Satan - who was he in the book of Job?

[pia]

imo that is a parable about us

Thank you for all the time and thought you have put into these three posts......I went and re read the verses in regard to this story, and I must say, I cannot find any evidence of it being a parable......
Jesus isn't telling a story here. He merely arrives at the place and the 'mad' man runs toward Him.....One little difference is that one gospel says there is one man, one other gospel says there were two ???
As I mentioned before 'bbyrd' I wasn't raised with religion, so I had no preconceived ideas on the matter. But you are correct that it is something I have been taught in fellowships along the way...certainly He never spoke of the devil and I never asked.
I have had, and to a point still do, a lot of trouble accepting that there is an adversary and a hell with flames, but in the past 3 decades I have surely become aware that there is something there. Which can, right when I am thinking about something else, 'insert' another thought into my mind.....I have caught that phenomenon many times, and also thoughts, I KNOW for a fact I would not have . This happens from both 'sides'...It can be enlightening and bring peace; or anger, fear and doubt.
I most surely agree with you that mankind can be brute beasts, and at times hearing about what murderers and rapists have put their victims through, one can only wonder if there ever was a devil, that bad ?
It is a huge subject, and I suppose as with all the rest, we won't get to know the entire truth til our Father decides . I do appreciate both you and amadeus taking the time and I will surely look into it more and pray about it...
One thing I have been made aware of is that people are seeing visions of a court room setting, where there is an adversary, standing as mankind's accuser.............Then there is our 'Defence' Advocat, Jesus....We have to chose which side we are on when the time comes. Two people in particular who have had this, I trust completely with this, as neither would DARE to make up stuff about Jesus, and both I have known for more than 10 years.
Guess it can just be difficult to begin to imagine what our lives are going to be like, when we're no longer here in our flesh.
Thanks again :)

 

[pia]

you might note that you were taught this "different kind," but you cannot observe them directly, right.
And i grant you that Scripture even seems to encourage this. The authors know that you will tend to associate yourself with the good, and dissociate yourself from the bad, and this knowing is taken advantage of in the authorship, unless i am badly mistaken.

Mk 5:7-13 and Lk 8:27-33 are as useful for their contrasts to me as anything else, you might note how being sent "from the region" is equated with "to the Abyss," mirroring our tendency to insulate, even though we are told to "go," and there are other interesting elements, that the populace there was "scared" of the results of the "exorcism" is telling, i mean does that make sense to you?

But are you able to help me understand then, how this man, could have had revelation about who Jesus was ? That should not have been possible at that time...

 

[face2face]

Thank you for all the time and thought you have put into these three posts......I went and re read the verses in regard to this story, and I must say, I cannot find any evidence of it being a parable......
Jesus isn't telling a story here. He merely arrives at the place and the 'mad' man runs toward Him.....One little difference is that one gospel says there is one man, one other gospel says there were two ???
As I mentioned before 'bbyrd' I wasn't raised with religion, so I had no preconceived ideas on the matter. But you are correct that it is something I have been taught in fellowships along the way...certainly He never spoke of the devil and I never asked.
I have had, and to a point still do, a lot of trouble accepting that there is an adversary and a hell with flames, but in the past 3 decades I have surely become aware that there is something there. Which can, right when I am thinking about something else, 'insert' another thought into my mind.....I have caught that phenomenon many times, and also thoughts, I KNOW for a fact I would not have . This happens from both 'sides'...It can be enlightening and bring peace; or anger, fear and doubt.
I most surely agree with you that mankind can be brute beasts, and at times hearing about what murderers and rapists have put their victims through, one can only wonder if there ever was a devil, that bad ?
It is a huge subject, and I suppose as with all the rest, we won't get to know the entire truth til our Father decides . I do appreciate both you and amadeus taking the time and I will surely look into it more and pray about it...
One thing I have been made aware of is that people are seeing visions of a court room setting, where there is an adversary, standing as mankind's accuser.............Then there is our 'Defence' Advocat, Jesus....We have to chose which side we are on when the time comes. Two people in particular who have had this, I trust completely with this, as neither would DARE to make up stuff about Jesus, and both I have known for more than 10 years.
Guess it can just be difficult to begin to imagine what our lives are going to be like, when we're no longer here in our flesh.
Thanks again :)

Confirmation bias is a condition suffered by many Christians. The fleshly mind can and will conjure many perverse and evil imaginations...its been that way from the beginning. Cain was a false accuser toward Abel his brother becuase of the wicked thoughts which robbed him of being sanctified before God. Noah witnessed a time when the imaginations of people were wicked continually....I could go on and show you that the Bible is silent to a evil One placing thoughts in peoples mind....the flesh needs no help! Jeremiah 17:9 "Who can know it?"

I asked myself the other day "how will Christians respond to Jesus Christ when he informs them there was no supernatural evil being?"

I would be interested in the Christians response?

F2F

 

[Stranger]

Confirmation bias is a condition suffered by many Christians. The fleshly mind can and will conjure many perverse and evil imaginations...its been that way from the beginning. Cain was a false accuser toward Abel his brother becuase of the wicked thoughts which robbed him of being sanctified before God. Noah witnessed a time when the imaginations of people were wicked continually....I could go on and show you that the Bible is silent to a evil One placing thoughts in peoples mind....the flesh needs no help! Jeremiah 17:9 "Who can know it?"

I asked myself the other day "how will Christians respond to Jesus Christ when he informs them there was no supernatural evil being?"

I would be interested in the Christians response?

F2F

And your unbelieving mind conjures up many lies in the Scripture. Because man is a sinner, of course he doesn't need any help in sinning. That doesn't mean Satan is not there prodding and provoking and tempting the sinner in his course.

(1 Chron. 21:1) "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

(2 Samuel 24:1) "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, God, number Israel and Judah."

So, you see, you falsely assume Jesus will say there is no devil. He won't. Because there is. Thus no interesting response from the Christian. What will be your response?

Stranger

 

[face2face]

(1 Chron. 21:1) "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

(2 Samuel 24:1) "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, God, number Israel and Judah."
Stranger

That would be fine if the quotes you choose actually supported your doctrine but they don’t.

The translators notes on this section who are Christians of like faith to yourself have this to say.

Many interpreters and translations render the Hebrew שָׂטָן as a proper name here, “Satan” (NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, the Hebrew term שָׂטָן, which means “adversary,” is used here without the article. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, the lone exception being Num 22:22, 32, where the angel of the Lord assumes the role of an adversary to Balaam.

Not my words...but I agree with them wholeheartedly. My only qualification is that this adversary was angelic in nature...but l wont be dogmatic ;)

F2F

 

[face2face]

"The Bible wasnt written to us, it was written for us"
@face2face nice :)

@Stranger didn’t get the meaning of this comment. The actual books and letters where written with first audience listeners in mind. They were later recorded, being written into a culture foreign to ours today, though for our learning. We need to understand the language, especially how words were used and particularly their worldview at the time.

 

[Stranger]

That would be fine if the quotes you choose actually supported your doctrine but they don’t.

The translators notes on this section who are Christians of like faith to yourself have this to say.

Many interpreters and translations render the Hebrew שָׂטָן as a proper name here, “Satan” (NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, the Hebrew term שָׂטָן, which means “adversary,” is used here without the article. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, the lone exception being Num 22:22, 32, where the angel of the Lord assumes the role of an adversary to Balaam.

Not my words...but I agree with them wholeheartedly. My only qualification is that this adversary was angelic in nature...but l wont be dogmatic ;)

F2F

It is fine because the verses do support the existence of Satan.

If the translators you speak of were of my faith, then they would not be denying that Satan is being spoken of.

Nothing wrong in seeing Satan as an adversary. But that adversary has several names, Satan being one.

If not your words, whose? I saw no quotes.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

@Stranger didn’t get the meaning of this comment. The actual books and letters where written with first audience listeners in mind. They were later recorded, being written into a culture foreign to ours today, though for our learning. We need to understand the language, especially how words were used and particularly their worldview at the time.

Stranger understood fully the meaning of your comment.

Did the Holy Spirit understand the language and the world view when He was busy writing the Scriptures?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

I cannot find any evidence of it being a parable......
Jesus isn't telling a story here.

i would not deny the...historicity--sorry, can't think of how else to put that--of Scripture, ok, but i would suggest that Scripture is much more...um, interactive, than simply reading a historical text, as we are trained to do and come to believe is the acceptable and only way to read It. There is obviously a sense in which the whole Bible is "stories" to us, yes? And we might note that Jesus didn't write anything down, so in a sense Jesus has never told you a thing, also.

So, short version, you can as easily assume all parables are real as not, and you are quite obviously reading a "story," but see how it is possible to...shut you off to methods of perception, by taking advantage of the fact that your perspective in reading this...account in the future can be manipulated, if you can be manipulated, by guiding you into a position where you identify with, in this case, "those who understand." (even though they demonstrably did not understand, more than once, even at the end when it should have been obvious). It's "The Emperor's New Clothes," see. If this makes no sense yet, the long version now, fwiw, cont'd:

 

[bbyrd009]

And we could get into the reasoning here if you like, it is given for you to understand, the same as it was given for say Peter to understand, although he obviously did not understand even then, yes? So, it seems to me that I tell the crowd parables because it is not given for them to understand creates this resistance to perceiving any passages not specifically deemed parables as parables, because then in our thinking "that means that they weren't real, or did not happen, and also that i am a misunderstander" yes?

And i suggest to you that a reader is...being played here, ok, their pov is being anticipated, and it is being understood that they want to associate themselves with "those who understand" right, "that is me! i'm not some misunderstander!" lol, so naturally we are going to dissociate ourselves in any way possible from the "listeners of parables," who are supposedly "not given to understand," right? And this is anticipated by the authors, and it is being used, taken advantage of.

we are trained to read the Bible as if It were a collection of historical accounts or letters, most written in an afternoon or a sitting or two, or a week or whatever, like any logical thinker would sit down and write an account of something that happened somewhere for posterity. But that is strictly on the reader, and we have much evidence that OT Books have undergone lots of revision, which can be perceived as "scribing them up," but can also be seen as refinements to the account that make for a better lesson, a la Job or something, so, two different forces at work there.

By the time of Christ, Dialecticism was at a Zenith, and Logical (or "Greek") Thought was emerging, and the authors were the acknowledged masters of dialectical reasoning by then, as an aside.

If you now read the passage, you might get a sense of what i am saying. I have included the end of the previous Parable, and the beginning of the next Account, because they are where they are for a reason imo, and they help complete a little story: cont'd, arg

 

[bbyrd009]

8Still others fell on good ground and produced a crop: some 100 , some60 , and some 30 times what was sown.d
9Anyone who has earse should listen! ”f

Why Jesus Used Parables

10Then the disciplesg came up and asked Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables? ”h
11He answered them, “Because the •secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given for you to know,i butit has not been given to them.
12For whoever has, more will be given to him, and he will have more than enough. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.j
13For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see,k and hearing they do not listen or understand.l
14Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:
You will listen and listen,
yet never understand;
and you will look and look,
yet never perceive.m

 

[bbyrd009]

15For this people’s heart has grown callous;
their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
otherwise they might see with their eyes
and hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn back —
and I would cure them.n,o
16“But your eyes are blessedp because they do see, and your ears because they do hear!q
17For •I assureyou: Many prophets and righteous people longed to see the things you see yet didn’t see them; to hear the things you hear yet didn’t hear them.r

The Parable of the Sower Explained
18“You, then, listen to the parable of the sower:s
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~will it ever end, lol:

so, between the Parable being told and the Explanation we have this soliloquy "Why Jesus Used Parables." so, briefly,

-Parable
-"Anyone who has earse should listen!"
-“Why do You speak to them in parables? ” He answered them,
-strange aside the has no apparent connection to the soliloquy
-13For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see,k and hearing they do not listen or understand.l
a great description of the Apostles, too, but of course what has really happened is that one's pov has been completely...manipulated, adjusted, assured, at this point; one will now universally identify with "Us" and not "Them" of course, even though particular care (imo) was taken in vv 10-11 with the word "them," when many other word choices would have sufficed, or even been superior, if avoiding confusion were the point
-Isaiah's prophecy about "them" and their "ears" and "listening, seeing, hearing"
-v 16, a reinforcement of the manipulation, if you will, (that can also become truth for a believer, sure)
-v 17, "didn't see them, didn't hear them."
wherein one might notice the artful use of the word "them," which seems ridiculous on the surface perhaps, but it should be understood how many other ways this could have been phrased so as to avoid even accidental comparisons.
-the parable explained, 18“You, then, listen to the parable of the sower:
wherein we see the tense change, now it is not "the parable was then explained to them," see, it is "You, then, listen..."

 

[bbyrd009]

One little difference is that one gospel says there is one man, one other gospel says there were two ?

ya, meant to mention that the other day. So, if you have a literal history there, and there is no parable, then someone is either lying or wrong, right? :)

the one man is also the two men, ok, a device is being used to illustrate our divided nature there. There is no mistake, one author did not just overlook one of the guys, and it is written exactly as it was meant to be written, with the added bonus that people approaching the passages looking for "proof" or "facts" are rejected, and allowed to find what they wanted also, which is usually proof that the Bible is a fiction or something similar. There are other examples of this in Scripture as well

 

[bbyrd009]

As I mentioned before 'bbyrd' I wasn't raised with religion, so I had no preconceived ideas on the matter.

oh, i forgot that part, so you might be a birt more inclined to see the Dialecticism in Scripture, because that is really what we are talking about here i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

certainly He never spoke of the devil and I never asked.

well, imo you were spared a huge lesson because of your heart, that being that churches re-lay the foundation, over and over, sin and death, death and sin, because they are mostly all death-cults, waiting to literally die to be with the Lord.

imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have had, and to a point still do, a lot of trouble accepting that there is an adversary and a hell with flames, but in the past 3 decades I have surely become aware that there is something there.

ha, there is no place called hell with flames, ok, it cannot even be demonstrated with Scripture. What there is is Gehenna, here on earth, but that is a completely different concept. The parable of the rich man tells us that he wanted a drop of water on his tongue, but he is supposedly on fire, and etc, we could spend the rest of the day here, "torture" suddenly becomes "testing of gold" when one starts looking, there is no concept of "torture" in Hades mythology, Hades is after all a mythological Greek god, what is all this mythology doing in your Bible anyway lol?

Not denying that there are consequences for bad choices, ok, don't misunderstand me. But that passage has been scribed to death, and you can't quote satan being in any flames not one time, right, all the vengeance and the fire and the torture in the life that you supposedly will live after you literally die is logical thinkers translating your Bible for you, and we still have access to the original language, you don't need them even a little bit

 

[bbyrd009]

one can only wonder if there ever was a devil, that bad ?

"pleased to meet you; hope you guessed my name."

 

[bbyrd009]

One thing I have been made aware of is that people are seeing visions of a court room setting, where there is an adversary, standing as mankind's accuser.............Then there is our 'Defence' Advocat, Jesus....We have to chose which side we are on when the time comes. Two people in particular who have had this, I trust completely with this, as neither would DARE to make up stuff about Jesus, and both I have known for more than 10 years.

yes, i have heard this before, from perfectly great people, and fwiw it makes me want to puke. The law has been fulfilled, and i am not going back to court, ever. I know this seems denigrating of your friends, and i don't mean that ok, i ascribed to this for years, and for all i know the pov i now have is wrong, but it just began striking me as another way to "relay the foundation, over and over, sin and death, and law, and law and sin and death."

so i will say that that pov served me for a long time, and now it does not, and i'll leave it at that

edit, as child-heirs we are put under even the servants, until we become mature, and...no longer need the servants, no longer need their pov, no longer need "pablum," and begin eating meat.

 

[bbyrd009]

Guess it can just be difficult to begin to imagine what our lives are going to be like, when we're no longer here in our flesh.

ha amen. We have some clues; you will of course not be "you" any longer, at least in a sense, because you would have had to die to self to even attain this vision, right? You get a new name, the whole bit, yes? See the sales job inherent in suggesting that your "self" can go to heaven after you die, as opposed to participating in the kingdom of heaven right beside yourself by denying or dying to yourself.

 

[bbyrd009]

But are you able to help me understand then, how this man, could have had revelation about who Jesus was ? That should not have been possible at that time...

it is gonna be tough for me to comment here without further offending your sensibilities than i already have lol, as long as you are reading that literally, so i will just suggest that what you are saying in a sense is that someone who is possessed, of, say, an addiction for example, cannot see that the lack of addiction would be salvation for them; they know that, see. Not the best example maybe, sorry, but you might see how spiritually speaking, these are = in a sense.