Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
You were arguing with a point you mutual agree on with byHismercy for the sake of conflict it seems. And now you're posting links that argue a side of the debate that you say you don't even agree with. Why?
|
See my post to ZNP. When there are two alternatives (yes or no) there are always 4 possibilities. You have only considered the "yes or no" possibility. The truth I believe is a third. I am not trying to polarize the discussion one way or the other, but show the third alternative.
I used it as an example to show how byHismercy's method of biblical interpretation needs consideration. They stated a few times that they only believe what is written in the Bible, which is well and good. But in reality, all Christians don't believe exactly what is "only written" in the Bible. We all view the bible through the lens of our own opinion or the opinion of others. The sooner we realize that the better. With two different opinions there are four possibilities.
To be clear - I agree that Lucifer is Satan - our opinions agree. I disagree that Isaiah 14 or the Bible factually proves it. I disagree with your method of biblical interpretation. I would use Isaiah 14 to support my opinion. I don't use Isaiah 14 to claim something as fact which is not actually there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
Not only does the bible not say "sin is Satan in the flesh" it doesn't even remotely allude to such a thing. At least with Lucifer being Satan, you can compare OT and NT terminology and confidently affirm this as being fact. Even if you just look at the language in Isaiah 14, it's clear to me who he's really taking about. Men don't fall from heaven...
|
You said that we can "confidently affirm this as being fact".
I think we need to review the difference between an opinion and a fact. Most people don't know the difference.
Isaiah 14:4 says "king of Babylon" - that's a biblical fact. I can read it, you can read it. We can both agree that it says and refers to king of Babylon. So, it's a fact. It is also a fact that the verses which follow all refer to the king of Babylon.
To make this clear, see Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-12.htm
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!—The word for Lucifer is, literally, the shining one, the planet Venus, the morning star, the son of the dawn, as the symbol of the Babylonian power, which was so closely identified with astrolatry. “Lucifer” etymologically gives the same meaning, and is used by Latin poets (Tibull. i., 10, 62) for Venus, as an equivalent for the phôsphoros of the Greeks. The use of the word, however, in mediæval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the “morning star” has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16).
Now, "Lucifer is Satan" - that's your opinion. The bible doesn't say it, and we can agree upon it only if we both hold the same opinion.
And "fall from heaven" is surely figurative. How can men fall from heaven? How can angels fall if they have wings and aren't even subject to the laws of gravity? Is heaven even "up"? As Ellicott's Commentary shows, the king of Babylon falling from heaven, is likened to the planet Venus falling from the sky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
As for your point about Jews viewing Satan as a servant of God. I really hope you don't believe that personally.
Jesus was a Jew. In fact he was more Jewish than most, wouldn't you agree? What was his view of Satan? Servant of God or adversary of God? That should be an easy one.
Jews don't view Satan as a servant of God, you may think Jews view Satan as a servant of God.
To me, by even thinking this it shows me there is a much darker underlying work going on here anti-semetic in nature. I look at Job and see an all powerful God that won't let any one of his people be harmed unless he allows it. Satan here is a slave, not a servant.
|
Really? Everything I read about Judaism presented Satan as a servant of God:
http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/...view-of-satan/
There isn’t a single verse in the entire Tanach that states that Satan ever created evil or ever disobeyed a command from God. Satan is an obedient servant of God in the Tanach who serves the role of man’s accuser in God’s court.
The Jewish view of Satan is quite different to the Christian's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
And I didn't say "scholars" all agree, I said "Christian scholars". It's mostly secular and gnostic types that argue Isaiah 14 doesn't point to Satan. I'd suggest looking into the author of the article you linked to, Bert Thompson, before using him as a source.
|
I think Bert Thompson is a Christian. Isn't he the creationist that defends Christianity from atheism?
Anyway, I can prove that what you say about Christian scholars is incorrect. If you see all the bible commentaries here, they all say Lucifer is not Satan (or is the King of Babylon):
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-12.htm