42:11), and Job’s adversary himself (Job 1:12; 2:6).In the New Testament the term ‘devil ‘ (Greek: diabolos) is applied to a variety of people who were doing things that were opposed to the ways of God. In John 6:70 Jesus says that Judas Iscariot was a devil. In John 8:44 Jesus says that the Jews who were planning to kill him were of their father the devil. In Acts 13:10 Paul said that Elymas, who was opposing Barnabas and Paul, was a son of the devil.In 1 Timothy 3:11 Paul says that the wives of deacons should not be slanderers or false accusers, and in 2 Timothy 3:3 he says that in the last days people will be slanderers — in both these cases the Greek word that is used is diabolos, so the term devil was actually being applied to them. In Revelation 2:10 Jesus warned the believers that the Roman authorities would imprison some of them — he said that the devil was about to throw some of them into prison.In all of these cases people were acting in ways that were contrary to God’s wishes and therefore the term ‘devil’ is applied to them. Of course, they were all part of God’s creation and were given the choice of doing good or evil — but they made the wrong choice.The Bible says the devil has been destroyed by Jesus: Jesus, by his death, destroyed the devil (Hebrews 2:14-18), and the devil is that which has the power of death, which is sin (Romans 7:8-11, 1 Corinthians 15:56-57). This shows us that ‘the devil’ is a term used for the natural tendency of men to sin.
In conclusion, of all these thoughts, theologies, and philosophies, arise many questions. Is it possible, that the Tree of Knowledge, was merely the laws and practices of Baal worship that prevailed in the Early to Mid Bronze age of the Mesopotamia basin, that Israel continuously engaged in throughout its history, as Adam most probably researched from the guidance of Eve, under the direct violation of God's commandment? Is it possible that the Fruit, from the Tree of Knowledge, was merely the information/works that existed outside his temple palace know as the Garden of Eden? Adam was a priest, he tended the garden and kept it Gen 2:15, just as any priest would do in his place. As God's priest, he was “to dress it (Hebrew, abad)and to keep it (Hebrew, shamar)”. Shamar means not only to keep, but also to guard and to protect. So too Noah was to “keep” the animals Genesis 6:19–20, 7:3 and Abraham and Israel were admonished to “keep” God’s covenant. The priests and Levites were also to serve (abad), protect (shamar) and guard (another Hebrew word, mishmereth) the sanctuary from unauthorized people, with the sword if necessary. See Numbers 1:51–53, 8:26, 18:2–7, 31:30, 47; Joshua 22:27 and Ezekiel 44:8, 15 . Pushing through, is it safe to say, if not most likely, that Satan, the devil himself, in the Garden of Eden, was merely influences and the human tendency to stray from what is right, that could not be seen, and sometimes with unsatisfactory results, to the desires of the human nature, the Bible tends to lend to when it refers to the "flesh." Possibly so, but then again, we must tread carefully, as we move forward, into Preterism and through it, eventually. Blessings.
If Carnality was not a metaphysical/incorporeal state or being, but rather a simple, straightforward, biologically and physically human attribute in all of us, wouldn't it be safe to say that quite probably Satan himself, is just another angle of interpretation to this conundrum of beliefs? Is it possible that Satan, is merely the adversarial counterpart to the incessant nature of the human being, animalistic in many of it traits, the gumption to be above all others, regardless of how he attains it?
Seems that way to me. Thanks for the study.
And then there's Jesus in the wilderness being tempted by the devil. The first and third temptations seem directly related to the above quote: animalistic self-preservation, and the gumption to be above all others whatever the cost.
But I think it's interesting that, essentially, the middle temptation was a battle of scipture. The devil using a couple of passages to convince Jesus of one thing, and Jesus responding with a different passage.
Our "carnal/devil/slanderer" nature hones in on various passages that reflect/reveal something within us that needs refuting; the mind of Christ then points out other scipture and a different way of seeing those passages so that we can take the "devil/lying" thoughts captive and cast them down.
So much discussions about Hell, someone needs to bring some realistic theology into this subject. Hell is a fanatasy IMO, and has nothing to do with anything scripturally. I believed it at one time, but that was because I took the creeds over the scriptures, now that is over, thank God.
The character of Satan is quite literal in the Book of Job. Similarly in the Zohar (Qabbalah), the figure of Satan is a 'real' being set apart to challenge Moishe (Moses) about the nature of the Revelation at Sinai (see also Simcha Torah). Finally in Talmud this is expounded in Sanhedrin 26b as Satan as the Yetzer ha'Ra or 'bad influence' more or less. Satan plays a role in Rosh Hashana where special prayers are employed before the Shofar in order to confuse Satan. The free will Judaism concerns itself with, is the ability to make decisions and act on good and evil. That is why you always need that yetzer hara, the evil option to be an option. That is what "Satan" is in Judaism; a simple plot device giving people free will- a plot device that has no realm, no intentionality or direction of it's own. Any knowledgeable Jew can find a robust Hallachic explanation for this argument, and quite possibly, Abraham, probably Moses as well, wouldn't even understand the concept of "soul" nor exactly use the Hebrew [or Akkadian] verb related to the Arabic aslama to represent their relationship with God. Ancient Hebrew vs...say modern normative Jewish, the definition of "soul" had nothing metaphysical about it. The notions vested in the English definition of "soul" are substantially different from the Hebrew view of it, indeed the Hebrew view of the Universe, as we continuously uncover in Preterism, most notably, Covenant Creation.
In ancient Israel, the soul is considered and interpreted as a very simple thing....
Blood = Soul
Etymologically, there is a whole spectrum of related words that substantiate this linguistically. From the earth/dirt/clay (adama) to man (adam) to the color red (adom) to blood (dam), as well as the shoresh (root). That's how it is for the majority of the Tanach, and the whole of the Chumash. Some of the prophets definitely extended the older definition. But Moses himself, I would say would agree with the said position as we repeatedly see this very relationship or synonymy Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11; Deut 12:23 etc.
This idea resonates to this very day in normative Judaism. The whole of Koshrut is founded in it actually. Consumption of blood is a grave iniquity... if "nefesh", etc, was mere "spirit" (anachronistically) it would de facto abrogate Koshrut, yet nothing of the kind has ever occurred, and today we just have slightly contradictory philosophic overlay, a consequence of Judaism being affected by newer, foreign, ideas throughout the ages, such as it had been during the 2nd Temple period with the influx of Hellenistic philosophies and theologies.
The Hebrew religion never had a "hell" equivalent to Orthodox Christian or Islamic Hell, or any other Indo-European tradition. Actually nothing remotely like it. It was comparable as an idea to the Mesopotamian netherworld, and to a lesser degree the old Greek variation, which itself was inspired by near eastern religion. Literally the dust beneath your feet, that is "haunted" by buried bodies, for example. Even into the late 2nd Temple period, the Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees on the subject of rivers running through cemeteries. The former claimed that it was a general corrupting factor, the latter denied it but accepted that cemeteries in themselves should be avoided by the kohanim. All this revolves around the cycle of life/death in ancient Judaism, from the earth life is imparted in man, and then drained back into the earth.
While it is true that nefesh resides in the blood, this has little to do with the soul of man called neshama which was breathed into the nostril directly by God, whereas only the body of a man was made from earth, hence his name Adam from adama. The account in Bresheet, man, Adam, and not all subsequent men (individually), and women, are imparted upon. What precisely is being animated, non preexisting "man" or existing "clay/earth" which are semantically flipped in the Tanach? Inversely, can a man live without life-blood? When you die you return to what state? When an animal dies it returns to what state?
Is blood, any blood allowed for consumption? Does the Tanach make an isolated distinction between human blood and animal blood? If a man is starving, is it ok for him to consume blood? Does the Jewish tradition not instruct those to avoid eating blood under any circumstances, even if the rest of Koshrut is violated? Furthermore, where do animals come from according to the Tanach? In Bresheet 1:24 does it not say Vayomer hashem totseha'arets nefeshchayah leminah behemah.... Genesis 1:30 goes on to say:
For every beast of the field, every bird of the sky, and everything that walks the land, that has in it a living soul, all plant vegetation shall be food.'
It remained that way. [Ulechol-chayat ha'arets ulechol-of hashamayim ulechol romes al-ha'arets asher-bo nefesh chayah et-kol-yerek esev le'ochlah vayehi-chen.]
Was Adam allowed to eat animals, with "living souls"? Or was he instructed to eat things other than those things created with a "Living Soul"? Pretty much like the rest of the creatures imparted with "living souls, and made from earth?" Furthermore, we should keep in mind Ezekiel 24:6-8
Is not Hell is the suffering of the Neshamah, the divine soul that rests in man upon returning to its source in God? Did not Korah and his followers go down, living, into sheol when the earth opens up beneath them? Numbers 16:31-33 Does that not suggest, that possibly Sheol (the "pit") is literally under the ground? That it is not a metaphysical construct, like Christian/Muslim/Zoroastrian/Platonic concept of Hell, Heaven and Purgatory? Plato wished us to see beyond the curtain, and appreciate perfection that exists pristine elsewhere; the Jew Philo would extol and reiterate this in his commentary/targum on the Chumash. But what exactly has this to do with the Hebrews and their religion? Before class B Hellenism penetrated the heart of Judea (in the mid 2nd Temple Period) these ideas where as alien to the Judean as Christian metaphysics.
Paul expounded on the carnal man inside all of us and its effects or source Rom 7:14;8:7; 2 Cor 10:4 etc. If Carnality was not a metaphysical/incorporeal state or being, but rather a simple, straightforward, biologically and physically human attribute in all of us, wouldn't it be safe to say that quite probably Satan himself, is just another angle of interpretation to this conundrum of beliefs? Is it possible that Satan, is merely the adversarial counterpart to the incessant nature of the human being, animalistic in many of it traits, the gumption to be above all others, regardless of how he attains it? Being a far more advanced proleptically being such as ourselves? Our ability to foresee, project or predict, pits the human being in a far better position than any animal per se, which gives man the upper hand in general concepts such as "survival of the fittest." Yet, according to Judaism/Christianity and the faiths that surrounded it Acts 17:23 or sprung from it, man in general, has acquired a moral codex and law Rom 2:14
‘Satan’ is a Hebrew word that means ‘adversary’ and in the Old Testament it is translated as adversary on 10 occasions, although on 16 other occasions it is left untranslated as Satan. There is not just one Satan. Any adversary is a Satan. In the account of Balaam and his ass in Numbers 22, we are told in Num 22:22 that the angel of the Lord was an adversary (Satan) to Balaam and stood in the way when he tried to do what God had told him not to do. Clearly the angel was helping to prevent Balaam from wrong doing. In other cases there are a wide range of different types of adversaries that are included under the label of Satan. In no case is the Satan a supernatural being that torments the wicked in hell.
In nearly every case, the Satans that are mentioned are human beings. For example, see 1 Kings 11:15,23,25 . They came into existence like all human beings do, and were given the free will to decide whether they were going to be helpful or harmful.
Paul and the Apostles had to deal with various adversaries when they preached the Gospel. In Rev 2:13 the Roman authorities are called Satan. In 1 Cor 7:5 Paul says that sexual desire can be a Satan. In 2 Cor 2:11 Paul is referring to some members within the Corinthian Church as Satan because they had taken no action against one of their members who had been involved in gross immorality (1 Corinthians 5.) Now he rejoices that these adversaries had not succeeded in dividing the Church and the matter had been resolved.
One of the few places in scripture where a Satan interacts with God in any direct way is in Job. There, Satan (Job’s opponent) comes before God to discuss the man Job. Satan complains that Job is only righteous because God protects and blesses him. He says that if Job were made to suffer, he would not be so righteous. God responds by giving Satan the power to make Job suffer. Then Job suffers a series of disasters including the loss of all his possessions, the death of his ten children and a severe skin disease. We are told that it was God who brought about the series of disasters (see Job 2:3; 19:2130:21; 42:11 etc.); Satan himself did not have the power to do it on his own...God gave him the power.
Job is clearly a drama and it largely consists of a series of speeches by Job and his companions. No doubt it was based on real events, but it has been stylised in a particular dramatic form. Possibly, Satan in Job is a personification of human pride; specifically the jealous pride of Job’s companions.
If the devil were an enormously powerful supernatural being which tormented the wicked in hell, then it would be very difficult indeed to explain why God would create such a being. However the Bible does not teach that the devil is a supernatural being, or that it torments the wicked in hell. The Bible nowhere describes the devil as a creation of God. However, people often have the wrong idea about what the Bible means by ‘devil’ and ‘satan’. It is significant that the word ‘devil’ does not occur at all in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word ‘satan’ is not a personal name, it is a word meaning ‘adversary’. It is used of different adversaries in different places. In Numbers 22:22 it is used of an obedient angel (as a verb), in 1 Kings 11:14, 23-24 and Psalm 109:68 it is used of mortal men, in 1 Chronicles 21:1 it is used of an enemy nation, and in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33 it is used of Jesus’ disciple Peter, when he was opposing Jesus. Throughout the Bible, God is described as the only source of supernatural disaster and evil: Judges 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14-23; 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22-23; 2 Chronicles 18:21-22; Job 1:12,16,21; 2:6,9,20; 5:17; 6:4; 9:4; 10:2; 11:5-6; 19:21; 27:2; 42:21; Psalm 78:49; Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Micah 1:12; 2 Corinthians 12:7; Romans 1:25-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.
No one can be found in the Old Testament who believed in a supernatural evil being called ‘Satan’.
For example, all the individuals in the book of Job believe his disasters came from God, including Job (Job 1:21; 2:20; 6:4; 10:2; 19:21; 27:2), Job’s servant (Job 1:16), Job’s wife (Job 2:9), Job’s three friends (Job 5:17; 8:4; 11:5-6), Job’s acquaintances and relations (Job 42:11), and Job’s adversary himself (Job 1:12; 2:6).In the New Testament the term ‘devil ‘ (Greek: diabolos) is applied to a variety of people who were doing things that were opposed to the ways of God. In John 6:70 Jesus says that Judas Iscariot was a devil. In John 8:44 Jesus says that the Jews who were planning to kill him were of their father the devil. In Acts 13:10 Paul said that Elymas, who was opposing Barnabas and Paul, was a son of the devil.In 1 Timothy 3:11 Paul says that the wives of deacons should not be slanderers or false accusers, and in 2 Timothy 3:3 he says that in the last days people will be slanderers — in both these cases the Greek word that is used is diabolos, so the term devil was actually being applied to them. In Revelation 2:10 Jesus warned the believers that the Roman authorities would imprison some of them — he said that the devil was about to throw some of them into prison.In all of these cases people were acting in ways that were contrary to God’s wishes and therefore the term ‘devil’ is applied to them. Of course, they were all part of God’s creation and were given the choice of doing good or evil — but they made the wrong choice.The Bible says the devil has been destroyed by Jesus: Jesus, by his death, destroyed the devil (Hebrews 2:14-18), and the devil is that which has the power of death, which is sin (Romans 7:8-11, 1 Corinthians 15:56-57). This shows us that ‘the devil’ is a term used for the natural tendency of men to sin.
In conclusion, of all these thoughts, theologies, and philosophies, arise many questions. Is it possible, that the Tree of Knowledge, was merely the laws and practices of Baal worship that prevailed in the Early to Mid Bronze age of the Mesopotamia basin, that Israel continuously engaged in throughout its history, as Adam most probably researched from the guidance of Eve, under the direct violation of God's commandment? Is it possible that the Fruit, from the Tree of Knowledge, was merely the information/works that existed outside his temple palace know as the Garden of Eden? Adam was a priest, he tended the garden and kept it Gen 2:15, just as any priest would do in his place. As God's priest, he was “to dress it (Hebrew, abad)and to keep it (Hebrew, shamar)”. Shamar means not only to keep, but also to guard and to protect. So too Noah was to “keep” the animals Genesis 6:19–20, 7:3 and Abraham and Israel were admonished to “keep” God’s covenant. The priests and Levites were also to serve (abad), protect (shamar) and guard (another Hebrew word, mishmereth) the sanctuary from unauthorized people, with the sword if necessary. See Numbers 1:51–53, 8:26, 18:2–7, 31:30, 47; Joshua 22:27 and Ezekiel 44:8, 15 . Pushing through, is it safe to say, if not most likely, that Satan, the devil himself, in the Garden of Eden, was merely influences and the human tendency to stray from what is right, that could not be seen, and sometimes with unsatisfactory results, to the desires of the human nature, the Bible tends to lend to when it refers to the "flesh." Possibly so, but then again, we must tread carefully, as we move forward, into Preterism and through it, eventually. Blessings.
Thanks for reading.
The Bible does describe Satan as a supernatural being when it descibes his origin as an angel. See Ezekiel 18 for example. Just because the Bible doesn't always refer him with the name 'Satan' does not mean it is not talking about the one and same being.
The Bible does describe Satan as a supernatural being when it descibes his origin as an angel. See Ezekiel 18 for example. Just because the Bible doesn't always refer him with the name 'Satan' does not mean it is not talking about the one and same being.
Hey Finn,
You mean Eze 28?
In earlier years, “the cherub in Eden” of Ezekiel 28:13 was frequently identified as Satan. Although this is less common today, one can see how someone looking for the origin of the ‘fallen angel’ Satan of medieval legend might be drawn to this chapter, if they failed to look at the previous and following chapters for context.
These chapters of Ezekiel tell and foretell events relating to the literal city of Tyre. Ezekiel 26:2 records Tyre’s pride when Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in 586BC, but according to the 1st Century historian Josephus (confirmed by Babylonian records) Tyre failed to submit to Nebuchadnezzar (Antiquities 10.11.1). Josephus then records that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years (585-572BC) and this is confirmed by Ezekiel (Eze.29:17), along with a record of Babylon’s raiding sorties against Egypt (Eze.29:19). After Tyre fell, the royal family ended up prisoners in Babylon along with the royal family of Judah whom they had mocked. A nominal Tyre puppet-king was permitted to continue to rule in Tyre, as Nebuchadnezzar had earlier permitted in Jerusalem, but as with the last king of Judah, real power was with the Babylonian governor. Finally Tyre’s special status was lost when the Persians took over from the Babylonians.
Evidently chapter 28 has no relevance to a literal cherub, or literal events in Genesis, but is symbolic and allegorical — as shown by comparison with the similar prophecy about Pharaoh and the jealousy of the “trees” in Eden in Ezekiel 31. But to say who exactly is the King of Tyre is more difficult. The identification of the “King of Tyre” depends on several historical questions — and also the question of why is the prophecy in Ezekiel 28 split into three sections: “the Prince of Tyre” (1-10), “the King of Tyre” (11-19) and “Sidon” (20-23)?
And what would be the difference between “the Prince of Tyre” and “the King of Tyre”? We need to remove our creedal hangups and address the sctiprues themselves, in comparison to its "historical" context, without the pressupostiions we have been indoctrinated into. Only by this, can we come to the right, and most plausible and scriptural conclusion as to who he really is.
Last edited by sciotamicks; 07-10-2011 at 03:27 PM..
In earlier years, “the cherub in Eden” of Ezekiel 28:13 was frequently identified as Satan. Although this is less common today, one can see how someone looking for the origin of the ‘fallen angel’ Satan of medieval legend might be drawn to this chapter, if they failed to look at the previous and following chapters for context.
These chapters of Ezekiel tell and foretell events relating to the literal city of Tyre. Ezekiel 26:2 records Tyre’s pride when Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in 586BC, but according to the 1st Century historian Josephus (confirmed by Babylonian records) Tyre failed to submit to Nebuchadnezzar (Antiquities 10.11.1). Josephus then records that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years (585-572BC) and this is confirmed by Ezekiel (Eze.29:17), along with a record of Babylon’s raiding sorties against Egypt (Eze.29:19). After Tyre fell, the royal family ended up prisoners in Babylon along with the royal family of Judah whom they had mocked. A nominal Tyre puppet-king was permitted to continue to rule in Tyre, as Nebuchadnezzar had earlier permitted in Jerusalem, but as with the last king of Judah, real power was with the Babylonian governor. Finally Tyre’s special status was lost when the Persians took over from the Babylonians.
Evidently chapter 28 has no relevance to a literal cherub, or literal events in Genesis, but is symbolic and allegorical — as shown by comparison with the similar prophecy about Pharaoh and the jealousy of the “trees” in Eden in Ezekiel 31. But to say who exactly is the King of Tyre is more difficult. The identification of the “King of Tyre” depends on several historical questions — and also the question of why is the prophecy in Ezekiel 28 split into three sections: “the Prince of Tyre” (1-10), “the King of Tyre” (11-19) and “Sidon” (20-23)?
And what would be the difference between “the Prince of Tyre” and “the King of Tyre”? We need to remove our creedal hangups and address the sctiprues themselves, in comparison to its "historical" context, without the pressupostiions we have been indoctrinated into. Only by this, can we come to the right, and most plausible and scriptural conclusion as to who he really is.
Yes, Ezekiel 28, not 18. Fat fingers.
It is clear the prince of Tyre is none other than Satan.
The real king of Tyre was:
1. NOT a seal of perfection full of wisdom and perfect in beauty
2. He was NEVER in Eden
3. He was NOT 'created' at the same time as precious stones/metals
4. He was NOT a cherub
5. He was NEVER blameless. No human being can be
6. He was NEVER at the Holy Mountain of God
7. He was NEVER expelled from heaven
And then there's Jesus in the wilderness being tempted by the devil. The first and third temptations seem directly related to the above quote: animalistic self-preservation, and the gumption to be above all others whatever the cost.
But I think it's interesting that, essentially, the middle temptation was a battle of scipture. The devil using a couple of passages to convince Jesus of one thing, and Jesus responding with a different passage.
Our "carnal/devil/slanderer" nature hones in on various passages that reflect/reveal something within us that needs refuting; the mind of Christ then points out other scipture and a different way of seeing those passages so that we can take the "devil/lying" thoughts captive and cast them down.
Hey Pleroo,
It has come to some, and as mine as well, that it is quite possible, the devil, who had tempted Christ in the wilderness, is the antithesis of Him, that being, a Pharisee....more on that in time.
It is clear the prince of Tyre is none other than Satan.
The real king of Tyre was:
1. NOT a seal of perfection full of wisdom and perfect in beauty
2. He was NEVER in Eden
3. He was NOT 'created' at the same time as precious stones/metals
4. He was NOT a cherub
5. He was NEVER blameless. No human being can be
6. He was NEVER at the Holy Mountain of God
7. He was NEVER expelled from heaven
It is clear the prince of Tyre is none other than Satan.
The real king of Tyre was:
1. NOT a seal of perfection full of wisdom and perfect in beauty
2. He was NEVER in Eden
3. He was NOT 'created' at the same time as precious stones/metals
4. He was NOT a cherub
5. He was NEVER blameless. No human being can be
6. He was NEVER at the Holy Mountain of God
7. He was NEVER expelled from heaven
I believe you are disregarding the context surrounding Eze 28, as well as the language in which the Hebrews implied when referring to great kings such as himself...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
