Now's good - byHismercy

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To make clear, I was not arguing about whether Satan was Lucifer or not. I was making the point that just as the Bible does not say explicitly "sin is Satan in the flesh", neither does it say "Satan is Lucifer".

Satan in general is a tricky thing to discuss from the old testament Bible because the Jews don't believe in Satan the same as the Christians. They believe that Satan is more of a servant of God doing His will, and the Hebrew bible reflects that. For example, in Job, God and Satan get together in heaven to have a chat about what to do with Job. This presents Satan more as a servant of God used to test Job.




The word Lucifer appears only once in the whole bible in Isaiah 14:12.

Isaiah 14:4 shows who the name Lucifer is talking about:

"you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ..."

Scholars do not unanimously agree. This apologetics site explains why Satan is not Lucifer.

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.asp...1&article=1091
,

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?

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...

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.

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.

[Evangelical]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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....

Can you count how many "I"s are in that post? I think you try a little too hard to justify yourself before others. Luke 16:25 comes to mind.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Can you count how many "I"s are in that post? I think you try a little too hard to justify yourself before others. Luke 16:25 comes to mind.

Hi Jo S,

I appreciate your joining the forum, your inquiries, and the fresh thoughtful approach you are bringing. I have benefited and believe others will as well if they haven't already. The exchange between you and Evangelical is helping me to understand the subject from different perspectives.... so thanks for that.

That is why I was surprised at the non-sequitur above. That has nothing to do with the subject. Evangelical's use of the personal pronoun "I" may be because you used "you" so he felt the need to clarify with "I"... or perhaps he just communicates from a personal perspective, or perhaps time will show that he uses "I" at the same average as everyone else.

I really don't know.

Anyway, please keep sharing on the topic and not get distracted with the irrelevant.

thanks
Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Can you count how many "I"s are in that post? I think you try a little too hard to justify yourself before others. Luke 16:25 comes to mind.

You asked me why I presented arguments for both sides of the debate. I gave my answer. I agree with Lucifer being Satan. I disagree with you poorly interpreting Isaiah 14 to "prove" it. Just as we probably agree that the sky is blue, but if you told me the sky is blue "and space aliens prove it", I would disagree with that. (5 I's now, and counting).

You said
"Even if you just look at the language in Isaiah 14, it's clear to me who he's really taking about.". Well it's not clear to me, and it's not clear to all of those bible commentaries I presented either. If it's so clear, why aren't any of the bible commentaries agreeing with your view?

I fail to see the connection between the number of times a person uses "I" in a post and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This does not seem like something a rational person would write. From now on, perhaps Evangelical should write in the third person.

[Ohio]

How can this thread "Now's Good" by byHismercy be "good" by continually discussing the devil, I mean "Ha Satan," or is is Lucifer?

[ZNPaaneah]

When Jesus said "Get behind me Satan" to Peter He explained why He said this: "for you mind not the things of God but of Man".

Minding the things of man is also referred to us in Matthew when the Lord tells us not to take care over the things we wear or the things we eat.

In Hebrews we are told that all these people have been kept in bondage through "fear of death". So then this pervasive fear could be the way in which the "spirit of disobedience" is able to have a big influence on the world.

Therefore I think it is unsupportable based on the NT to ascribe every reference of "Satan" to being equivalent to Lucifer. Obviously, the fallen angels are "adversaries" to the Lord, and the serpent in Genesis could now be the "great dragon" in Revelation.

But if we narrow our view to "Satan" being "Lucifer" then we are easy to be deceived by anything, whether thought or deed, that opposes the will of God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Jesus said "Get behind me Satan" to Peter He explained why He said this: "for you mind not the things of God but of Man".

Minding the things of man is also referred to us in Matthew when the Lord tells us not to take care over the things we wear or the things we eat.

In Hebrews we are told that all these people have been kept in bondage through "fear of death". So then this pervasive fear could be the way in which the "spirit of disobedience" is able to have a big influence on the world.

Therefore I think it is unsupportable based on the NT to ascribe every reference of "Satan" to being equivalent to Lucifer. Obviously, the fallen angels are "adversaries" to the Lord, and the serpent in Genesis could now be the "great dragon" in Revelation.

But if we narrow our view to "Satan" being "Lucifer" then we are easy to be deceived by anything, whether thought or deed, that opposes the will of God.

I consider that an accurate appraisal of the idea of Satan in the Bible, and supported by the majority of Christian scholarship.

I believe that Peter's concern for Christ's welfare reminded him of Satan's temptations in the wilderness offering him physical comforts.