/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>scholars debate what is and is not meant to be taken literally in the bible, but in both Judaism and Christianity it is not necessarily considered blasphemy to assume that certain stories are antiological, not literal. The creation of the universe in genesis is one such story that is not always taken literally even by the faithful. The book of job is such story that is not meant to be taken historical.

>If the book of job is in fact antiological and a theodicy, not some historical account of job, then it stands to reason that the prosecutor character was merely invented to setup the story. and any futher inclusion of Satan in the Christian New Testament is only an extension of a character that was never meant to be taken literally.

>Satan most famously appears as a character in the new testament in the temptation of Jesus Christ in the desert.

>…and finally Jesus is tempted with the power to rule over kingdoms of the world. Jesus does not accept this offer but also does not contradict Satan's ability to do this or his ownership of these kingdoms, but God has not granted dominion over the world, which suggests that the offer was from God himself and that God's prosecutor merely carried this out. Jesus's temptation in the desert was a test by his father, not by the devil.

>Another interpretation of the temptation of the desert is that it was meant as a lesson and not to be taken literally.

>Another reason to belive the temptation in the desert was not meant to be some historical account is nobody else was there to bear witness.

>the temptation in the desert was not reliable as history, it is instead an important lesson.

>Satan is referenced by name a handful of other times in the new testament but most christians focus on his alleged role in the book of revelation. Few biblical books are more misunderstood than revelation. In modern times many Christians use revelation as a warning against the coming power of the devil. But the actual content of revelations tells a different story. The author of revelation john of patmos had a specific audience in mind, seven early Christian churches in what is now turkey. John describes the challenges facing these churches in the first century C.E. Roman officials were concerned about the growing sect of Christianity, not for religious reasons but for political reasons. Jesus Christ as a messiah had revolutionary overtones. John's letter to the seven churches had rules to behave under this threat and how to remain faithful under this culture instead of assimilating. The beast referenced in the book of revelation is not literally the devil, it is almost certainly a reference to the roman empire or more specifically it's emperor. Revelation is political, it is not a warning of the Devil.

you're starting from the wrong place, focusing on attributes ascribed to The Accuser by unlearned men, such as him sitting on the 'Throne of Hell', whereas if you started with what the Lord Jesus taught about The Accuser you would have a clearer picture of the one who roams the earth seeking whom he can devour

The Enemy is not a king upon a throne, he is a displaced spirit who was cast out of heaven, thus the Eternal Living God, Christ Jesus says in Luke 10:18 "I saw Satan Σατανᾶν (Satanan), The Accuser, The Adversary, The Enemy fall like lightning from Heaven"

moreover, if you know that Christ is the 'King of kings and Lord of lords', who holds all authority in Heaven and Earth, and couple that with the fact that He is the Eternal Creator God for whom all things were made, by Him, and who holds all things together, so that in Him all things move and have their being, and since this includes the dimension known as 'Hell, Sheol or The Grave' and another dimension knows as The Eternal Lake of Fire 'prepared for the devil and his angels' into which the Satan, Death and Hell itself will be cast on Judgement Day, then you would understand that Christ Jesus is the King of Hell

that all being said, if you persist in arguing that the devil is a made up fiction, you are arguing with Christ Jesus

and that's just plain stupid

Things he got right:

>Satan doesn't rule hell or collect the souls of the damned

>"Satan " is a title and not a name. It means "the adversary" or "the prosecutor".

>Job is probably describing a divine servant.

>It is not unorthodox to read certain Bible stories as meaphors, most early Christians did so.

Things he gets wrong:

>The NT Satan is supposed to be a metaphorical character (he's not, he's a person who is God's adversary, as the name implies, just word search "Satan" in your Bible and read NT passages yourself)

>Revelation doesn't talk about Satan (it does, in Revelation 12)

>The Temptation of Jesus is probably supposed to be a fictional account (the gospels themselves depict it as history, and it's referenced in all 3 synoptic gospels)

In the relatively short video I have linked, an evangelical scholar talks about HaSatan in the book of Job. If you want an New Testament explanation of the devil, as I said, just do a word search of "satan" or "devil" in the New Testament and see for yourself.

Talks by exorcists help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMcvZaiBwe4

>>855297

Theologian Albert Barns says that it doesn't literally mean that Satan fell from heaven. Another example of this would be the passage referring to the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:12 "how you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to earth, you who once laid low the nations.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/barnes/luk010.htm

>I beheld Satan … - "Satan" here denotes evidently the prince of the devils who had been cast out by the seventy disciples, for the discourse was respecting their power over evil spirits. "Lightning" is an image of "rapidity" or "quickness." I saw Satan fall "quickly" or rapidly - as quick as lightning. The phrase "from heaven" is to be referred to the lightning, and does not mean that he saw "Satan" fall "from heaven," but that he fell as quick as lightning from heaven or from the clouds. The whole expression then may mean, "I saw at your command devils immediately depart, as quick as the flash of lightning. I gave you this power - I saw it put forth - and I give also now, in addition to this, the power to tread on serpents," etc.

I'm not arguing against Jesus, but it's important to take a look at the translations for better context of what he said.

>>855298

Because it's always good to challenge what you believe, that said he also believes that Satanism is a minority religion. But he is vert pragmatic about what he talks about.

>>855302

Yeah it thinks hes wrong about NT Satan being a fictional account.

>>855305

Interesting but not necessarily related to the thread.

>satan isn't in the bible

<except for all those parts where he is in the bible

>>855307

Yet this satan or "THE" satan or lucifer or what ever his name is does come up and is implied to be the same fallen angel anon

>>855344

Can you give me an example?

>>855353

Ancient peoples did not distinguish between natural powers (example, the moon), or earthly kings, and the spiritual forces behind them.

Understanding this, one can see the addresses to the King of Tyre and the King of Babylon are addressing both earthly kings, and the dark power that drives them, the Devil. For what king upon the earth ever stood before the Lord, and walked among the stones of fire?

>>855353

>Can you give me an example?

https://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifer-Satan.html

you could try a little bit harder you know

>>855857

Whats your point?

>>855893

it's doublespeak, like, is your refrigerator running – you better go catch it!

>>855290

>In the book of Job however the Devil is not "the Devil". Although mistranslated and misrepresented in the Christian Bible, the Hebrew bible does not name him Satan but rather "ha-satan". "ha" translates into the definite article "the" and Satan closely translates to the accuser, the adversary (or within the specific context of the book of job) the prosecutor. Satan is not a proper name but a title or descriptor.

I have seen this misinformation spread on many parts, but it fails to take into account several important details. First, when "the Satan" meets God in the "heavenly court", the expression said by God is "Whence comest thou?". The original expression in the imperfect Me'âyn tâbo (where are you coming from?) denotes surprise at the fact. The sense is of someone who was at a closed event without a credential. "From circling the earth and walking through it," replies the Satán in an expression almost similar to that used by David walking in his palace (2Samuel 11:2) or God walking through the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8). The idea is of a ruler examining his territory and concluding that no one opposes him. This makes it clear that "the Satan" is not a position that someone holds in the heavenly court, but rather an alien title that should not exist. Second, "the Satan," contrary to what OP understands, is not accusing Job, but God himself (Job 1:9-10).