TheologyWeb Campus - Unorthodox Theology 201 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Let the rocks fly. en Wed, 22 May 2013 03:54:05 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png TheologyWeb Campus - Unorthodox Theology 201 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Is there a Satan http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155917-Is-there-a-Satan&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 03:37:08 GMT by Greg Rasaka ______________________________________________ Perhaps now is the time to look closer at Satan. You do not have to agree with what I conclude, but I do ask that you give this careful consideration. Just because a lot of men have said something is so for centuries, does not make it truth. On the other hand, what God says holds as truth throughout the centuries. I also think there have been plenty of those, through the ages, who have seen things in a different light. The... by Greg Rasaka
______________________________________________

Perhaps now is the time to look closer at Satan. You do not have to agree with what I conclude, but I do ask that you give this careful consideration. Just because a lot of men have said something is so for centuries, does not make it truth. On the other hand, what God says holds as truth throughout the centuries.

I also think there have been plenty of those, through the ages, who have seen things in a different light. The difference is the publicity, or lack of publicity given to them. The things we will discuss here may go against your present way of belief, but we need to realize that often what we assume to be correct, is actually erroneous. If we have an incorrect concept of Satan, that can reflect negatively on so many other concepts in the Bible.

What does the Bible really say about Satan? Does the Bible actually teach that Satan is a being that is responsible for all evil? Does the Bible really teach that there is an evil being that is so powerful that he can ruin God*s creation, and keep it in turmoil for millennia? To hear what is commonly preached in pulpits, on the TV and the radio, you would certainly think so.

Yet I doubt that any one of those believes that Satan is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent. Yet he is supposedly wreaking havoc all over the world at any given moment. I think much of that way of thinking perpetuates because it give us someone to blame, as if mankind is incapable of such evil. Well, according to the Bible, man is completely capable of such evil.


A loanword is a word taken from another language that is completely or partially letter for letter. In other words, transliterated. This is done when there is no equivalent word or name in the second language. The problem is, often times there is a corresponding word in the second language. This causes confusion, especially when the translators take the liberty of picking and choosing when to translate and when to transliterate, depending on their understanding of the text. Consequently, the very meaning of the loanword is changed. Though not always practical, for the most part, a translator should translate, and leave the interpretation to the reader.

Satan is one of those loanwords. The word satan (Strong’s 7854), is a Hebrew word meaning, “adversary,” or “accuser.” I ask you to ask yourself as we go along, whether or not it is proper to assign the word satan as a proper name at all, or should it be rendered as adversary or accuser each time.

If you have a copy of Robert Young*s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, you may notice that he never uses the word Satan, but rather, Adversary. Sometimes he capitalizes it and sometimes not, depending on his own understanding of its use. In the New American Standard Bible, we find the word Satan used 18 times. The same word, satan, appears 9 other times in the Hebrew text, but is translated “adversary” or “accuser.” These are Numbers 22:22; 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings, 5:4, 11:14, 23, 25; Psalm 109:6.

The English reader is unaware that the same word, satan is used. There is another word satan (Strong’s 7854) that is spelled the same with one vowel sound different (according to the Masorets). This is the root from which 7854 comes. It is a verb meaning to accuse or oppose, but is also translated as a noun, “accuser” or “adversary.” It is never translated as “Satan.”

As I said, we need to understand if this word is actually ever applied as a proper name for an evil archenemy of God. If it is, then there is no problem with the rendering, Satan. If not, the rendering should be thrown out and replaced with adversary or accuser. For those who may not know, the ancient Hebrew language had only one case; in other words, no capitalization to help us out. We will take a look at the places where our English Bibles use the word Satan shortly, but I want to say a few words about the Greek first.

The corresponding word in Greek is satanos (Strong’s 4567), also a loanword from the Hebrew. Satan is found only once in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament, abbreviated LXX), in 3 Kings 11:14(1 Kings 11:14 in English Bibles). “Then the Lord raised up an adversary (satan) to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal line in Edom.” There is no mystery here. The man was an adversary to Solomon.

So in the LXX, what word do we find in place of satan? We find diabolos (Strong’s 1228), which is commonly translated, “devil.” The word means “slanderer” or “false accuser.” We have taken this loanword and made it as a title for this arch evil being. Is this proper?

Check out the renderings in the following passages. Wouldn’t it sound funny to render the word diabolos as “devil” in these three places?

"Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips (diabolos), but temperate, faithful in all things” (1 Timothy 3:11).

“...unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips (diabolos), without self control, brutal haters of good,...” (2 Timothy 3:3).

“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips (diabolos) nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,...” (Titus 2:3).

The title “the devil” is not used in the Hebrew Old Testament at all. The King James Version uses the word “devils” four times when referring to false gods, to which sacrifices had been given.

I hope you can begin to understand how misleading our translations can be, both built upon, and perpetuating the idea of an arch evil being, we call Satan, or the devil. Ultimately, you must make up your own mind based upon your own diligent study. I hope you have learned by now, not to base your understanding upon popular opinion, or what the “authorities” claim as truth. I won*t tell you what to believe, but I will present some things for you to use as food for thought.


Let us begin in Genesis. It is commonly claimed that the serpent in the garden was Satan. If the serpent is taken literally in the garden, it would seem that the serpent was the cause of Eve to sin. If taken figuratively to represent the evil, rebellious nature of man, or one*s own voice of temptation, the element of a separate deceiver is removed.

In the case of Cain*s sin, a separate deceiver is not in the picture at all (unless one infers it), only the element of sin. God told Cain that “...sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).

Now let*s look at what God said in Gen. 6:5. “Then God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” That is a strong statement against man. Do we see God blaming man or Satan? God destroyed the world because of man*s evil nature, not because of Satan. If Satan was the cause of all this evil, wouldn’t it have made more sense for God to destroy Satan and spare mankind?

Say you were in charge of a group of kids, and you taught them proper, but the group of kids turned to evil ways because some dirt bag down the street had influenced them. Would you think it best to destroy the kids, or destroy the dirt bag? By destroying the dirt bag, you could remove the evil and straighten out the kids again. If you destroyed the kids, what would be gained?

The evil would still be there to infect the next bunch of kids. However, if the evil was a part of the kids themselves, and there was no outside influence, the only way to rid the evil would be to destroy the kids. Which did God do? He destroyed the “kids.” However, God saved eight people, and from them, the seed of evil was lived on in them and grew, remaining with us yet today.

Now look at Genesis 8:21. “... I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man*s heart is evil from his youth...” Here again man is accused of evil and Satan is nowhere mentioned. James states in ch.1:14-l5, “But each is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. When lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” There was a perfect opportunity to set the blame on Satan, but James puts the blame on man*s evil nature.

One may point out that later, in 4:7 James says, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” But does this passage necessitate an arch evil being? Getting rid of the loanword and translating diabolos instead, it can read, “Resist the slanderer (or false accuser) and he will flee from you.” In the time that James was writing, the Jews were most definitely the false accusers of the brethren. They slandered the followers of Christ unrelentingly.


Many contend that Satan was a fallen angel. This idea is taken mainly from two passages, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Both are erroneous conclusions. Let*s look first at Isaiah 14. By reading only selected parts of this prophecy, one can easily come to the conclusion that it is speaking of the devil and how he had fallen from his heavenly place.

But let*s not start in the middle. Instead, proper exegesis requires that we get the context first. The prophecy begins with 13:1 and states that it is an oracle concerning Babylon. He goes on telling of cataclysmic destruction, which was typical for prophetic language concerning the destruction of a nation. In verse 17, God says he will use the Medes to destroy them. Verse 19 again tells us the subject is Babylon and that they will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.

The discourse continues into chapter 14, and verse 4 identifies the subject as the king of Babylon. Again, verse 22 identifies the subject as Babylon. Isaiah 13:1 through 14:23 need to be read as a whole. After you finish reading through 14:23, read Daniel 5:18-30, and compare the language. It is strikingly similar, and both are speaking of the arrogance of the king of Babylon.

Much of the error stems from 14:12 and the King James Version. “How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer, son of the morning.” First, the term Lucifer is merely the Latin translation of the Hebrew word helel (Strong’s 1966), meaning day star, star of the morning, or shining one. Isaiah 14:12 of the King James Version is the only place it can be found in the Bible. It comes from the root word halal (Strong’s 1984), meaning to be boastful. This has wrongly been taken as the former name for Satan. The reason for this is because of the preconceived idea that the text is speaking of Satan and his alleged fall from heaven.

Next, the word translated “heaven” is not shamayim (Strong’s 8064), the normal Hebrew word for heaven or sky. The word here is maal (Strong’s 4605), and it means above or upwards. With this in mind it is easy to see that the text is saying that the king of Babylon, morning star, has exalted himself above all, and God destroyed him as a result. The devil is not the subject at all. The term morning star is a figure of speech meaning brightness that is short lived.

Ezekiel 28 is a similar misconception. Verses 2 &12 plainly address the subject to be the leader of Tyre. But let*s back up and get the context. Chapter 25 tells of God*s judgment on Ammon, Moab, Edom and Philistia. The next judgment pronounced is that on Tyre. Chapters 26, 27 and 28:1-19 are dealing with Tyre. After this we have judgments on Sidon and Egypt. Why would an account of the fall of Satan be stuck in between? Such would not fit the context.

A king represents his nation, and so this prophecy is not only against the king, but also the nation as a whole. Chapter 26:2, 3, 4, 7 & 15 show the subject to be Tyre. In chapter 27, verses 2, 3, 4, 8 & 32 all reveal the subject to be Tyre as well. Then chapter 28 seems to be directed to the king of Tyre. Because of the lofty language used, it is commonly thought that the text must to refer to the devil, even though the text says it is the king of Tyre. Once an idea is cemented in tradition, it is very difficult to get rid of it.

Now 28:13 in particular causes difficulty, “You were in Eden, the garden of God.” One instantly thinks that this could only be Satan, as he was in the garden of Eden. (Eden is a loanword meaning delight). The LXX says, “You were in the delight of the paradise of God.” Above, we challenged the idea that the serpent refers to Satan (at least the common conception of Satan).

The text is God*s word and cannot contradict itself. The text says it is the king of Tyre, so what does the phrase “You were in Eden, the garden of God” mean? It has to be figurative like it is in Genesis. Apparently, Tyre must have been righteous, and found great favor with God at one time, but then became highly elated as a result, and God destroyed it. If this was an account of the fall of Satan, wouldn’t the text say so? Verses 2 & 9 both say, “You are a man and not God.” Was Satan a man? Certainly not traditionally.

The text speaks of how Tyre gained riches and wisdom by trade. How would this refer to Satan? What does Satan, a spirit, need with gold, silver and precious stones. Power is the desire of Satan (traditionally speaking). From 28:12 to the end of the chapter is highly figurative language. It is poetic and symbolic in nature. Is there really any sound reason to insert Satan as the subject here? It goes against the very context of the entire prophecy.

In 28:2,12, God tells Ezekiel to tell this to the king of Tyre. Now, suppose for a moment that the subject is Satan. How is Ezekiel supposed to deliver a message to Satan? Why must we force Satan into the context when the text itself tells us time and time again that the subject is Tyre and its king?

I don*t think that Satan butted in on God*s creation and deceived Adam and Eve. God could have removed Satan from the picture, but did not. God created Satan or evil for a purpose, and was part of God*s plan all along. No one or nothing can foil God*s plan.

You say, “God is righteous and cannot create evil.” The fact is, there is evil in God*s creation and if you say God did not create evil, then you are forced to say that God created something that was imperfect and became evil. Either way it boils down to God*s works. God foreknew this and therefore cannot be considered as brought on by an outside force. It was not an oversight on God*s part.

I know some of you may not see this the way I do, but let*s not let that interfere with our pursuit of truth. The Bible though, does say God created evil. Proverbs 16:4 states, “The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” Also, Isaiah 45:7, “The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” Salvation was not a plan to counter man or Satan. God is in control of all his creation. ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 dan2222 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155917-Is-there-a-Satan <![CDATA[Were the Pre-Nicene Christian Churches "Orthodox"?]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155826-Were-the-Pre-Nicene-Christian-Churches-quot-Orthodox-quot&goto=newpost Sat, 11 May 2013 23:52:21 GMT Prof. Bart Ehrman refers to the pre-Nicene Christian churches as "proto-orthodox". That says to me that several generations of converts from Orthodox Judaism:

1: brought their theological baggage with them into pre-Nicene (proto-Orthodox) Christianity;
2: imposed it upon the gospel message of Jesus of Nazareth and other early, non-Jewish, Christian writers and teachers, and
3: spun developing Christianity to conform with the theology of Judaism to form Judeo-Christianity (i.e., Christianity as influenced by Judaism).

Post-Nicene, the like-minded and pro-Orthodox "church fathers" and other churchmen chose (under threat of excommunication or death, and for whatever other reasons) to perpetuate pre-Nicene (proto-Orthodox) Jewish-Christianity via their corrupted and preferred version of Orthodox Judeo-Christian dogma.

What does Prof. Ehrman's term "proto-orthodox" say to you? ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 Heterodoxus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155826-Were-the-Pre-Nicene-Christian-Churches-quot-Orthodox-quot Thoughts on Paul http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155822-Thoughts-on-Paul&goto=newpost Sat, 11 May 2013 17:48:13 GMT I have been studying this topic for many years. I do not believe Paul to be an Apostle nor do I believe that his writings come from God. I have come to my own conclusions, but I would like to have your thoughts on this. I do not mean this to be a shot against anyone's faith nor am I doing this to argue. I would just like to have a straight forward discussion. I would like to point out that I do believe Yahushua (Jesus) is the Messiah and He is God's Son.
I would just like to know why you put your faith in Paul as an Apostle and representative of God. Thank you ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 Nikao http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155822-Thoughts-on-Paul <![CDATA[Accepting Christ is a" Set up Condition." Do you set it up?"]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155819-Accepting-Christ-is-a-quot-Set-up-Condition-quot-Do-you-set-it-up-quot&goto=newpost Sat, 11 May 2013 09:15:47 GMT I have often claimed that it really does not matter what humans do, they are saved anyway; and I believe that to be the bottom line. Yet there are many lines of reality that exist before we get to that bottom. Jesus himself said in Matt. 7:24, " Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, " And " Acts upon them", may be counted as a wise man." Clearly Jesus here is talking about the hearer " Doing Something", responding to his message. So why do I keep saying things which seem to contradict this? Well its because I like to get to the bottom line of understanding things; and I believe that Jesus and God are in far more control of Salvation than we really understand. I don't think we can " Do anything without their help." We can't hear the message without their help, can't understand the message without their help, can't respond to it without their help. Its like Jesus asking people to do things, which he already knew they could not do without him. But " Why" would he do that? Well one reason is because that is exactly what his Father did to him; God gave Jesus something to " Do", that Jesus knew he could not do without his Father's help. Well why would God do that? Its simple, because the Father already knew that he would help Jesus do all things he asked of him.

Does that mean Jesus asked us to " Do", because he knows that he will help us do all the things asked of us? Well yes it does, but only at the bottom line, and there are just a whole lot of levels before a human can reach those bottom lines. Now if I am explaining things that I believe, and I just express the bottom line, then I am sure many would misunderstand what is said on that line. And I think that is what has happened with my views on " Accepting Christ." Do I believe in accepting Christ? Well of course I do! But I view that acceptance as a " Set up condition the human was placed in by God", not as a decision that they came to on their own conscious ability. So I don't give the " Credit" for acceptance to the human, I give it to God where it rightfully belongs; because I believe in the bottom line, that the complete mental conscious arena that the human mind has gone through to reach a point of accepting or believing in God, was all established by God in their head. It was all set up by God, and not by the human, they did not - apart from God, just come up with their own system of belief, and decide for themselves that they would believe in Christ.

But the " Spirit of self responsibility" is strong in this world, because being responsible is so important; but I see a powerful spirit that has taken advantage of this strong human ability, and has infused his will into this and distorted even a good thing like self responsibility, and mixed it into the gospel message of Christ teaching " Do something" or " Respond to me", and has again diverted the way to the bottom line , to be a different way that hangs far too many things on a believers back, that they have really been relieved of by Jesus hanging on the Cross.

And I want to walk this through a whole LOT of scriptures and show you what I mean. ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 mickiel http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155819-Accepting-Christ-is-a-quot-Set-up-Condition-quot-Do-you-set-it-up-quot The Beast http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155812-The-Beast&goto=newpost Fri, 10 May 2013 19:33:18 GMT It's rather beastly eh?

Moderated By: Sparko



DO NOT ever remove an official notice from your post again.

Your thread was moved because you posted in an unauthorized area.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 xXMikHaelXx http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155812-The-Beast Pre-Trib Rapture and Reincarnation http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155793-Pre-Trib-Rapture-and-Reincarnation&goto=newpost Thu, 09 May 2013 14:47:36 GMT How does that work? Why would a pre-trib rapture be necessary with reincarnation, and does that mean the cycle just starts all over again? Or would the rapture "end" the cycle of reincarnation? ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 Cow Poke http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155793-Pre-Trib-Rapture-and-Reincarnation Mysteries of Golgotha Revealed in Zohar http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155672-Mysteries-of-Golgotha-Revealed-in-Zohar&goto=newpost Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:15:03 GMT As a student of Kabbalah, Zohar, I greatly appreciate how these great Rabbis explained the mysteries of Christ. I came across this on the internet, by Billy Phillips, which I thought gives a wonderful example of this revealing, in a teaching on Golgotha, the Great Name of God and the Son of God. ---Quote--- The early Christian fathers and original Doctors of the Church all admitted that they could not find the word Golgotha anywhere in ancient Hebrew writings. They admitted they did not... As a student of Kabbalah, Zohar, I greatly appreciate how these great Rabbis explained the mysteries of Christ. I came across this on the internet, by Billy Phillips, which I thought gives a wonderful example of this revealing, in a teaching on Golgotha, the Great Name of God and the Son of God.

Quote:
The early Christian fathers and original Doctors of the Church all admitted that they could not find the word Golgotha anywhere in ancient Hebrew writings. They admitted they did not know why this word was used. To this day Golgotha remains a mystery.

That’s because the early Christian fathers and founders were not permitted to look into the Zohar.

These are the mysteries Jesus taught ONLY to his closest disciples. These are the mysteries that only Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, Rabbi Akiva and their inner circle understood.

You see, the Zohar explains how Golgotha is the spiritual realm in the Ten Sephirot (Tree of Life) that encompasses Akita Kadisha, the place where the dew comes from to resurrect the dead.

In simple terms, Golgotha refers to the 99% reality. It was never about a physical location. It’s a spiritual dimension.
Rav Isaac Luria teaches only through repentance (inner change) can we reconnect to resurrect our happiness and resurrect what ever has died in our life. When enough individual people reconnect, then the gates of the 99% will open wide enough so that even the dead will resurrect and immortal existence (Messiah) will arrive.
This is the long-held Kabbalistic secret of the teachings that have surrounded Jesus for 2000 years concerning Golgotha, Resurrection and Jesus’ teachings about repentance.

Repentance really means in Hebrew, to return.

You might ask, Return to where?

We are returning ourselves and this world to the 99%. We are returning the final letter Hei, in God’s Name, back to the first three letters to unify God’s Name and thus, unify our world with the 99% reality.

THE SON

The letter that the Hei reconnects to is the letter Vav. The Vav is called “The Son” in the Zohar . The first letter of God’s Name (Yod) is called “The Father” (Abba).
This further explains Jesus’ teachings that says one must connect to the Son in order to connect to the Father. It’s all about unifying God’s Name, unifying our world with the spiritual realm of the 99%.
The rest can be found here.

Shalom! ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 Vivian http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155672-Mysteries-of-Golgotha-Revealed-in-Zohar