-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
ONE EDUCATED PERSPECTIVE ON "WHO IS SATAN?"
- Thread starter jeremiah1five
- Start date
- May 16, 2021
- 6,987
- 4,762
Ok you covered verse 8 but no mention of verse 9 . The ME verse . The question still stands .
| 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; |
| 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. |
jeremiah1five who is the me in the above verse Matthew 4:9 ?
I read Jesus was tempted by Satan, Jesus cast out demons and His disciples (the 70 sent out), stated the spirits submitted to them. I read in Rev 12 that Satan and his angels were cast to the earth.
I did not read Satan was bound. You are mistaken.
I would suggest you put the most weight on Jesus's own testimony.
In addition
Some Jews went around driving out evil spirits. They tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus to set free those who were controlled by demons. They said, “In Jesus’ name I command you to come out. He is the Jesus that Paul is preaching about.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva were doing this. Sceva was a Jewish chief priest. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “I know Jesus. And I know about Paul. But who are you?” 16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on Sceva’s sons. He overpowered them all. He gave them a terrible beating. They ran out of the house naked and bleeding.
At this time Satan is bound in darkness blackness in chains so he could not deceive the nations anymore.
As was testified to, he sows the weeds, and leads the whole world astray.
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he took the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and he bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the bottomless pit. And he bound him and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the people no more till the thousand years were fulfilled. And after that, he must be loosed for a little season.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #125
If Jesus was not tempted in all ways as we were He cannot be our High Priest and is a fraud.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Heb. 4:15.
The only difference is "yet without sin."
You need to think this through some more.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #126
I believe Jesus was born "Holy" as is said in Scripture.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Lk 1:34–35.
Jesus was tempted. His human nature was what was tempted. He was tempted in all ways as we are yet without sin.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet He is without sin.
Heb. 4:15.
The key to His victory was "yet without sin." It is no sin to be tempted and Jesus had to endure temptation as a man in the same way as we are which is from within except, He was without sin.
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Jn. 14:30.
He was tempted as we are from within as James teaches (James 1:14). He was alone in the desert. And for these tests the human nature was being tested but the Logos came with the Word and "the 'devil' fled from Him as He submitted Himself to God. When we do the same thing, we must endure but, IN the temptation, God has provided a way out in order that we may endure. The victory is realized when we submit to God and resist the temptation.
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Cor. 10:13.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #127
There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word "demon" or "devils" (for example, "demons": Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; "goat-demons": Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; "devils": 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think "demons" when they read things like "an evil spirit," even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).
In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.
This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.
A good place to begin is Deuteronomy 32:16-17:
16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. (NRSV)
The Hebrew word translated "demons" in verse 17 (שׁד, seed) occurs here in the plural with the preposition "to" and vocalized with the definite article "the" (לשּׁדים, lassedim), which gives us "to the demons."
It is important to be aware that translation is not a matter of finding a single word in one language that translates another word in another language. Translation is more often the translation of ideas and concepts rather than merely words, and there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of single words between languages. This is especially true of languages that are separated by 3,000 years of history and culture.
Also, there are other features of language besides just the words that affect translation. Words do not have fixed or inherent meaning in any language. The historical and cultural context in which they are used, the literary features that accompany them, the topics they are used to address, even who is speaking or writing the words can all affect "meaning," what a term communicates and how it is to be understood. There are many words in English that can take on different meanings in different circumstances, or that can be used as technical terms in one context and yet take on a more common meaning in another context.
Take for example the simple English verb "run." It has a fairly simple meaning in most contexts, referring to a human action, "to go faster than a walk." However, in different contexts it can refer to what a candidate does in a political campaign, to play a musical passage quickly, to go back and forth or spread out between two points, to melt, to remain constant, to penetrate or slip through, etc. It is usually a context or contexts, as well as other terms in that context, that give us clues to which meaning is meant.
Rather than complicating the meaning, in many places in Hebrew Scriptures some of these features actually help us better understand the meaning of a term no matter what English word we use to translate it. There is one unique and prominent feature of Hebrew writing that is especially helpful in providing a context for the meaning of words. It is known as parallelism, in which ideas are related and emphasized by the grouping of synonyms or antonyms (see Parallelism in Hebrew Writing).
Along with the term translated "demons," in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:16-17 there are a whole series of terms with similar meaning ("synonymous parallelism") that will help us understand how the writer is using the term שׁד (seed). In these two verses, there are four other parallel terms and phrases that are used with the word translated as "demons":
strange or foreign gods (זרים, zariym)
abhorrent things (תועבת, to‘eybot)
demons (לשּׁדים, lashshediym)
gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)
new ones [recently come {of whom} your fathers were not afraid] (חדשים, chadashim,)
The first of these parallel terms is simply the word "strange" (or "stranger") or "foreign" ("foreigner"). It is most often used of things that present a threat to the community, such as foreign people who are enemies (Hos 7:9, Isa 1:7, Jer 5:19, etc.), prostitutes ("strange women," Prov 2:16), or things that violate custom or law ("strange fire," Lev 10:1, Num 3:4; "strange incense," Ex 30:9). In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).
The same is true of the second term, "abhorrent things." This term is often used to refer generally to the whole practice of Baal worship that included cult objects like household idols, images, sacred poles, trees, and high places, as well as sexual practices of the fertility religion, which were all "abhorrent" or "offensive" to Israelites (Lev. 18:22, Deut 7:25, 1 King 14:24, etc).
The final two terms also refer to the gods of Canaan with which the Israelites had come into contact only after their entry into the land (for the time frame of Deuteronomy see The Book of Deuteronomy; the "golden calf" or bull in Exodus 32 may have reflected Egyptian religious beliefs). In this sense they were "new" gods that the people "did not know" before.
It seems obvious in this context from these parallel terms that the term translated "demons" also refers to the gods of the surrounding peoples that posed a threat to Israel’s worship of Yahweh. In this passage in Deuteronomy, the wider context is an appeal, in the form of recounting Israel’s failure to worship God and their practice of worshipping the idols of Canaan, to worship God properly as the only God.
The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these "demons" or "strange gods" or "abhorrent things" that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):
32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.
This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as "demons" does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are "no god."
In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: "they sacrificed to demons, not God." This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed "to the demons" instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated "they sacrificed to demons that are not god," which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).
In any case, a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear.
It is instructive, then, to note that LXX translates שׁד (seed) in Deuteronomy 32:17 with δαιμονίοις (daimoniois, "demons"), not in the context of "demonic powers" or minions of the devil as we want to hear the term, or even in the context of the NT usage, but in the context of mythological creatures that are specifically stated to be "no-god" (ου θεω, ou theo). In other words, even though the Greek translation uses a term that sounds much closer to our word "demons," the meaning is not what that word means to us in English, but rather what the Hebrew term communicates.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #128
Can you tell me what it's like to have a human nature that is sinless and a Deific nature that is holy?
Jesus knew who He was. He's in the Temple at 12 about His Father's business. Do you ever use the word "I" when you think to yourself?
That's having one sinful nature. But can you describe what it's like to have two natures - one human and sinless, the other Deific and holy? You can't. That this is important in understanding the hupostasis of Jesus Christ. He is unique and different and just the same as us.
I go with what Scripture says and the fact that the angels that sinned are locked up and not loose on the planet means I have to further understand this "Satan" and this "devil" and this "evil spirit" and exactly what these terms mean if the angels that sinned are locked up. I don't ignore Peter and Jude and Isaiah. I accept the Scripture as written and if they say the angels that sinned are locked in prison awaiting judgment then something else is in play here with these terms.
The Word of God tells me what to believe, I don't tell the Word of God what to say.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #129
Do you accept this:
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2 Peter 2:4.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 5–6.
Do you accept this as true that the angels that sinned are locked up?
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #130
Men sow the weeds.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
- Dec 26, 2015
- 30,018
- 11,949
I think I know what the problem is here.
You said that Jesus is HOLY.
So if He is Holy, He could not have been born with the sin nature.
Agreed.
Then you go on to say that THE HUMAN PART OF JESUS is what was tempted.
If by TEMPTED you mean that something tempting was OFFERED to Him, then I could agree.
But you state that all sin comes from within and that in the desert, Jesus' HUMAN NATURE is what was being tested.
This is incorrect.
You cannot separate Jesus into two parts:
One a Holy part
and one a Human part.
This is a heresy that the early church fought against.
It has to do with the hypostatic union of Jesus.
Jesus is not 50% human and 50% God.
He is 100% human and 100% God.
I know this is not easy to understand, but it's imperative that this be accepted if you consider yourself to be a Christian.
Jesus on ONE PERSON.
When He was born, He was born as ONE PERSON.
I'll link some info as to the heresy, it's called the heresy of Nestorianism because it was taught by a man called Nestorius.
Nestorianism is a radical form of dyophysitism,[5] differing from orthodox dyophysitism on several points, mainly by opposition to the concept of hypostatic union. It can be seen as the antithesis to Eutychian Monophysitism, which emerged in reaction to Nestorianism. Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, Monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. A brief definition of Nestorian Christology can be given as: "Jesus Christ, who is not identical with the Son but personally united with the Son, who lives in him, is one hypostasis and one nature: human."[17] This contrasts with Nestorius' own teaching that the Word, which is eternal, and the Flesh, which is not, came together in a hypostatic union, 'Jesus Christ', Jesus thus being both fully man and God, of two ousia (Ancient Greek: οὐσία) (essences) but of one prosopon (person).[18] Both Nestorianism and Monophysitism were condemned as heretical at the Council of Chalcedon.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
The Nestorian Heresy | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
A human person who has a human nature can save no one but himself. A divine person who has a human nature can save all those whom He has chosen to save. Because
www.ligonier.org
The Nestorianism Heresy and Controversy
Read The Nestorianism Heresy and Controversy by Dan Graves, MSL and more articles about Christian Terms and Wiki on Christianity.com
www.christianity.com
Last edited:
going on here . 
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #133
I never said Jesus was born with a sin nature. I said He was born with a human nature and a Deific nature, the God-Man. None of us know what that's like. But it says that He was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin. He was tempted. It is no sin to undergo temptation. Having a human nature it says He was driven by the Holy Spirit TO BE TEMPTED. James says temptation is from within. If James says it is from within with regard to us, it would have to be with regard to Jesus in all points as we are. If He wasn't then He cannot know what it's like to be tempted as we are and cannot be qualified as our High Priest because to intercede for us on our behalf, He would have to have experienced what we experience. If our temptation is from within as James says and His is from without there is something wrong here. In order to have 'feeling with our infirmities' He'd have to experience what we experience, nothing different.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb. 4:14–15.
Jesus' death was our substitute and in our place. If there is anything different with Him than with us, He cannot be a perfect substitute as Scripture says. It is necessary for Him to endure everything we endure as sinners yet without sin. That's the key. His human nature can be tempted but because He was sinless that "longing" (translated as 'lust' and there's nothing dirty about that word) couldn't strike a chord in Him.
As I said the word translated as "lust" merely means "longing' and there's nothing dirty about it. There's nothing wrong with "longing" for bread to eat. He was hungered it says. Being the Son of God doesn't mean, "OK. Crucifixion is extremely painful. I'm just not going to feel it. I'm the Son of God I'm just going to command my pain receptors to numb out so I don't feel the pain." But Jesus rejected the drink on the cross that would deaden His pain because it was necessary for Him to experience the terrors of hell, not extensively but intensively.
I say what James says.
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
James 1:14.
You do not understand the hupostasis/hypostatic union of His human and Deific natures in one Person.
I understand it. Fully man, fully God.
I know about the many heresies from within the first century Church. But thanks for the links.Jesus on ONE PERSON.
When He was born, He was born as ONE PERSON.
I'll link some info as to the heresy, it's called the heresy of Nestorianism because it was taught by a man called Nestorius.
Nestorianism is a radical form of dyophysitism,[5] differing from orthodox dyophysitism on several points, mainly by opposition to the concept of hypostatic union. It can be seen as the antithesis to Eutychian Monophysitism, which emerged in reaction to Nestorianism. Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, Monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. A brief definition of Nestorian Christology can be given as: "Jesus Christ, who is not identical with the Son but personally united with the Son, who lives in him, is one hypostasis and one nature: human."[17] This contrasts with Nestorius' own teaching that the Word, which is eternal, and the Flesh, which is not, came together in a hypostatic union, 'Jesus Christ', Jesus thus being both fully man and God, of two ousia (Ancient Greek: οὐσία) (essences) but of one prosopon (person).[18] Both Nestorianism and Monophysitism were condemned as heretical at the Council of Chalcedon.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
The Nestorian Heresy | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
A human person who has a human nature can save no one but himself. A divine person who has a human nature can save all those whom He has chosen to save. BecauseThe Nestorianism Heresy and Controversy
Read The Nestorianism Heresy and Controversy by Dan Graves, MSL and more articles about Christian Terms and Wiki on Christianity.com
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,431
- 5,898
I'll stick with what the Bible says, as translators are experts in the relevant languages. Besides, Brown-Driver-Briggs, the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, and Strong's all agree that שֵׁד (shed) means "demons." Also, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the OT states: " שֵׁדִים signifies demons in Syriac, as it has been rendered by the lxx and Vulgate here."There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word "demon" or "devils" (for example, "demons": Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; "goat-demons": Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; "devils": 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think "demons" when they read things like "an evil spirit," even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).
In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.
This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.
A good place to begin is Deuteronomy 32:16-17:
16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. (NRSV)
The Hebrew word translated "demons" in verse 17 (שׁד, seed) occurs here in the plural with the preposition "to" and vocalized with the definite article "the" (לשּׁדים, lassedim), which gives us "to the demons."
It is important to be aware that translation is not a matter of finding a single word in one language that translates another word in another language. Translation is more often the translation of ideas and concepts rather than merely words, and there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of single words between languages. This is especially true of languages that are separated by 3,000 years of history and culture.
...
Along with the term translated "demons," in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:16-17 there are a whole series of terms with similar meaning ("synonymous parallelism") that will help us understand how the writer is using the term שׁד (seed). In these two verses, there are four other parallel terms and phrases that are used with the word translated as "demons":
strange or foreign gods (זרים, zariym)
abhorrent things (תועבת, to‘eybot)
demons (לשּׁדים, lashshediym)
gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)
new ones [recently come {of whom} your fathers were not afraid] (חדשים, chadashim,)
The first of these parallel terms is simply the word "strange" (or "stranger") or "foreign" ("foreigner"). It is most often used of things that present a threat to the community, such as foreign people who are enemies (Hos 7:9, Isa 1:7, Jer 5:19, etc.), prostitutes ("strange women," Prov 2:16), or things that violate custom or law ("strange fire," Lev 10:1, Num 3:4; "strange incense," Ex 30:9). In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).
The same is true of the second term, "abhorrent things." This term is often used to refer generally to the whole practice of Baal worship that included cult objects like household idols, images, sacred poles, trees, and high places, as well as sexual practices of the fertility religion, which were all "abhorrent" or "offensive" to Israelites (Lev. 18:22, Deut 7:25, 1 King 14:24, etc).
The final two terms also refer to the gods of Canaan with which the Israelites had come into contact only after their entry into the land (for the time frame of Deuteronomy see The Book of Deuteronomy; the "golden calf" or bull in Exodus 32 may have reflected Egyptian religious beliefs). In this sense they were "new" gods that the people "did not know" before.
It seems obvious in this context from these parallel terms that the term translated "demons" also refers to the gods of the surrounding peoples that posed a threat to Israel’s worship of Yahweh. In this passage in Deuteronomy, the wider context is an appeal, in the form of recounting Israel’s failure to worship God and their practice of worshipping the idols of Canaan, to worship God properly as the only God.
The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these "demons" or "strange gods" or "abhorrent things" that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):
32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.
This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as "demons" does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are "no god."
In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: "they sacrificed to demons, not God." This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed "to the demons" instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated "they sacrificed to demons that are not god," which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).
In any case, a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear.
It is instructive, then, to note that LXX translates שׁד (seed) in Deuteronomy 32:17 with δαιμονίοις (daimoniois, "demons"), not in the context of "demonic powers" or minions of the devil as we want to hear the term, or even in the context of the NT usage, but in the context of mythological creatures that are specifically stated to be "no-god" (ου θεω, ou theo). In other words, even though the Greek translation uses a term that sounds much closer to our word "demons," the meaning is not what that word means to us in English, but rather what the Hebrew term communicates.
The passage in Deut 32:16-17,
Deu 32:16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger.
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded. (ESV)
has interesting parallels with what Paul writes in 1 Cor 10:
1Co 10:19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
1Co 10:20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.
1Co 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
1Co 10:22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (ESV)
Is the OT largely silent on the issue of demons and the devil? Yes. Does that mean they don't actually exist? Of course not. The gospels are full of accounts of Satan and demons, but only in the context of Jesus's ministry. Jesus is the focus of the Bible, not Satan or demons; we should expect relatively little mention of them.
- Jul 25, 2017
- 2,185
- 640
You do not know. Jesus was human but it is not possible that he entertained any sin or lust. For you to suggest any such things let's us know you do not understand the incarnation and the necessity of it.
That is a very general statement vs Jesus's very specific testimony, "Satan". There is too much testimony to ignore in regard to Satan and demons. Again I suggest you put the most weight on Jesus's own testimony. Clearly not all angels who sinned were locked up.
Rev 12
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
It was explained by the Lord Himself.
Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #138
If "you'll stick with the bible," then I'm sure you'll stick with Isaiah, Peter and Jude.
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2 Peter 2:4.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jude 6.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isaiah 14:15.
They say the angels that sinned were cast down to hell and "locked up." Do you accept this truth?
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #139
The word translated "lust' according to Strong's means "longing." There's nothing sinful or dirty in that word. What if the word was translated "longing" by the KJV translators? Would you still think the word sinful or dirty?
If I long to see my mother I haven't seen for months, am I lusting for her?
You can't get doctrine from a translation.
Scripture says Jesus was hungered. It's completely human for Him to desire or long for bread to eat.
Do you understand the incarnation? We can only go as far as what is revealed in Scripture. I think it through. And if Isaiah, Peter and Jude say the angels that sinned were cast down to hell and delivered to chains of darkness reserved to judgment day then when I see the word "devil" and it's an adjective it's grammatically erroneous to make it a noun or personal pronoun to fit my theology. If you want to reject two apostles of the Lord and pillars of the early Church and reject Isaiah a prophet of the Lord to suit your beliefs that's entirely up to you.
- Feb 2, 2015
- 1,796
- 131
- Thread starter
- #140
I suggest you as a Christian put more weight on two apostles of the Lord and pillars of the early Church and Isaiah who say the angels that sinned were cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness and reserved to judgment day. You and the others continue to reject those truths in order to maintain your pet theories and that is a troubling position to be in. You obviously do not believe God is Sovereign. You actually believe God creates humans and angels and can't control His creations.