Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

What's the difference between this topic and Topic 56?

    Richard, people do those things...but who is pulling their strings?
    Who puts hate in their hearts to kill each other?  Who puts evil 
    in their hearts to do that which is wrong?
    
    Daniel, the conservative Christian concept of Satan comes from the
    Bible.  Predominantly from the New Testament, but not exclusively.
    In the O.T. I'm reminded of the serpent in the Garden of Eden and
    also of the story of Job.
    
    Jill

    .1,
    
    About 636 basenotes. :-)
    
    Richard

    I do believe in Satan...but....why doesn't God destroy it?
    
    Marc H.

Satan can be understood to mean "the adversary" or "the enemy," so I hear.

A rather frivolous wager between Satan and God is the introductory set up
for the story of Job.

A couple Second Testament references:

  Luke 11:18 [Jesus speaking] If �Satan� also be divided against himself,
  how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through
  Beelzebub*.

*Beelzebub, apparently synonymous with Satan, means "Lord of unrest" and can
be translated "Lord of the flies."

  Mark 8:33  But when he had turned about and looked on his
  disciples, he [Jesus] rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, �Satan:�
  for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the
  things that be of men.

Jesus used the name "Satan" to put down his friend Peter.  I guess I've said
unkind things at times to those who love me, too.

Peace,
Richard

    >Jesus used the name "Satan" to put down his friend Peter.  I guess
    >I've said unkind things at times to those who love me, too.
    
    I don't believe that.  Peter's strings were being pulled by Satan.
    I believe God was directing his comment first at Satan and second
    as a lesson for Peter that we have to guard ourselves from falling 
    into Satan's traps.  We should be seeking God's will.  Peter's 
    statement showed he obviously didn't know God's will for Jesus' life.
    
    Actually...the thought of Jesus putting anyone down is unbelievable
    to me.  Our views on the man and His message must differ more than
    I thought.  There is a difference between a put down and a rebuke,
    but both can be painful to the unwise.  Prov 9:8.
    
    Jill

  >Mark 8:33  But when he had turned about and looked on his
  >disciples, he [Jesus] rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, �Satan:�
  >for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the
  >things that be of men.

>Jesus used the name "Satan" to put down his friend Peter.  I guess I've said
>unkind things at times to those who love me, too.

>Peace,
>Richard

 My NIV reads a little differently.


"But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter.  
'Get behind me,Satan!' he said. 'You do not have in mind the things of 
God, but the things of men.'"

As I understand this passage, in the first sentence Jesus rebukes Peter 
for not wanting to believe that He will soon die.  In the second 
sentence, He directly rebukes Satan for leading Peter and the other 
disciples astray.  I don't believe Jesus is addressing Peter when he 
says "Get behind me, Satan."


Sadly, I'm in total agreement about saying unkind things to those I 
love.  Maybe that's Satan, too.

Sandy

    .7 Sandy,
    
    I *like* your take on that passage!
    
    Richard
    

             <<< Note 692.8 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "We will rise!" >>>

    >.7 Sandy,
    
    >I *like* your take on that passage!
    
    >Richard
    

Thanks, Richard.  :^)


Sandy

    .2
    
    Hi Jill,
    
    Thanks for the reply...actually, I understand there are references, but
    I guess my question is more how did Satan become so well-defined and
    improtant a character in traditional Christianity?  It's curious to me
    because Judaism leaves the whole concept so vague.
    
    thanks!
    
    Daniel

    While the Book of Job is believed by many to be based on a story which
    originated outside Israel, many also believe in the historical person
    of Job.  In any case, the book was written in the 6th C. BC and
    reflects a Jewish view of the relationship between God, man, and man's
    adversary, Satan.
    
    Besides Job, there are many references to angels, and to angels who
    rebelled in the Bible (Isa 14) and in extra-Biblical Jewish writings,
    these form the basis for the New Testament inclusion of Satan.
    
    Theological speculation regarding Satan has been developing in the
    Christian Church for 20 centuries.  Yet, the Roman Catholic Church has
    no specific doctrine regarding Satan beyond what is mentioned in the
    Bible.

    RE: .11
    
    Pat...whats your take on *why* the Catholic Church hasn't developed
    Satan? I can recall a number of sermons where the priest talked about
    Satan during the homily.
    
    Marc H.

    The Roman Catholic Church doesn't need create doctrinal statements
    regarding Satan because there is no theological or pastoral reason to
    do so.   What the Catholic Church teaches regarding Satan is basically
    Biblical and not a matter of dispute or Ecumenical disunity.

    RE: .13
    
    Sorry Pat...I really don't understand your reply.
    Could you state it in another way?
    
    
    Marc H.

Another way of saying it:

The Bible contains everything the faithful need to know about Satan.

/john

    re: .11 "*why* the Catholic Church hasn't developed Satan?"
    
    Because there is no theological or pastoral need to do so.

    RE: .14 The way I understand it is that specific doctrine statements
    are created when needed. For example when something is unclear in the
    Bible or if specific controversies arise that by their nature demand
    a response. None of that is the case with Satan.

    		Alfred

    RE: .17 and others..
    
    O.K....I'm slow this afternoon. 
    
    Does that mean that the RC Church feels that the Bible is so
    *clear* and *Concise* that knowone needs any additional info
    about Satan? Or, does the Church discount the existance of
    Satan?
    
    The RC Church has issued lots of instructions around what meals to
    eat/when..etc. Why not around the existance or nor of Satan?
    
    I'm confused...
    
    Marc H.

It's just as simple as we've been explaining.

The Church considers that the bible contains all that the faithful need
to know about Satan.  The Bible is clear enough.  The gospels are clear
enough that Satan is real.

/john

    re:18
    Read a book title "Hostage To The Devil," by Malachi Martin, a former
    Jesuit priest. You'll get a good idea of how the Catholic church views
    Satan, demonic possession and exorcism.

    BTW, I should warn you, don't read it before you go to sleep.;)

    Jim

    RE: .19
    
    O.K.....
    
    Marc H.

    If you read what Malachi Martin writes, you read the views of Malachi
    Martin and the views that he attributes to the Catholic Church.

    RE:22
    Pat, 
        what's wrong with Malichi Martin ? Besides, Hostage to the Devil
    isn't opinion based as his other works, but documented stories of demonic 
    possession and exorcisms. I believe it even has the Imprimatur on it.

    Jim

Doesn't imprimatur mean "not manifestly contrary to the teachings of the
Church".

Which is not the same as saying "the Church teaches this".

Not every pious opinion expressed by a prominent cleric or lay person is a
teaching of the Church.

/john

The OT Hebrew word "satan" means opponent, adversary, accuser, attacker.
In Job, the word is used with the definite article -- ha-sa-tan, meaning
"THE adversary," "THE accuser."  It is not a proper name, but a function or
a role.  When the book of Job was written, probably during the 6th century
BC, the Israelites had no concept of the devil, and their understanding of
the Satan was quite different from the way Christians today think of Satan.
In Job, Satan is not the enemy of God, but a kind of official accuser, a
member of the heavenly council.

Peace,
Richard

    
    A side note on 'devil' - someone pointed out to me recently that
    'devil', is also d'evil (or, the evil).  It was more of a reference to
    a force than a figure.
    
    It's interesting that the word became personified and took on qualities
    such as this red fellow with a forked tongue, pointed tail, and so on.
    
    Cindy

    RE Note 220.179 by TNPUBS::PAINTER

    > A side note on 'devil' - someone pointed out to me recently that
    > 'devil', is also d'evil (or, the evil).  It was more of a reference to
    > a force than a figure.

    I think this is nothing more than an interesting word play where in
    English word can be convoluted into a French-like word -- which by the
    way would be "of evil." I think the word 'devil' comes from a Greek
    root meaning liar or slanderer. I'm sure John Covert could help here.

    Eric 

Eric,

You are correct, infact Satan is the foremost slanderer of God. Also
he was given the name Satan because of his becoming the resister of
God. He was a real person to Jesus, to whom he referred to as "the 
ruler of this world," John 14:30. With this in mind we can see why
Jesus said that he was "no part of this world" also his followers 
were to be no part of it either, John 17:16. One would need to examine
what it is Satan is permitted to have domain over, so as to avoid his 
influence.

Phil.

    Well, actually, I was referring to etymology more than theology.

    Eric

re .29

Eric,


That's fine. It gives some insight if you apply the meaning of these words 
"Satan" & "Devil" as to why a fallen angel is called Satan the Devil in the
Bible.

Phil.

THE 9 SATANIC STATEMENTS (CHURCH OF SATAN)

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love
   wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern
   for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more times
   worse than those that walk on all fours, who because of his "divine
   spiritual and intellectual development" has become the most vicious animal
   of all!

8. Satan represents all the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical
   and mental gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the church ever had, as he has kept it
   in business all these years!

The record speaks for itself - SATAN RULES THE EARTH!

REGIE SATANAS!		HAIL SATAN!

==============================================================================
The preceding from the Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds,
1st Edition.

Note 692.31

>4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love
>   wasted on ingrates!

>5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!

Satanists are not alone in ascribing to the foregoing.  If true, it appears
to me that some who believe they serve the only one true God are actually
serving Satan.

Shalom,
Richard

    Many times yes and it's an easy trap to fall into!
    
    The first thing I thought of was in 1st Corinthians when Paul addressed
    the issue of the man having sex with his fathers wife.  Paul admonished
    the church to turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.
    
    -Jack

re .31, satan sounds like a very earthly creature! ;-)


i am pretty much in agreement with pts. 1 through 7. 
does that make me evil? huh. :-}


andreas.

Do Satanists regard Satan as the same Satan described in the bible? 

I guess the question would be better asked as do Satanists believe in the bible,
but don't agree with the teachings?


Steve

Note 692.34

Andreas,

>i am pretty much in agreement with pts. 1 through 7. 
>does that make me evil? huh. :-}

Evil?  I don't know.  It does make you pretty human though.

Note 692.35

Steve,

>Do Satanists regard Satan as the same Satan described in the bible?

Yes, as far as I can tell.  The materials I have on hand don't say.

Shalom,
Richard

from 369.160 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER 

> if god is a spirit (from the recent image of god discussion), then if satan 
> is a spirit, then if folks can be the 'property' of god the spirit (a recent 
> claim [and one which i also consider folkloristic]) then folks could also be 
> the 'property' of satan the spirit. 
> then what happens if god's folks meet satan's folks.


any takers on this one?


andreas.

re .37

> then what happens if god's folks meet satan's folks.

Andreas,

It is mentioned in the first prophecy in the Bible....

Genesis 3:15 NWT "And I shall put enmity between you and
the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will
bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the
heel."  

The serpent's (later revealled as Satan the Devil in
Revelation 12) seed, that is those who are under Satan's
control will be at odds with the woman's (God's heavenly
organisation) seed which was primarily Jesus. A study of
the Bible shows that there has always been enmity between
God's people and those under Satan's control. Jesus tells
the Pharisees that their father was none other than Satan
himself, for they wanted to do the works of their father
that is kill Jesus rather than do the will of God in
accepting Jesus for who he was, John 8:44 NWT reads....
"You are from YOUR father the Devil, and you wish to do
the will of YOUR father. THat one was a manslayer when he 
began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because the
truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks
according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and
the father of [the lie]."

Previously, the Pharisees contended that they belonged
to God because of their birthright, but Jesus told them
"I know you are Abraham's offspring, but YOU are seeking
to kill me, because my word makes no progress among YOU."
(verse 37) further Jesus told them that their works would
identify them. If they were Abraham's children then they 
would do the works of Abraham (verse 39). In otherwords
they would accept God's direction and accept Jesus as the
promised Messiah.

This emnity has existed since the rebellion in the garden
of Eden and continued after Jesus' death and resurrection
as seen in the book of Acts. The emnity continues till this
day, that is why Jesus said that his followers would be
persecuted even as far as death itself (compare John 15:20)

Mind you Jesus was also in opposition to the Pharisees and
openly attacked their hypocrisy. Same too with the rest
of the woman's seed, these would boldly highlight the 
hyprocisy of the serpent's seed though they might face
death for doing so.

Jesus shows that not all religion is good religion and that
Satan misleads many through false religion. A striking example
is that of the former Aztecs who made human sacrifices to
their god, they were doing the works of their father the
Devil "who was a manslayer when he began".

The true religion would do the works of their master and
leader. A striking identifying mark would be the love that
they have for each other, which would transcend national and
ethnic boundaries (John 13:34,35). But they would be openly
persecuted in some countries because of their faith.

Phil.

thank you phil, for your answer.

to my question, "what happens if god's folks meet satan's folks?" your answer
is - there will be enmity, satan's folks will persecute god's folks until
death, though god's folks won't necessarily stand by idly. they will attempt 
to discredit satan's folks by "highlight[ing] the hyprocisy of the serpent's 
seed though they might face death for doing so."

a key question which now comes to mind - how does anyone recognise god's folks
and satan's folks apart? what someone says about himself can't be much of a 
guarantee, for how do you know someone does not "speak according to his own 
disposition", is not a liar?


also to your quote,

> Genesis 3:15 NWT "And I shall put enmity between you and
> the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will
> bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the
> heel."  

does this mean that the battle between god's folks and satan's folks happens 
on a pretty much even field, ie. "he will bruise you in the head and you will 
bruise him in the heel" and so on?



andreas.

re 692.39 

;a key question which now comes to mind - how does anyone recognise god's folks
;and satan's folks apart? what someone says about himself can't be much of a 
;guarantee, for how do you know someone does not "speak according to his own 
;disposition", is not a liar?

Andreas,

You are right, the Pharisees made an open show of piety so too today others
follow the same example. I find this strange for one of Jesus' teachings
to his disciples was humility. 

Jesus pointed out a dependable way of recognising who belong to whom, 
Matthew 7:16-18 NWT reads "By their fruits you will recognize them. Never 
do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise 
every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless 
fruit, a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree 
produce fine fruit." Jesus can be likened to a good tree and it's branches 
(his followers) will produce fine fruit. In contrast Satan is likened to a 
rotten tree and his seed produces rotten fruit.

Galations 5:22-23 mentions the fruitage of the holy spirit "love, joy, peace,
long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness & self-control."

Jesus says that an outstanding identification mark will be love, John 13:34,
35 reads "I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just
as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love another. By this all will know that
YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." This love would be
extended to encompass ones neighbour and enemy also. 

As you pointed out most persons call themselves Christians or godly in fact
they talk of love and peace, but do their actions speak differently. Through
the centuries many wars have been fought in the name of religion, in the
two world wars of this century persons have even fought brothers of their
own faith and yet Jesus never ever urged his followers to harm themselves
or others. People are turned away from God when they see such things going 
on, for Jesus said persons would recognize Jesus' followers by the love they 
have for each other.

So individually we should recognise ourselves who are Jesus' followers and
this we discern by the fruit they produce.

;does this mean that the battle between god's folks and satan's folks happens 
;on a pretty much even field, ie. "he will bruise you in the head and you will 
;bruise him in the heel" and so on?

No, this points to two events in particular. The first took place when Jesus
was executed and killed, Satan no doubt at the time felt that he had made
an important victory when the Messiah was put out of action. But this
victory was short lived for God resurrected Jesus shortly after (Galations 1:1)
. 

The bruising in the head has yet to happen, this will be when Jesus and the
secondary part of the woman's seed will crush Satan under their feet. Romans
16:20 NWT "For his part, the God who gives peace will shortly crush Satan
under YOUR feet shortly." Revelation 20:10 is the event when "he will bruise
you in the head".

Though it may not seem like it at times, the battle is one sided for the
woman's seed has the backing of the Universal Sovereign. God imparts power
to those on his side to fight this spiritual warfare and Paul's words
are interesting "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage war according
[to what we are in the] flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly,
but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things." 2 Corinthians
10:3,4 NWT. God gives weapons to Jesus' troops (compare Ephesians 6:10-20), 
Satan influences the producing of ever increasing weapons of mass destruction 
(1 John 5:19). The use of one set of weapons leads to life for others, the 
other set of weapons has the sole purpose of taking away life. So again we can 
ask what fruit is being produced?.

As I said earlier it may seem that Satan has the upperhand, but Jesus said
"And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the
soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body
in Gehenna." Matthew 10:28 NWT Gehenna was a rubbish tip in Jerusalem were
rubbish was burned and destroyed. Criminals who were deemed not to have
a proper burial were burnt on this tip after their execution. Satan and
those who practice the same spirit may be able to kill in this world, but 
in God's new world they will be done away with totally destroyed as by fire. 
To finish 2 Peter 3:13,14 NWT reads "But there are new heavens and a new earth
that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these rightousness is to 
dwell. Hence, beloved ones, since YOU awaiting these things do YOUR utmost to 
be found by him spotless and unblemished and in peace."

Hope this helps

Phil.

thanks for your long and well researched response, phil! your knowledge 
of the bible is impressive. i followed up your pointer to john 8 and had a 
read myself (yes, even as an ardent non-believer i had bought the book a while
ago with the intention of following christian concepts up). so your pointer
provided a good chance to do so - yes, i agree that the scene in john 8 is
unusual, jesus seems pretty upset and agitated, not what you'd expect of him.
on the other hand, the scene does seem to show that he's human too.

to your conclusion, i wholly agree with you that those acting in god's spirit 
are known by their fruit.

as for the second part of your reply, i shall follow up the references you 
provided and hopefully get a bit closer to the symbolism [that is how i view 
satan]. i also have to yet read my way through all the satan topics in here,
the guy seems pretty popular! 
it has always puzzled me why christians should concern themselves with satan 
- why a god should not suffice, why there should be a need for satan. 
personally, i suspect the devil is a human construct so it will be interesting 
to see what more jesus himself is reported as saying on the devil.


thanks again,

andreas.

re .41

Andreas,

Your welcome and I'm pleased that I could have been of
help. Though my seeming knowledege of Bible is more due
to having good reference and study material than head
knowledge. However, the important thing is not knowing
what is in the Bible but understanding it.

Many do view Satan and his demons as symbolic, but did 
Jesus? To help you look into this, here are some pointers 
in the gospel accounts:

	Matthew 4:1-11; 4:24; 12:24; 13:38,39.
	Luke 4:33,34; 8:27-31.
	John 13:2; 14:30.

No doubt there are more.

The reason that Christians often concern themselves about
Satan is mentioned by Peter in 1 Peter 5:8 NWT "Keep YOUR
senses, be watchful. YOUR adversary, the Devil, walks about
like a roaring lion, seeking to devour [someone]." Not that
he literally devour persons but he does try to break a
Christians integrity so as to turn them away from God, this 
is shown by looking at the account of Job especially chapters
1 & 2. But I understand your concerns about Satan,  because 
persons could quickly use him as a scapegoat for their actions.
However, as we have already seen those who put their trust in
God will bear fine fruit. 

Anyway, I hope you fair well in your study.

Phil.

FRANZ

  "The century might have been a good one, if man had not been watched from
time immemorial by the cruel enemy who had sworn to destroy him; the hairless,
evil, flesh-eating beast -- man himself.

  Perhaps there will be no more centuries after ours.  Perhaps a bomb will blow
out all the lights.  Everything will be dead -- eyes, judges, time.  Night.
O tribunal of the night, I have taken the century upon my shoulders and have
said:  I will answer for it.  This day and forever."

					-- SATRE: THE CONDEMNED OF ALTONA

>John 8:44 NWT reads....
>	"You are from YOUR father the Devil, and you wish to do
>	the will of YOUR father. THat one was a manslayer when he 
>	began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because the
>	truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks
>	according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and
>	the father of [the lie]."

these words are reported to have been said by jesus when he spoke
to the pharisees in the temple.

why did jesus get so angry at these people? why, in his infinite capacity
for love, did he not see that the pharisees were on the wrong track and why
did he not stay calm and patient? why, did he not forgive them for their
wrong-doings instead of shouting at them this way?


if these questions have been answered before, i'll gladly accept pointers.


andreas.

He was only human... :-)

				-- Bob

>why did jesus get so angry at these people? why, in his infinite capacity
>for love, did he not see that the pharisees were on the wrong track and why
>did he not stay calm and patient? why, did he not forgive them for their
>wrong-doings instead of shouting at them this way?

Who says Jesus shouted when he spoke the words in John 8:44?  Not the bible.

Who says that he was not being loving and patient and simply speaking the
truth in love?

How much love did Jesus show?

	Stretch your arms out to your sides and say "This much!"

/john

re .44

Andreas,

Jesus was being firm with the Pharisees hoping to help
them see the error of their ways. The human Jesus
was God's anointed one and thereby had the power to
read persons hearts. Jesus knew that the Pharisees were
out to kill him, hence his words in verse 44. You see
the Pharisees thought that they were God's people by
birth and yet they were in opposition to God because
they were out to kill his Messiah.

Verses 37-39 NWT "'I know that YOU are Abraham's offspring;
but YOU are seeking to kill me, because my word makes
no progress among YOU. What things I have seen with my
Father I speak, and  YOU, therefore, do the things YOU
have heard from [YOUR] father.' In answer they said to him
'Our father is Abraham.' Jesus said to them: 'If YOU
are Abraham's children, do the works of Abraham.'"

Jesus was telling the Pharisees that if they were to be
identified as Abraham's children then they would have 
to do works befitting of such. Hence in verse 44 Jesus
tells them straight their works identify them as children
of the Devil, for they want to accomplish his will in 
having the Messiah killed. In Matthew 7 in the sermon on
the mount, Jesus told the people that God's people would
be identified by their fruit, so to others would be 
identified with Satan because of the rotten fruitage they 
produce.


This episode is just part of the enmity as mentioned in
Genesis 3:15 that has gone on between the "woman's seed"
(God's people) and "Satan's seed". Jesus would from time
to time highlight the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The
Pharisees were meant to sheperd God's flock, but Jesus
felt for pity for the people, "On seeing the crowds he
felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown 
about like sheep without a sheperd." (Matthew 9:36 NWT)
The Pharisees were reprehensible and Jesus firmly told 
them so. Some of the Pharisees would eventually pay note 
to Jesus' admonition.

Andreas, how do think one would feel if the religious
leaders were out for ones blood? Surely, it would take
great courage to stand and be firm in such a situation.

Phil.

.47>	Andreas, how do think one would feel if the religious
.47>	leaders were out for ones blood? Surely, it would take
.47>	great courage to stand and be firm in such a situation.

sure, though i can only believe that jesus was fully aware of the consequences 
of his action and that he knew that he would be killed, that he knew what he
was doing.

i read that bit about the exchange in the temple and it does read like an 
agitated exchange. the story presents a major contradiction (at least to me). 
jesus didn't give me the impression as if he was in control of the situation
there. sure, jesus was human. but wasn't he much more than that, wasn't he 
really above us all? 
what i find troubling is, that here we have a story of where jesus meets *his*
enemies and the story does read as if jesus was angry. these pharisees can't 
have been very pleased being called servants of the lie.

my main problem with the story is: could this story serve as a basis to anyone,
who's faith is based on the heart and not on scripture (as jesus' faith appears
to have been), to confront today's pharisees in a likewise manner?

if the story sets a precedent for confrontation of faith, is it not a poor
precedent? - since, as it appears, the pharisees won the argument (they had
jesus killed).

could or should jesus have acted differently in the temple? 
i really do wonder about this question.


andreas.

>if the story sets a precedent for confrontation of faith, is it not a poor
>precedent? - since, as it appears, the pharisees won the argument (they had
>jesus killed).

Remember, though, that Jesus's mission was to be killed.

/john

    Andreas,
    
    That an excellent question.  I will think about it.
    
                                   Patricia

your answer will be very valuable to me, patricia.


.49, john, i read that as, "jesus was ready to go as far as death."



andreas.

re 692.48

Andreas,

Jesus reaction was not clouded by an emotional response
but is based on Scripture. Take for example the following
prophecy of God's anointed one...

"The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for
the reason to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent 
me to bind the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those
taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to 
prisoners; to proclaim the year of goodwill on part of 
Jehovah and the day of vengenance on the part of our God;
to comfort all the mourning ones;" Isaiah 61:1,2 NWT

Jesus' message would be consoling to some and for others
it would be a judgmental. 

The Pharisees as I have stated were reprehensible. These
ones looked for an enjoyed prominence. They were 
self-righteous and made an outward show of piety. They
treated the common people with disdain and used the
Hebrew expression 'am ha'arets which meant "people of
the land [earth]" as though the normal people were dirt
under their feet. 

Jesus on the otherhand treated people with dignity, 
kindness and compassion. For this reason he was much
criticised for placing most of his effort with those
whom the Pharisees considered unworthy.

The common people were burdened with a heavy load by
the laws introduced by the religious leaders based on
their traditions, which were add-ons to the Mosaic Law. 
The people were oppressed by the religious leaders with
no hope of being deemed righteous. Persons feared speaking 
against the religious leaders because it could mean their 
life.

Jesus in highlighting the religious leaders hypocrisy,
helped people see the need to break free from the yoke 
of the Pharisees, to repent and take on Jesus' yoke.
Jesus' words in Matthew 11:28-30 NWT "'Come to me, all 
YOU who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh
YOU. Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I
am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find
refreshment for YOUR souls. For my yoke is kindly and
my load is light.'"

Jesus' mercy for the people, in turn meant speaking up
against the religious leaders who oppressed the people.
If Jesus had kept quite he would have been condoning the
actions of the religious leaders. Also persons would not
have seen the need to break free from this oppressive yoke.

;if the story sets a precedent for confrontation of faith, is it not a poor
;precedent? - since, as it appears, the pharisees won the argument (they had
;jesus killed).


At face value this might be true, but scripture shows that
Jesus was resurrected and given great authority in the heavens.
After Jesus' resurrection he approached his disciples and
said "'All authority has been given me in heaven and on the 
earth." Matthew 28:18b NWT. However, the religious leaders 
were judged and found wanting and their system disappeared
when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE by the
Romans. 

What about modern day Pharisees, should one keep quiet and
allow them to oppress their flock?. For example, their have
been scandals regarding the TV evanglists who have been
fleecing their flock for their own gain. Should one turn 
a blind eye to such activities, or tell it as it is?.

;could or should jesus have acted differently in the temple? 
;i really do wonder about this question.

To clarify, are you thinking of the time when he over turned
the money lenders tables?. btw I think it might be more
beneficial to find out why he acted this way, rather than
how he might have acted differently.


Phil.

.52> ;could or should jesus have acted differently in the temple? 
.52> ;i really do wonder about this question.
.52> 
.52> To clarify, are you thinking of the time when he over turned
.52> the money lenders tables?. 


thanks phil. i was rather wondering what practical implications you 
(or anyone) takes out of the story in the temple when confronted with 
what you perceive as pharisees.



andreas.

    
    A man takes a long extended journey on important business.  
    While away he places in charge of his home his eldest son.  
    The man is delayed and must remain away for a longer period of
    time.
    
    Upon returning he finds his home filled with people selling and using
    drugs, practicing open sexual acts and teaching younger people to
    do the same, thieves.  His home has been made into a place
    filled with corruption, without honor. As a result of the activity
    that has been done at his home the neighbors find him to be
    questionable and even he is perhaps without honor as well.  
    
    The authorities of the town where his home resides also find 
    him questionable for what is happened at his home.
    
    As he looks about upon those who have done this he chooses
    a course of action.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    
    In wisdom I would advise one not to act out as Jesus did when
    confronted with a similar situation as Jesus found himself at
    the temple and the reason is clear.
    
    We are to walk in humility and with a contrite spirit for we
    are not God.  Jesus is God and is righteous in judgment and
    in action.  That which Jesus saw the Father do that did He. 
    Therefore the Father desired that it be known that the people
    had made into a den of thieves what was to be a house of prayer.
    
    

re 692.53

Andreas,

An article from the April 1st 1995 Watchtower that I read 
this weekend made me think that I should clarify my responses.

As a person in authority it was right that Jesus highlighted
the Pharisees hyprocrisy and also this would benefit the 
common people who could then see the need to break free from
their yoke. Jesus' disciples questioned him saying "'Do you
know that the Pharisees stumbled at hearing what you said?'"
Jesus went onto reply "LET them be. Blind guides is what they
are." (Matthew 15:12-14 NWT) Jesus knew that the Pharisees
were incorrigible, so it would be pointless and fruitless for
them to keep arguing with the Pharisees. Hence, Jesus was telling
his disciples to let the Pharisees be. Rather than be distracted
by fruitless arguements Jesus and his disciples main focus was
on the "lost sheep". It wasn't neccessary for Jesus to counter 
every reproach made by the Pharisees (compare Matthew 27:11-14).

For confirmation, Jesus' application of his illustration of the "lost sheep"
reads "'I tell you that thus there will be more joy in heaven over
one sinner that repents than over ninety nine righteous ones who have
no need of repentance." Luke 15:7 NWT (see verses 1-7). Jesus' precedent was 
to search for "lost sheep" that is sinners who have recognised their need for 
repentance. The Pharisees, being self righteous, do not see the need for 
repentance so Jesus' message makes no positive in roads in them. Jesus 
concentrates on searching for lost sheep, this is the example Christians 
should imitate today and not to be distracted by modern day antagonists.

;thanks phil. i was rather wondering what practical implications you 
;(or anyone) takes out of the story in the temple when confronted with 
;what you perceive as pharisees.

There are two events that happened in the temple, one happened passover
30 CE and the other 3 years later. The ones that Jesus drove out, in the
first encounter, were merchants (selling animals and birds for sacrifice).
The people are being charged too much thus the merchants are taking advantage 
of those attending to offer up sacrifice. The temple is strictly for worship
of the True God, hence Jesus indignation " Stop making the house of my
Father a house of merchandise!" (John 2:13-17) 

Jesus was showing that God's house should not be for commercial gain and
activities there should be restricted solely to worshipping God. Christians
can make modern application in how they use their specificially designed 
places of worship. Eg a Kingdom Hall is for kingdom interests only (excluding
weddings and funerals, no charge btw) , no fund raising events such as disco's,
jumble sales or coffee mornings are allowed to take place there. 

Phil. 



  

14.367

>>    Somebody forgot to tell Satan this.

>Huh?

	According to conservative Rabbi Howard Hirch (Temple Shalom,
Colorado Springs), Christians got the better deal in defining Satan
-- giving them someone to blaim. ;-)

Richard

PS The rabbi has quite a sense of humor.

    Richard,  
    
    What is Rabbi Hirch's opinion of the bible as history?
    
                                     Patricia

    Re: -1
    
    It worked for Job.

Satan isn't the one who gets all the blame.

The blame goes to those who reject God and follow evil.

/john

    	I like Rabbi Hirch.
    
    	He affectionately refers to the bishop of the Diocese of Colorado 
    	Springs as "my bishop".

I would say the blame goes to God for creating such flawed beings as humans 
and then allowing such a byzantine trail to lead back to him.

In business or the military blame for the failures of an organization or army 
are attached to the commander, and they have far less control over their 
troops than God does.

Steve

>I would say the blame goes to God for creating such flawed beings as humans 
>and then allowing such a byzantine trail to lead back to him.
    
    so you're saying you'd rather be a robot than have free will?

>In business or the military blame for the failures of an organization or army 
>are attached to the commander, and they have far less control over their 
>troops than God does.
    
    apples & oranges

.62 HEISER

    so you're saying you'd rather be a robot than have free will?

Let me try to explain this again. You contend that God is omnipotent. Further 
you contend that he created us, every last atom. Next you contend that God is 
omniscient. There are only a couple of possibilities. First, assume that God 
is omniscient, and he uses this ability.

God creates the world, and dumps Adam and Eve upon it. He *knows* that Eve 
will eat the apple. He created her down to the very atoms in her body. He 
could have created her to have 'free will' (whatever that means with a being 
of this type) *AND NOT* eat the apple. (Or is this beyond God's capabilities?)
He *CHOSE* not to. Therefor he deliberately created Eve, at least, as flawed. 
You can extend this argument to every person whom has ever lived. 

If you maintain that He chooses not to look ahead at the results of his 
creation the position is slightly more defensible, although you then need to 
explain the 100% accurate prophesies you keep talking about. In this case you 
have a perfect being that created us, with the idea of us being happy, but he 
isn't sure how it will turn out (the prophesies demonstrate that even then he 
knew things would be going not so well). He then, with his SECOND creation, 
out of billions, creates someone that messes up. Keep in mind that Eve was 
created directly by God, you do not even have the excuse of a random gene 
pool. 

With either of these arguments it is apparent that God made, from scratch, a 
defective creation. He did it deliberately. He then blamed the rest of mankind 
(including those unborn) when what had to happen happened. 

Can you show me where I've missed something from a logical perspective?

    apples & oranges

So God should have less responsibility for the world than a business manager?

Steve

>God creates the world, and dumps Adam and Eve upon it. He *knows* that Eve 
>will eat the apple. He created her down to the very atoms in her body. He 
>could have created her to have 'free will' (whatever that means with a being 
>of this type) *AND NOT* eat the apple. (Or is this beyond God's capabilities?)
>He *CHOSE* not to. Therefor he deliberately created Eve, at least, as flawed. 
>You can extend this argument to every person whom has ever lived. 

    Adam and Eve had a truly free will. There was nothing external or
    internal to them that would prevent them from exercising their will
    freely.
    
    All humankind since Adam and Eve sinned have not had a free will in the 
    sense of Adam and Eve's free will.  We are predisposed now to sin.  Our
    wills are not free in the true sense of the word.
    
    jeff
    

    Now that is a new doctrine that I've never heard before.
    
    Only Adam and Eve had free will!

re.63

	Steve,

	Your assumptions are fundamentally flawed...

>...*AND NOT* eat the apple. 

	...it wasn't an apple.  8*)  8*)

ace

>    <<< Note 692.63 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Read a Book!" >>>
>
>Let me try to explain this again. You contend that God is omnipotent. Further 
>you contend that he created us, every last atom. Next you contend that God is 
>omniscient. There are only a couple of possibilities. First, assume that God 
>is omniscient, and he uses this ability.
>
>God creates the world, and dumps Adam and Eve upon it. He *knows* that Eve 
>will eat the apple. He created her down to the very atoms in her body. He 
>could have created her to have 'free will' (whatever that means with a being 
>of this type) *AND NOT* eat the apple. (Or is this beyond God's capabilities?)
>He *CHOSE* not to. Therefor he deliberately created Eve, at least, as flawed. 
>You can extend this argument to every person whom has ever lived. 
    
    Steve, your misunderstanding of free will is where you are in error. 
    God did create us with free will.  Eve didn't have to eat the fruit
    (The Bible doesn't it was an apple).  Adam didn't have to eat what Eve
    offered him.  You didn't have to choose to be an atheist.  I didn't
    have to choose to be a Christian.  These were all personal choices.
    
    Mike

You all seem to be missing my point. One at a time:

Could God have created a being, with free will, that did not partake of the 
app, er, fruit of knowledge? If yes please explain why he chose not to. If 
no please elaborate, i.e. does this mean that God is NOT omnipotent?

Steve

re.66


Steve,

>Could God have created a being, with free will, that did not partake of the 
>app, er, fruit of knowledge? 

	Well you are almost there, it was specifically the tree of knowledge of
good and evil. But at least we moved it from the apple fairytale. Hey, that
progress! 8*)

	As to your question the answer is yes and no. I knew you'd like that
answer but what did you expect for a trick question?  8*)

	Yes, and He did, but He in His foreknowledge He saw Adam and Eve
disobeying and eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before they were
even created (actually Adam was created but Eve was "builded"., but that's
another discussion). His plan of redemption was in motion from eternity past. In
the stage of time God sent His Son born of a woman, to live a life of a God-man.
His life and living were based upon the divine life as His source (the meaning
of the tree of life) and not the source of self (the meaning the tree of
knowledge of good and evil). Through the process of human living, crucifixion,
death, resurrection, and acension He became a life giving Spirit to indwell the
believers (John 20:22) and was poured out to baptise the church into Himself
(Acts 2). 

	Why, you ask? Well, so that God could be glorified (expressed). Through
God's creation of man, his fall, God's redemption and the bringing of man into
the Godhead (Jesus), the defeat of His enemy Satan through the corporate Christ
(the church), the conssumation of the ages, and ushering in of eternity future
with His bride (the church), through all this God's wisdom and greatness has
been manifested, He is glorified. 

regards,
ace

    in addition to what Ace said...
    
>Could God have created a being, with free will, that did not partake of the 
>app, er, fruit of knowledge? If yes please explain why he chose not to. If 
>no please elaborate, i.e. does this mean that God is NOT omnipotent?
    
    I believe Adam & Eve could've said "No" to Satan.  The problem with
    human nature though is one of their children might've made the mistake
    instead.  You know someone in the lineage would have somewhere along
    the way.
    
    God made us with free will knowing what we would do, yet is loving
    enough to provide the way of redemption even before it happened.
    
    Mike

    Interesting that the Genesis story doesn't identify the talking serpent
    as Satan.
    
    Perhaps Satan gets more credit than deserved.
    
    Richard
    

    Hmmmm....very interesting point!  I never considered that!
    
    -Jack

RE .71

;Interesting that the Genesis story doesn't identify the talking serpent
;as Satan.

Richard,

It is much later in Revelation 12 that Satan is identified as the 
"original serpent" (verse 9) and the one misleading mankind. The 
lack of identifying Satan, was maybe due to man always blaming 
someone else for his wrong action, ie "the Devil made me do it". 
This is something inherited from Adam who blamed God for his 
sin, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] 
from the tree and so I ate." verse 12 NWT. How much better 
it would have been for him to admit his disobedience rather 
than blaming someone else.

Jesus also identifies Satan as a manslayer when he began (John 8:44) 
alluding to the Genesis account.

btw I disagree that God chose to foreknow Adam's disobedience
and subsequent death. It is not in harmony with his qualities
that he would start the first human couple on a wonderful
project to extend the boundaries of the garden of Eden and
to fill the whole earth with perfect and righteous offspring 
(Genesis 1:28), knowing full well they were doomed to failure. 
No loving parent would do that. Jesus the second Adam proved 
that Adam could have chosen differently, proving Satan a liar 
and manslayer. There was nothing wrong with Adam, the defect 
was his own (compare Deuteronomy 32:4,5).

Phil.

Btw Steve if your reading this I have forgotten your reply in
another string, and should complete my reply soon.

    Phil:
    
ZZ     It is not in harmony with his qualities
ZZ    that he would start the first human couple on a wonderful
ZZ    project to extend the boundaries of the garden of Eden and
ZZ    to fill the whole earth with perfect and righteous offspring 
ZZ    (Genesis 1:28), knowing full well they were doomed to failure. 
    
    You are confusing God's harmony with God's sovereignty.  I believe God
    to be omnipotent in these matters...just as he foreknew in the
    beginning that humankind would need a redeemer. 
    
    I believe God laid out this plan to show us what we have missed out on
    because of our disobedience.
    
    -Jack

    Re: Satan = serpent
    
    chalk another up for context.

    Well, that would at least partially explain why the Jewish concept of
    Satan differs from the Christian concept of Satan.  The Hebrew Bible
    does not include the Revelation.
    
    If Satan is the serpent in the Genesis account, then it should give us
    a better picture of Satan.  As long as Satan lives, Satan crawls with
    his belly against the ground and eats dust (Genesis 3.14).  Satan is
    apparently limbless.
    
    It is not clear from the Genesis text whether the serpent retained his
    vocal chords or not, though it would seem he must have, since Satan
    speaks in other biblical accounts.  It is certainly an ability one
    does not often encounter in the garden variety snake.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .76

  Richard,

  I knew after writing my reply that I should have clarified
  it. Other, scripture highlights that prior to becoming Satan, 
  this angel had an assignment in the garden of Eden. He saw 
  the worship man was giving God and wanted it for himself.
  He used the snake rather like a ventriloquist to deceive Eve,
  which he did. On the other hand Adam was not deceived but 
  willfully disobeyed God's command.

  It is also obvious from other accounts that Satan is not a
  literal snake, but a spirit creature (Job 1,2).


  Phil.

re .74

Jack,

Then you can show scripture to highlight your viewpoint.
Let's examine these more closely.

Phil.

You all seem to be missing (or ducking) the point. The original question:
Could God have created a being, with free will, that did not partake of the 
app, er, fruit of knowledge? 

From the replies:
.69 LOPEZ

>        Yes, and He did, but He in His foreknowledge He saw Adam and Eve
>disobeying and eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before they 
>wer even created ...

Then he deliberately created mankind with serious flaws. Why?

.70 HEISER

    I believe Adam & Eve could've said "No" to Satan.  The problem with
    human nature though is one of their children might've made the mistake
    instead.  You know someone in the lineage would have somewhere along
    the way.

But as you say, you and I both know that *someone* would have done it. Why? 
Because mankind is flawed. If it is obvious to you and I then surely God can 
see it too. The question remains, why did God choose to create a (rather 
badly, in my opinion) flawed creature in man?

.73 YERKESS
>btw I disagree that God chose to foreknow Adam's disobedience
>and subsequent death. It is not in harmony with his qualities
>that he would start the first human couple on a wonderful
>project to extend the boundaries of the garden of Eden and
>to fill the whole earth with perfect and righteous offspring 
>(Genesis 1:28), knowing full well they were doomed to failure. 

Do you believe he was surprised by the problem? Was he also surprised at 
Satan's betrayal? Again, surely God has the *ability* to create a person with 
free will that will not betray him, why does he choose not to?

.74 JMARTIN
>    I believe God laid out this plan to show us what we have missed out on
>    because of our disobedience.

But my point is that He deliberately built this disobedience into our nature. 
All you have to do is look around to see this. Why did He do this?

Steve

    Steve:
    
    That will be one of my first questions when I die! :-)  I honestly wish
    I knew but I just don't have the discernment to understand.  My guess
    is that like Lucifer, God created us with free volition.  Part of that
    freedom is the freedom to fail.  Why rebellion seems to be a prevelent
    part of that nature, I just don't know!
    
    -Jack

    STeve,
    
    God cannot and does not create conditions that contradict themselves.
    
    God has given humankind free will.  God does not control the outcome of
    that free will.
    
    God also in giving humankind free will, does not know the outcome of
    that free will either.  God is like a loving parent, teaching
    humankind, hoping for and cheering for humanity, being present and
    available for humanity, yet needing to step back and let humanity make
    their own decisions and create their own lives and world as a result of
    those decisions.  God provides us and pulls us toward the best possible
    decision after every decision we make.  We do not have to follow what
    God presents as the best possible alternative.
    
    Humanity, given free will, co-creates with God, the world in which we
    live.

re .79

Steve,

Was he suprised by the problem, the Genesis account seems to
indicate this a little. "Where are you?" God asks Adam in verse 9 
of Genesis 3:9, not the sort of question a person would ask
if they knew exactly what was going to happen. May I suggest
that you read the Genesis account for yourself, chapters 1-3.

But we have been here before, Jesus as a perfect human proved there
was nothing wrong with Jehovah's creation. Satan tried everything
but was unable to turn him away from worshipping his Father. So
Jesus' life and ministry proved that God could create a human
who would keep his integrity and loyality under any circumstance.
This proved that Adam *could* have chosen another course. Free will
is what it means, that persons perfect or imperfect have the choice
of choosing to worship Jehovah it is not something imposed on them.
Because Adam chose a wrong course in it self shows that humans are
not robots and are not forced to worship God, they do so out of love
not compulsion.

Satan taunted God saying that man only worshipped God because
God blesses him also that when mans own interests were at risk
such as his own life, then he would turn aside from God (Job 1,2). 
As though there was something flawed in his creation. Examples 
such as Job proved Satan a liar, especially given was the witness 
from Jesus himself. Jesus fulfilled the following "Be wise, my son, 
and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is 
taunting me." Proverbs 27:11 NWT. Whatever anyone thinks, Jesus has 
proved that there is nothing wrong with Jehovah's creation that a 
perfect human can choose the right course. So if you are keeping 
count the score is 1 perfect human chose the wrong course and 1 
chose the right one. If one chose the right course then God's 
creation is not flawed, it also proves that man can excerise his 
own free will he is not a robot. That he is responsible for actions 
and shouldnt think that Almighty God will wave a magic wand to put 
things right after showing wanton wrongdoing, excusing and condoning
his error.

Steve, you also may want to look at the angels for some have chosen
the same course as Satan, who are referred to as demons. But there
are myriads upon myriads (10000*10000) who have stayed loyal since
the beginning of creation itself.

Phil.

PS  just to clarify, I don't beleive that Jesus is identified as
Almighty God in the Bible but as the first person that God created.
(Colossians 1:15) Hence, as part of creation he could prove Satan 
a liar, were as if Jesus was Almighty God then this would not prove 
that there was nothing flawed with his creation. As the second Adam, 
and applying the value of his sacrifice he could buy back what Adam 
had thrown away, that was everlasting life for Adam's offspring. 
Matthew 20:28 NWT reads "Just as the Son of man came, not to be 
ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in 
exchange for many." This provision is made available to all who 
wish to receive it, whoever faith in the ransom sacrifice is a 
requirement (John 3:16).

    692.82
    
    The thing I like best about what you have written is how the total
    humanity of Jesus is necessary for Jesus to be a role model for us. 
    How each of us can and must follow the example of Jesus in choosing to
    do God's will.
    
    When Jesus is seen as more divine than human, this point is obscured. 
    When the temptations of Jesus are seen as less than real temptations,
    then the point is obscured.
    
    Unfortunately what is currently viewed as Orthordox Christianity does
    obscure the example of Jesus as the perfected human whose example each
    of us can follow.
    
    
                                    Patricia

    
    Dear Steve,
    
    There are mysteries, that is, things God has not revealed.  And there
    are realities that we do not understand.  And there is spiritual
    knowledge that only a Christian can comprehend.
    
    There are things that we cannot understand and never will understand
    this side of eternity.  And there are spiritual things the unbeliever 
    will never accept or understand.  It makes no sense to me that you
    might expect to understand the great themes and subjects of
    supernatural religion while in a status of unbelief and obstinancy.
    
    If you become a purposeful seeker of God, God assures us in the Bible that 
    he will reveal Himself to you.  And if you want to seek God, ask Him to
    give you the desire and the will to seek Him!  For unless He draws you, 
    you cannot come to Him in the first place.  And unless you come to Him,
    you cannot expect to understand these great spiritual things.  And even
    if you do come to Him, some will remain out of our full comprehension. 
    And this is necessarily so, of course.
    
    jeff

re .83


 Patricia,

 I liked your comment:

;God has given humankind free will.  God does not control the outcome of
;that free will.

 A very succinct answer, which explains why God has allowed things to 
 happen as they have. We can see the outcome today, of Adam's rebellion,
 the evidence is man cannot direct his own steps he needs guidance 
 (Jeremiah 10:23).

 I think were we might disagree, is that God's forebearance or longsuffering
 will not go on indefinitely. That judgment will come upon ungodly people,
 so that righteous mankind can be left to worship God in peace upon a paradise
 earth which was God's original purpose for mankind.

; Unfortunately what is currently viewed as Orthordox Christianity does
; obscure the example of Jesus as the perfected human whose example each
; of us can follow.

 And yet the scriptures say, "In fact, to this [course] you were called,
 because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving a model for YOU to follow
 his steps closely." 1 Peter 2:21. Not an easy task but Jesus assures that
 his yoke is a light one (Matthew 11:30).

 Phil.

re .86

Richard,

You may want to check out Ezekiel 28:12-15 were Satan's
original perfection and later self corruption at the
garden of Eden, is likened to the course of the King
of Tyre.

Btw what's midrash?.

Phil

Until convinced otherwise I say the author of the Revelation, in naming
the serpent of Genesis Satan, was actually calling on midrash and the use
of symbolism.

Shalom,
RIchard

    .87
    
    Midrash is interpretation of Scripture, analysis, explanation,
    exegesis.
    
    Richard
    

re.88

Midrash. I thought it had to do with redness and itching in and around the
belly button.  

8*)

>    God also in giving humankind free will, does not know the outcome of
>    that free will either.  God is like a loving parent, teaching
    
    this isn't Biblical.

>    Unfortunately what is currently viewed as Orthordox Christianity does
>    obscure the example of Jesus as the perfected human whose example each
>    of us can follow.
    
    But why was Jesus perfect and none of us are able to achieve that
    state?  Why is Jesus the only one who could be saved by works?
    
    Mike

    Satan was obviously one of the anointed cherubim before his fall.
    The snake is a metaphor of him and, ironically enough, is a very
    prominent symbol in the world's false religions.
    
    Mike

.92

>    Satan was obviously one of the anointed cherubim before his fall.

I don't think it's quite so obvious.

>    The snake is a metaphor of him and, ironically enough, is a very
>    prominent symbol in the world's false religions.

Prominent even on some early American flags and the caduceus, the symbol of
the medical profession.

L'Chayim,
Richard

>    The thing I like best about what you have written is how the total
>    humanity of Jesus is necessary for Jesus to be a role model for us. 
>    How each of us can and must follow the example of Jesus in choosing to
>    do God's will.

This was one of the important definitions of the Council of Chalcedon in
451 A.D.
    
>    When Jesus is seen as more divine than human, this point is obscured. 
>    When the temptations of Jesus are seen as less than real temptations,
>    then the point is obscured.

Which is why Chalcedon strongly affirmed the complete union of the human
and divine nature of Christ; he is _not_ more divine than human.  He is
fully divine and fully human.  The failure to accept this is known as the
Nestorian Heresy.
    
>    Unfortunately what is currently viewed as Orthordox Christianity does
>    obscure the example of Jesus as the perfected human whose example each
>    of us can follow.

I don't know what you think "Orthodox Christianity" is.  You seem to be
describing the Nestorian Heresy as though it were orthodoxy.  I've repeatedly
suggested that you read "The Cruelty of Heresy" by C. FitzSimons Allison
which goes into great detail about the actual orthodox position worked out
in the famous Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

/john

    >I don't think it's quite so obvious.
    
    Satan as a cherub is talked about in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
    
>Prominent even on some early American flags and the caduceus, the symbol of
>the medical profession.
    
    The latter is why Christ condemned the church at Pergamos in Revelation
    2 - the birthplace of the caduceus.
    
    Mike

.81 FLANAGAN

    that free will either.  God is like a loving parent, teaching
    humankind, hoping for and cheering for humanity, being present and
    available for humanity, yet needing to step back and let humanity make
    their own decisions and create their own lives and world as a result of
    those decisions.  God provides us and pulls us toward the best possible

Then why doesn't He help? If we treated our children like God treats us, 
social services would be forced to step in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.82 YERKESS
>if they knew exactly what was going to happen. May I suggest
>that you read the Genesis account for yourself, chapters 1-3.

I have. In regard to the question, I always thought it was a rhetorical 
question, similar to a parent asking where a child is when they know full 
well the answer.

>But we have been here before, Jesus as a perfect human proved there
>was nothing wrong with Jehovah's creation.

Of course there was something wrong. Why didn't God create Adam as a 
perfect person? Or are you saying that any one of us is as capable of 
perfection as Jesus?

>Jesus' life and ministry proved that God could create a human
>who would keep his integrity and loyality under any circumstance.

Then why didn't he with Adam?

Phil, I can't follow your reasoning here. I get:

God created Jesus.
Jesus was perfect.
Adam could have been perfect?

I don't see how Jesus' attributes relate to any attribute of Adam 
whatsoever.

>God blesses him also that when mans own interests were at risk
>such as his own life, then he would turn aside from God (Job 1,2). 

And God responded to the taunts of his mortal enemy by torturing his child. 
I don't believe that Satan himself could have done a better job of torture 
on Job than God did.

>Steve, you also may want to look at the angels for some have chosen
>the same course as Satan, who are referred to as demons. But there
>are myriads upon myriads (10000*10000) who have stayed loyal since
>the beginning of creation itself.

Does God stain the remaining angels with the equivelant of original sin 
each time one falls?
--------------------------------------------------------------
.91 HEISER

    But why was Jesus perfect and none of us are able to achieve that
    state?  Why is Jesus the only one who could be saved by works?

Excellent question, I was going to ask it myself.

Steve

re .96

Steve,

.82 YERKESS
>if they knew exactly what was going to happen. May I suggest
>that you read the Genesis account for yourself, chapters 1-3.

;I have. In regard to the question, I always thought it was a rhetorical 
;question, similar to a parent asking where a child is when they know full 
;well the answer.

You are probabally right, but from this you can see the father
son relationship. One has to ask would father embark his son on
a wonderful project knowing full well he would fail, even loosing
his life.

>But we have been here before, Jesus as a perfect human proved there
>was nothing wrong with Jehovah's creation.

;Of course there was something wrong. Why didn't God create Adam as a 
;perfect person? Or are you saying that any one of us is as capable of 
;perfection as Jesus?

He did create Adam as a perfect person, but because *Adam* chose to 
rebell he tarnished that perfection and became imperfect. Adam was
made in God's image, he perfectly reflected God's fine qualities such
as love, wisdom, power. A mirror can reflect an image perfectly, but
when it becomes tarnished it no longer does. For this reason, Adam
and his offspring though created in God's image, reflect his qualities
in a distorted way. An example might be, mankind has the ability to
harness great power but rather than using for mankinds good he uses
this knowledge in producing ever increasing weapons of mass destruction.

We are all imperfect, however a study of the Bible indicates that 
through Christ's millenial rule righteous mankind will be brought 
to perfection.

>Jesus' life and ministry proved that God could create a human
>who would keep his integrity and loyality under any circumstance.

;Then why didn't he with Adam?

;Phil, I can't follow your reasoning here. I get:

;God created Jesus.
;Jesus was perfect.
;Adam could have been perfect?

I was hoping that I conveyed that Adam could have *continued* to be
perfect just as Jesus has.

;I don't see how Jesus' attributes relate to any attribute of Adam 
;whatsoever.

Agreed Adam has a lot to answer for, but it was his choice to choose
self rule. He could have been the father of a perfect family, it is
Jesus who will fulfill that role as an adoptive parent.

>God blesses him also that when mans own interests were at risk
>such as his own life, then he would turn aside from God (Job 1,2). 

;And God responded to the taunts of his mortal enemy by torturing his child. 
;I don't believe that Satan himself could have done a better job of torture 
;on Job than God did.

In what way did God torture Job?, I don't see how you can blame God for
something others do (well from previous replies I think this is what 
your saying). I guess this is were we differ.

>Steve, you also may want to look at the angels for some have chosen
>the same course as Satan, who are referred to as demons. But there
>are myriads upon myriads (10000*10000) who have stayed loyal since
>the beginning of creation itself.

;Does God stain the remaining angels with the equivelant of original sin 
;each time one falls?

I think I know what your asking, angels are different in that they have
been created through God's Son. Humans come into existence through
procreation hence they inherit sin, that is something imperfect cannot
procreate something perfect. So to answer your question, no. But the way,
its not God who stains people, it was Adam who stained us through his
action. Through His Son, God is removing the stain (John 3:16).


Steve, Adam though perfect had free will, for free will to be what it
means, would mean that Adam was not under compulsion to worship God.
The trouble being that he chose not to and became tarnished. One can
have a good name, but just one act of indiscretion can tarnish it.

Phil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.81 FLANAGAN

    >that free will either.  God is like a loving parent, teaching
    >humankind, hoping for and cheering for humanity, being present and
    >available for humanity, yet needing to step back and let humanity make
    >their own decisions and create their own lives and world as a result of
    >those decisions.  God provides us and pulls us toward the best possible
    
    Steve,
    
    Before I found my spiritual center, I struggled with depression without
    knowing it was depression.  I was unhappy.  My life was not working. 
    Somehow, even as an Atheist/Agnostic I found myself connected to the UU
    church.  That faith community provided the support I needed at that
    time of my life.  Slowly I discovered what it meant to live as a
    spiritual person and as I did, one by one the things that were not
    working in my life began to work.
    
    I am a pretty independent, somewhat oppositional person.  I like making
    my own decisions and doing my own thing.  I value my Freedom and
    independence highly.  The price of freedom and independence is that we
    can screw things up pretty badly. 
    
     But what would it look like if every 
    person in the world meditated on the great commandment before they made
    each decision in their lifes.  (Thou shall love the Lord you God with
    all your heart, soul, and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself).
    
    What would it be like, if that was the Gospel that every Christian
    lived and proclaimed in action as well as in word!
    
    What would it feel like, if everyone of us opened ourselves to the
    goodness that is in life rather than focusing on the bad.
    
    Do we know people that practice love as a way of life?  Do we encourage
    them.  Do we live our lifes that way?  Do we teach our children to live
    their lifes that way.
    
    I believe that practice love in a very fundemental way is the way to
    bring about the Reign of the Divine right here on earth!
    
    I found my spiritual center, outside of Christianity.  However, once I
    found that spiritual  center I was able to rediscover Christianity and
    the Christian scriptures.  Not because Christianity is the only way,
    but because having been a Christian as a child and having grown up in a
    Christian culture, it is the Christian symbols and myths that are
    etched in my Physche.  Through prayer and meditation and Bible study, I
    Can touch those very deep sub conscious places and it feels wonderful.
    
    I trust!  I believe!  My life works!
               
                                        Patricia
    
    
    

    Steve,
    
    regarding your question about how God treats God's children
    
    I ask, how does a parent treat a wayward child?  
    
    I have two teenagers.  I am guiding them toward there own independence. 
    They have demanded independence and responsibility for the decisions
    they make.  As a parent, I have learned to let go of trying to control
    the decisions they make.  I have found comfort in the idea that God
    provides us with possibilities.  No matter how much we screw up, God
    still provides us with the best possibilities, given all the previous 
    decisions that we have made.  Sometimes, that is the way I parent. 
    When my children fail, I try to suggest possibilities for them to move
    from failure to success.   One of the most difficult tasks that a
    parent can do is to watch one's children make the wrong choice and at
    the same time know that you cannot force the child to make the right
    choice.  You can only encourage the child over and over again.  And
    always be there for the child to honor good choices and in spite of bad
    choices.
    
    When I think of the metaphor of God, the parent, that is how the
    metaphor plays out for me.
    
    
                                Patricia

    Re: .97
    
    Richard, also try Isaiah 14:11-21.
    
    I think if you gather enough facts on Satan, it's clearer who is being
    discussed in these passages.  There aren't many who worshiped on the
    mountain of God's throne and were cast down.  The King of Tyre is a
    type of Satan.
    
    Mike

�>    <<< Note 692.96 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Read a Book!" >>>
�
�    But why was Jesus perfect and none of us are able to achieve that
�    state?  Why is Jesus the only one who could be saved by works?
�
�Excellent question, I was going to ask it myself.

Steve, the very reason is what John Covert, Jack Martin, and myself have
    been declaring all along while others ridicule it: Christ's divine
    nature.  He had to be a perfect sacrifice (goes back to the unblemished
    Lamb required for the Passover sacrifice) to atone for our sin.
    
    Mike

.98 YERKESS

Phil,

My understanding is that you believe God did not know beforehand that Adam 
would fail, for some reason he chose not to be omniscient in this case. 
Given that, the event itself makes some sort of sense. His next actions, 
however, don't. 

Why did he allow Adam to procreate, creating an entire planetful of 
handicapped beings? Why not create a new perfect being (hopefully he is 
getting better at it :^) to create a planetful of non-flawed beings. This 
also brings up a host of questions. What if mankind had remained perfect 
for hundreds of generations, and then someone fell. Would all of mankind 
been sullied, or only the offspring from that line? Would God have thrown 
everyone out of Eden, or just the miscreants? Truly, God's actions make no 
sense to me (created in his image, theoretically we share similar 
motivations) coming from a being who can make it work out exactly as he 
would like it to. Even given free will, I find it hard to believe that an 
all powerful being couldn't have done a far better job than I see. Maybe on 
other planets...

>made in God's image, he perfectly reflected God's fine qualities such
>as love, wisdom, power. A mirror can reflect an image perfectly, but

Question: Did Adam have wisdom before partaking of the fruit of the tree of 
knowledge? I sort of thought that wisdom was what it was all about.

>In what way did God torture Job?, I don't see how you can blame God for

Perhaps I misunderstand the story, I'll check this weekend. I had thought 
that God visited upon Job all manner of misfortune (plagues, etc.) to prove 
to Satan that he would remain loyal. If I were Satan I would *still* be 
laughing about that con job!

Steve

    re Job:
    
    In Job, the Devil and God have a chat together.  The Devil contends
    that even the most faithful servant Job will only remain faithful in
    good times.  God allows the Devil to visit upon Job all those
    calamities in order to test Job.
    
    Read as a historical event, the story is awful. 
    
    Read as a philosophical discussion it is a great story.
    Job challenges the assumptions common to the day and predominant in the
    historic books of the bible and the prophetic books.  
    
    The common assumption was that God's chosen when faithful are rewarded
    with Good things.  God's chosen when not faithful are punished but not
    destroyed.  THose that are not chosen are used as needed.
    
    the book of job challenges that assumption.  Modern day prophets ask a
    similiar question.  ("why do bad things happen to good people")
    
    As an aside the devil as described in the book of Job is quite
    different than the devil potrayed elsewhere.
    
    

.99 FLANAGAN

Patricia,

I like to believe that I live pretty much as you describe in your note, 
although without the Christian overtones. One need not be a Christian to 
put into practice the best of the Christian ideals.

One of the things I find most annoying about Christians in general (and 
this does *not* describe you) is the unshakable faith that unless you 
believe as they do you *cannot* be a good or moral person.
-------------------------
.100 FLANAGAN

    When I think of the metaphor of God, the parent, that is how the
    metaphor plays out for me.

I agree, it is a good metaphor. However it has a few flaws. First, *think* 
for a moment how you would act in the best interest of your children if you 
were omnipotent. 

Next, as a parent, if it were within your control, would you let your 
children torture others, as God does?

Would you allow your children to be born with horrible defects, if you 
could prevent it? How would the simple act of setting things up such that 
these defects could not happen affect free will, or show lack of love?

If you want to give the father in this metaphor omnipotence and total love 
for his creation, I can't grant you the metaphor. Free will simply does not 
cover it.

Steve

re .103

Steve,

God could have started again with another couple, but when he 
commanded Adam & Eve and their offspring to produce a paradise 
earth full of perfect humans (Genesis 1:28) he didn't allow 
this project to be thwarted by the rebellion in the garden. 
Isaiah chapter 55 is one of my favourites portions of scripture. 
In verse 11 NWT it reads "So my word that goes forth from my 
mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, 
but will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will 
certain success in that for which I have sent it." Though Adam
condemned his progeny, it is God who makes a way for them and 
will enable them to fulfill this project of a paradise earth through
his kingdom. Persons unwittingly pray for this,  in what is often 
referred to as the lord's prayer "Let your kingdom come. Let your 
will take, as in heaven, also upon earth."  Matthew 6:10 In
the end Genesis 1:28 will be fulfilled, for it's God's will
and his original purpose.

If God did start with another couple, then we wouldn't exist. 
Though imperfect, we are not without hope.

Isaiah 55:6-7 NWT "Search for Jehovah, YOU people, while he may
be found. Call to him while he proves to be near. Let the wicked
man leave his way, and the harmful man his thoughts; and let him
return to Jehovah, who will have mercy upon him, and to our God,
for he will forgive in a large way."

Even though you may not understand God's ways, if God is Almighty 
then you would have to consider verses 8-9 "'For the thoughts of 
YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways,' is
the utterance of Jehovah. 'For as the heavens are higher than
the earth, so my ways, and my thoughts are higher than YOUR
ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts.'"

We can look at this from an earthly aspect, which is natural. But
the heavens are involved also and that is why God has communicated
to us through the pages of the Bible so that we can see the issues
at hand. Please read Job chapters 1 & 2 if you get the chance, 
Satan is calling into question God's creation. The only way God 
can prove Satan a liar is to allow God's servants to prove their 
loyalty which Satan brings into question. Once the universal court 
case has been resolved and God name sanctified then a precedent 
will have been set for any who would rebell in the future when 
paradise has been restored. God's Word indicates that there will 
not be any rebellion, for those that live in this new world will 
remain loyal (compare Revelation 21:3,4).

Phil.

.95

If you're speaking of Ezekiel 28.11-19, I looked it up as Phil suggested
and it is hardly explicit that it speaks of the being called Satan.

From the Interpretter's Commentary on the Bible:

"The king of Tyre, in Ezekiel's time Ithbaal II, in the traditional Hebrew
text is compared with a cherub in the garden of Eden and was expelled.
Thus the king's self-deification is interpretted as an angelic being
grasping after divinity.  A different vocalization of the same Hebrew
consonants yields the interpretation of the LXX adopted in the RSV,
that the king was with the guardian cherub, who drove him out."

Shalom,
Richard

    In Job, Satan is not so much a proper name as a title.  The satan's
    role is that of prosecutor, an ancient Marcia Clark or Chris Darden.
    
    Richard
    
================================================================================
Note 692.25                           Satan                            25 of 106
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "On loan from God"                 12 lines  30-DEC-1993 20:37
               -< The understanding of Satan evolved over time >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OT Hebrew word "satan" means opponent, adversary, accuser, attacker.
In Job, the word is used with the definite article -- ha-sa-tan, meaning
"THE adversary," "THE accuser."  It is not a proper name, but a function or
a role.  When the book of Job was written, probably during the 6th century
BC, the Israelites had no concept of the devil, and their understanding of
the Satan was quite different from the way Christians today think of Satan.
In Job, Satan is not the enemy of God, but a kind of official accuser, a
member of the heavenly council.

Peace,
Richard

Note 692.101

>    Richard, also try Isaiah 14:11-21.

Thanks, Mike.  A cursory reading of Isaiah 14.3-21 gives me the initial
impression that this passage speaks about the king of Babylon in figurative
terms and imagery not unusual in prophetic works.

>    I think if you gather enough facts on Satan, it's clearer who is being
>    discussed in these passages.  There aren't many who worshiped on the
>    mountain of God's throne and were cast down.  The King of Tyre is a
>    type of Satan.

I find the phrase "a type of Satan" to be a very interesting one.

Shalom,
Richard

    >I find the phrase "a type of Satan" to be a very interesting one.
    
    Type as in typology.  In case you're not familiar with it, a type is
    one of many figures of speech used in the Bible.
    
         Types - a prophetic symbol designated by God.  The word type comes from
               the Greek word tupos.  A tupos was a mark formed by a blow or
               an impression, creating a figure or an image on the object that
               was struck.  Therefore, a type prefigures something or someone
               to come.  That which it prefigures is called an antitype.  A
               type prefigures only one antitype, although it may parallel many
               points in the antitype.  An illustration of this is the
               tabernacle, a type of man's redemption.  According to Hebrews
               10:20, the veil that separated the holy place from the holy of
               holies prefigured the flesh of Jesus Christ.  When determining
               types, although it may not be formally stated, there should be
               some evidence of divine affirmation of the corresponding type
               and antitype.  For example, Romans 5:14 we read, "Nevertheless
               death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had
               not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a
               type of Him who was to come."  The word translated type is the
               Greek word tupos.  Adam was a type or figure of Christ, who was
               to come.  In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Christ is referred to as "the
               last Adam."  If the Word does not designate something as a type,
               then the Bible expositor should simply show the parallels
               without calling it a type.

re .103

Steve,

>made in God's image, he perfectly reflected God's fine qualities such
>as love, wisdom, power. A mirror can reflect an image perfectly, but

;Question: Did Adam have wisdom before partaking of the fruit of the tree of 
;knowledge? I sort of thought that wisdom was what it was all about.

I think I know why you might think the above. In Genesis 2:17, the tree 
is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" so it's more
specific than knowledge it's self. Adam prior to his fall was spoken
to directly by God, one on one if you like. This would mean Adam
would have learnt from his Creator, and had the capacity (unlike
the animals) for godly wisdom. What did the tree symbolise?, though
Adam was free to do as he pleased his freedom was relative, the boundary
lay with eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
It symbolised Jehovah's right as Sovereign ruler as the one for setting 
the standard that Adam had to abide by, what was morally right and wrong. 
When Adam ate of the fruit he was saying, "heh I want to set my own 
standards". So that he could say what was right and what was wrong, 
he wanted to rule himself or be alienated from God his creator. The 
ironic thing was that rather than having absolute freedom Adam was 
now enslaved to sin and it's effects including death. It's sad that he 
didn't draw on his godly wisdom, when his wife asked him to eat of the 
fruit.

Phil.
 

    It is very difficult to read the Adam and Eve story without inserting a
    whole lot of Pauline theology and other theology into the story.
    
    In the garden, Adam and Eve were very childlike.  Without knowledge and
    without immortality.  What they had to do in the garden was to roam
    around and play like children eating freely from the trees.  Like
    children they had rules.  One rule to be exact.  Don't eat from this
    specific tree.  Well when children begin to grow up they begin testing
    the rules.  Adam and Eve matured in the garden.  Like children they
    also reacted to external influence.  The snake was a wise snake.  The
    snake encouraged them to grow up and assert their own independence. 
    Their eating of the tree of knowledge was a symbolic act signifying
    there growing to maturity.  Symbolizing that playing in the garden was
    no longer meaningful enough.  So they ate from the apple and became
    adults, responsible for themselves.  God was not angry at them for
    eating from the tree.  God most likely suspected it all along, just
    like earthly parents are aware that their children will grow up and
    venture onward into the real world. 
    
    Once humanity had matured they could not stay in the garden anymore
    just as once children grow up, it is no longer healthy for them to
    remain dependent in their parents homes.
    
    Unfortunately Paul took a beautiful story and converted into something
    that it was not, forever making it impossible for many to see the
    beauty of the original story.
    
    
                                 patricia

    
    It's a flase assumption that Adam and Eve were very childlike all
    around.  I think you think their innocence resulted in such a case.
    Also, there's no reason to believe they were without knowledge.  They
    certainly were without mortality.
    
    We know that God communed with them each day.  Of course He instructed
    them and gave them great knowledge.
    
    jeff

    Anybody see the film "Indecent Proposal"?  I saw on it TV last night.
    
    It's an interesting variation on the Adam and Eve and serpent story
    (J, I think).
    
    Richard
    

    
    I saw the movie some time ago.  Adam and Eve certainly had more to lose
    by choosing sin than the characters in the movie.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    We can personify Adam and Eve, but we must not loose sight that they
    are mytholigical characters and therefore are replica's that exist and
    appeal to the minds of us humans.
    
                                    Patricia

 That would be in "your" theology, correct?





 Jim

692.116

> That would be in "your" theology, correct?

Depends on what you mean by that, Jim.  It's certainly not congruent with
fundamentalist theology, is it?  Does that make it "hers" as opposed to
"theirs"?

Of course, fundamentalists say it's not their theology, but God's.

But since theology is essentially the study of God, it doesn't seem God
would need a theology.  Theology seems like a pretty presumptuous undertaking
in itself to me.

Shalom,
Richard

 I was commenting on the statement that we should not forget that Adam and
 Eve are mythological characters.  I do not believe that, the theology with
 which I am familiar and in which I place my faith  (hence my theology) does
 not teach that.  However, it appears that Patricia does believe that and that
 theology in which she places her faith (hence "her" theology) does teach that.




 Jim

    In most theologies Adam and Eve represent mythological characters.
    
    In the narrow band of fundementalist theology science is discarded and a
    creationist view of the world beginning with Adam and Eve is accepted.

Related topics:

   Note 963.0        "Adam and Eve as Myth (SRO)"
   Note 964.0        "Adam and Eve as Myth (for general discussion)"

Shalom,
Richard

    
    I think a better and more accurate description of the two views of
    Genesis (and the Bible in general) is that orthodox Christian theology
    has always taught that Adam and Eve are actual people who lived and
    that all of Genesis represents reality.  Liberalism or liberal theology, 
    a modern occurence, does not believe that Adam and Eve were ever real
    people.
    
    jeff 

    Jeff,
    
    I don't think you will find too many orthodox Christians outside the
    fundementalist school that accept Adam and Eve as historic persons.
    
    Likewise you don't find to many reasonable people who believe that
    Jonah was swallowed by a whale and lived inside the whale for three
    days.
    
    Nor do you find a whole lot of people who believe that there was
    actually a many named noah who built a big boat to survive a gigantic
    rainstorm.
    
    Faith does not require the acceptance of that which is rationally
    unacceptable.

Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of 
things not seen. 





 I'm quite happy to count myself as one who some call unreasonable for 
 believe God's Word to be true from beginning to end, as opposed to attaching
 my faith to a doctrine that changes like the wind.




 Jim


 

    
    Patricia,
    
    There are no orthodox Christians outside the "fundamentalist school",
    that is, there are no orthodox Christians who do not accept the
    several fundamental truths which are represented in the Apostles Creed,
    for example.
    
    Once one accepts the Bible's depiction of God's sovereignty over the 
    universe, no reasonable person will have any problem with what seems
    impossible or implausible to mere humans.
    
    jeff

    I am only too well aware that those of the fundementalist persuasion
    believe that they are the only real "Christians".
    
    I do not accept that fundementalist bias.

    
    I didn't say that, Patricia.  Please correct your error.
    
    jeff

Don't confuse evolution and polygenism.

If the theory of evolution is in some parts true with respect to the
physical origin of the human body, i.e. that the method God used to
create Adam and Eve was through a process of evolution which may appear
random to us but is in fact directly guided by the Will of God, it is
still possible that polygenism is completely false and that all humans
are descendents of a single pair of parents, who had the very experiences
with God described in Genesis.

Those experiences may be experiences of the souls of Adam and Eve, and not
of their physical bodies.  The casting out of the Garden could have been
the point at which God ensouled the first two evolved humans, uniting Adam
and Eve at that point with human bodies on Earth.

But this is all speculative.

/john

The first human couple were real to Jesus, "In reply he said:
'Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning
made them male and female and said, ''for this reason a man will
leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and
the two will be one flesh''?'" Mathhew 19:4,5 NWT. So Jesus 
believed the Genesis account to be a factual one.

Other scriptures that do not depict the character Adam as being
allegorical:

1 Corinthians 15:45,47, Acts 17:26, Jude 14, Genesis 5:3.

In the lineage of Luke 3:23-38 many such as Abraham and David
are seen as real historical persons, is it not reasonable to
conclude that others listed such as Adam are real persons also.

Phil

    
    > There are no orthodox Christians outside the "fundamentalist school",
    > that is, there are no orthodox Christians who do not accept the several
    > fundamental truths which are represented in the Apostles Creed, for
    > example.

    Which is not to say that everyone who covets the title "fundamentalist"
    is an orthodox Christian. 

    Once one accepts that God is not bound up within a book, no reasonable
    person will have a problem understanding that a literal reading of the
    Bible impedes a full appreciation of the message within it.

    Eric

    
    > There are no orthodox Christians outside the "fundamentalist school",
    > that is, there are no orthodox Christians who do not accept the several
    > fundamental truths which are represented in the Apostles Creed, for
    > example.

    >> Which is not to say that everyone who covets the title "fundamentalist"
    >> is an orthodox Christian. 
    
    You're right, Eric, but they think they are and it is really a matter
    of ignorance rather than theology.

    >>Once one accepts that God is not bound up within a book, no reasonable
    >>person will have a problem understanding that a literal reading of the
    >>Bible impedes a full appreciation of the message within it.

    I think you are terribly mistaken about one thing, at least, Eric, and
    that is the use of the phrase that says that orthodox or even
    fundamentalists believe that God is bound up within a book.  This is
    not true at all.  The Bible is God's Word, and though there is reason
    to believe that there is a mysterious and important connection between 
    His Word and His Being, orthodox Christians are not so thick as to
    think that the pages of a Bible and its binding is actually God. 
    
    And it seems disingenous at this stage of your participation in this
    forum to expect that you really believe that orthodox Christians, even 
    many fundamentalists, read the Bible literally in all cases, only in
    those cases in which it is appropriate to read it literally.  
    
    Your alternative reading can hardly be called reasonable because you have 
    no philosophical basis for making the distinctions between what 
    is to be read literally and what is not to be read literally.
    
    The orthodox reading is much superior in every way to that of
    Liberalism.
    
    jeff

>    Once one accepts that God is not bound up within a book, no reasonable
>    person will have a problem understanding that a literal reading of the
>    Bible impedes a full appreciation of the message within it.

    I wish I could have said that as well!

    ZZZ    I wish I could have said that as well!
    
    It was stated well but in the context of scriptural authority it is
    based on faulty logic.
    
    -Jack

re Note 692.130 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     And it seems disingenous at this stage of your participation in this
>     forum to expect that you really believe that orthodox Christians, even 
>     many fundamentalists, read the Bible literally in all cases, only in
>     those cases in which it is appropriate to read it literally. ^^^^^^^ 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Ay, there 's the rub!

        Bob

    

    Just for the record, I don't see the same interchangability of the
    adjectives fundamentalist and orthodox as do you. I believe that some
    fundamentalists want to graft themselves to Orthodoxy, or at least the
    term orthodox, as a means of legitimizing their claims of being true to
    the original apostolic mission. It is a way of adopting a tradition
    that they lack.

    > ...orthodox Christians are not so thick as to think that the pages of
    > a Bible and its binding is actually God.

    I wasn't being literal. I was saying that claiming the Bible is the
    literal, inerrant word of God is to give God clay feet.

    > And it seems disingenous at this stage of your participation in this
    > forum to expect that you really believe that orthodox Christians, even 
    > many fundamentalists, read the Bible literally in all cases, only in
    > those cases in which it is appropriate to read it literally.  

    I don't mean to be disingenuous, or patronizing or a smart ass. My
    lengthy participation in the forum, which you allude to, and my
    visitations to the nameless "other" conference (:^)) has shown me that
    most self professed Fundamentalists do indeed read the Bible literally
    in all cases. Of course you leave yourself the trap door of "only in
    those cases in which it is appropriate," but heaven forbid I suggest a
    case where it is not appropriate (Adam & Eve, Job, Sodom and Gomorrah,
    Noah and the Ark....).  

    > Your alternative reading can hardly be called reasonable because you
    > have no philosophical basis for making the distinctions between what is
    > to be read literally and what is not to be read literally.

    I am not reasonable because I have no philosophy? Can't I be reasonable
    because I have reason? My philosophy, for what it's worth, leans toward
    deism.

    > The orthodox reading is much superior in every way to that of
    > Liberalism.
     
    Then I suggest you stick with it. BTW, what do you mean by "Liberalism?"


    Eric

    
    > It was stated well but in the context of scriptural authority it is
    > based on faulty logic.

    Since when does scriptural authority need to be logical by human
    understanding. :^)

    Eric

    What I should have said was what is accepted in fundamentalist circles
    as scriptural authority!!!!  
    
    -Jack

         
    > What I should have said was what is accepted in fundamentalist circles
    > as scriptural authority!!!!

    *Now* I agree with you :^) I kind of understood what you meant: I
    may be able to turn a phrase, but I'm still as wrong as a ham sandwich
    at a bar mitzvah! :^)

    Eric

    

>    Just for the record, I don't see the same interchangability of the
>    adjectives fundamentalist and orthodox as do you. I believe that some
>    fundamentalists want to graft themselves to Orthodoxy, or at least the
>    term orthodox, as a means of legitimizing their claims of being true to
>    the original apostolic mission. It is a way of adopting a tradition
>    that they lack.

     I realize Eric that the term fundamentalist is a fuzzy one today and so is
     orthodox for that matter.  

     Orthodox, in the sense that I use it here, is defined in Websters as 
     "conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the early ecumenical 
      creeds and confessions."

     "Fundamentalist" is used at least several ways by so many people that it 
     is hard to pin down.  But when it is used here it is usually related to
     the Bible, particularly the literal interpretation of the Bible.  But
     this really doesn't tell us anything in itself and is even contradictory
     to reality in that fundamentalists don't normally literally interpret
     parts of the Bible that are poetry, for example, or that use figurative
     language and so on.

     The distinction of fundamentalism was only necessary because of, and 
     resulted directly from the advent of, Liberal Theology.  Before Liberal 
     Theology, all Christians were essentially orthodox and fundamentalist.  
     The "fundamentals" of the faith were expressed anew during the time
     (late 1800s - early 1900s) that Liberal Theology was gaining acceptance
     in American seminaries.  The fundamentals, per say, really were exactly
     what the orthodox creeds and confessions had always taught.  Now there
     were other movements which also sprang up, as the result of the great
     controversies, which were fundamentalist but had their own peculiarities.

     So, in a nutshell, fundamentalism fits almost perfectly within orthodox
     Christianity but Liberalism doesn't even resemble orthodoxy, except for
     the use of traditional language.
     
    > ...orthodox Christians are not so thick as to think that the pages of
    > a Bible and its binding is actually God.

    >I wasn't being literal. I was saying that claiming the Bible is the
    >literal, inerrant word of God is to give God clay feet.

    Claiming the Bible is true, because it says it is true, is much more
    reasonable and provides a consistent basis for the study of God's
    revelation.  Saying the Bible is not true, when it says it is true, is
    a contradiction that cannot be avoided.  What gives God clay feet but
    the idea that He has not provided us with a revelation of Himself?

    >  I don't mean to be disingenuous, or patronizing or a smart ass. My
    >lengthy participation in the forum, which you allude to, and my
    >visitations to the nameless "other" conference (:^)) has shown me that
    >most self professed Fundamentalists do indeed read the Bible literally
    >in all cases. Of course you leave yourself the trap door of "only in
    >those cases in which it is appropriate," but heaven forbid I suggest a
    >case where it is not appropriate (Adam & Eve, Job, Sodom and Gomorrah,
    >Noah and the Ark....).  

    The fundamentalist is consistent and has a basis for reasoning and
    understanding the Scriptures.  You have not one reason which can
    withstand logical scrutiny and justify reading the Bible any differently
    than the majority of fundamentalists.

   >> Your alternative reading can hardly be called reasonable because you
   >> have no philosophical basis for making the distinctions between what is
   >> to be read literally and what is not to be read literally.

    >I am not reasonable because I have no philosophy? Can't I be reasonable
    >because I have reason? My philosophy, for what it's worth, leans toward
    >deism.

    A philosophical basis means a logical system for discerning truth.
    Philosophy is another word which has suffered greatly.  I think most
    people now think philosophy equals opinion.

    So, you're almost a deist, huh?  It's nice to have a context for
    framing your presentations here.

    jeff

    THe fundementals of the faith have been being expressed anew since the
    days of Jesus.
    
    Paul was the first to express the fundementals of the faith.
    
    Then the author of Mark
    
    Then the author of Mathew and the author of Luke.
    
    Then the author of John
    
    The the other New Testament authors.
    
    Each expressed the faith differently and anew.
    
    then the early church councils/one contradicting another.
    
    The the early church fathers such as Augustine.  Then Thomas Aquinas
    
    Then along comes Luther followed by Calvin.
    
    Then ..... Wesley,  etc
    
    Then the German theologians
    
    etc etc.
    
    And that is not even including those who were hung or burnt as heretics
    such as Michael Servetus.
    
    The fundementals of the faith have never been fixed and never 100%
    agreed on.

    This is an interesting quote taken from A Roman enemy of Christianity. 
    A Roman leader named Celsus issued a statement against the Christian
    system in the year 178 A.D. and, in that statement, he stated,
    
    "It is silly to suppose that when God, like a cook, brings to fire, the
    rest of mankind will be roasted, and only the Christians will remain--
    not merely the living ones but those who died long ago, rising from the
    earth with an identical flesh they had before."
    
    The very interesting revelation Celsus brings is that the church at one
    of it's earliest periods of time...before Acquinas, before the
    reformation...during the heat of severe persecution, taught the
    sobering reality that is spoken of today by Bible believing Christians.
    It is also revealing that the very same lack of faith is being
    portrayed in the world today regarding the reality of hell and eternal
    judgement.
    
    A man named Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John was martyred in
    the year 150 A.D.  Polycarp spoke of John by saying that as a teenager,
    John HEARD the words of the master, and at the ripe age of 90, John was
    almost totally blind and deaf.  
    
    As Polycarp was about to be burned to death, he stated, 
    "You try to frighten me with the fire that burns for an hour and you
    forget the fire of hell that never goes out."
    
    I believe we do the martyrs of the original church a great injustice in
    this file.
    
    -Jack

    
    Patricia,
    
    Please don't expect anyone to agree that minor or even major
    disagreements among orthodox Christians validate Liberalism's
    insanity.
    
    jeff

>    Patricia,
>    
>    Please don't expect anyone to agree that minor or even major
>    disagreements among orthodox Christians validate Liberalism's
>    insanity.
    
>    jeff
    
    
    A example of a common fundementalist debating technique.  If all else
    fails resort to name calling.

    It wasn't name calling.  It was an indictment on liberalism.

    
    You can do better than that, Patricia.  I'm sure you can and I keep
    waiting for that day.  I think its evident here that those from the
    Liberal camp are most apt to resort to name calling and other snide and
    unChrist-like commentary.
    
    Where's the substance?
    
    jeff

    
    Ditto what Patricia said in .142.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, do you agree with this?
    
ZZ    I think its evident here that those from the
ZZ    Liberal camp are most apt to resort to name calling and other snide
ZZ    and unChrist-like commentary.
    
    Sit and watch a one hour segment of congress some evening.  Special
    orders offers a good example of this.  
    
    -Jack

	Jack, you don't watch Pat Robertson much, do you?

    Very rarely Glen.  Do you know why?  First, I don't get it in NH. 
    Secondly, I KNOW it is a religious program and would have the
    intelligence NOT to watch it if I knew he was spewing hate.  In other
    words Glen, if I listen to guys like him, and Limbaugh, and others, I 
    promptly move on to other things.  I would like to keep my own
    intellectual identity and I wish more people would practice this.
    
    -Jack
    

It seems like the present drift might be more appropriately continued in
another topic.  But perhaps not.

Richard

	Jack, quite the note you wrote there. :-)

    Yeah yeah yeah..I knew you would have a cute way of calling me a liar!
    :-)  

	Actually, I took it to be a serious note. 


Glen

    Oh....then disregard what I said! :-)

    Jack,
    
    Is this just another example of making assumptions about what Glen
    meant and then drawing erroneous conclusions from those assumptions.
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    My assumption was well founded in this case.  This is what I wrote.
    
   ZZ     I would like to keep my own
   ZZ     intellectual identity and I wish more people would practice this.
    
    Now Glen has been notorious for years in making pot shots at statements
    like this.  It's kind of like Pavlovs dog.  It is a natural reply I
    made based on conditioning!  Also, keep in mind that I did put a smiley
    face after my reply.
    
    One more thing in my own defense Patricia.  I am a man married almost
    ten years with three children.  Michele requires ALOT of communication, 
    sensitivity, understanding, and compassion.  My children are all
    diverse in personality just as anybody's children are.  One does not
    stay married ten years if they are in actuality the poor communicator
    you claim me to be.  Would you at least acknowelge this as having
    merit?!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I acknowledge that there are many likable things about you.  You seem
    to be both hardworking and committed.  I suspect you are a wonderful
    husband and father.
    
    It is you noting style that irritates me and that is what my comments
    are based on.

ZZ    It is you noting style that irritates me and that is what my
ZZ    comments are based on.
    
    I appreciate your reply and would like you to please address this next
    question in the Processing topic.
    
    My noting style is devoid of hidden messages.  I respect you enough to 
    tell you honestly and openly how I feel about things.  I make apologies
    when they are called for, I have changed my mind on things because of
    you, because of Eric, Bob, Glen, Richard, and yes even our Cindy Painter.
    I try to be a person who stands by my convictions so integrity can't 
    be the real issue here.
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong but my perception is that you find me to be
    unbendable?  Is that what my problem is?  It can't be my beliefs
    because this is C-P and commonality on much of what we as a core believe
    is for the most part negligable...that's ruled out.  
    
    So it must be sexism, racism, homophobia, and an unbending attitude
    about certain things.  Accurate?
    
    -Jack     

	But Jack, you've said I am a Democrat before and gone off on tangents.
You are ALWAYS making assumptions, and then go off on tangents to find out
later you need to apologize cuz you were wrong. Why not ask the person if that
was what they meant?


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Please provide a pointer here.  I have jokingly stated that you were a
    democrat in republican clothing because I have NEVER seen you side with
    conservative dialog.  You have your allies.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, think about when you said I voted strictly democratic, and went
on a tirade about why I did such a thing, when in reality, I voted republican
and democratic.


Glen

    Yes, I remember.  You stated you voted for Weld, to which I
    acknowledged but also pointed out that Bill Weld is in many ways
    socially WORSE than a democrat.
    
    -Jack

Hey, I voted for Weld too!  Anyone was better than Silber that year.

				-- Bob

ZZ     Anyone was better than Silber that year.
    
    There's where we differ.  John Silber refrained from the nonsense of
    politics and spoke his mind.  He kept Boston University a quality
    school and successfully reformed the Chelsea school system.  
    
    Although Weld has been fiscally what we needed, Silber also showed what
    he could do; yet he wasn't disingenuous and I appreciate that in a
    person.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 692.161 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Yes, I remember.  You stated you voted for Weld, to which I
| acknowledged but also pointed out that Bill Weld is in many ways
| socially WORSE than a democrat.

	There you go again! If it was as bad as that, why did you apologize?

	Bob.... it was the last election....where Weld and Kennedy were running
for their respective seats.


Glen

    I apologized because although Weld is a democrat in disguise,
    technically you still voted for a republican and I acknowledged this.
    
    Basically you got a freeby!

	And basically, as stated earlier, you apologized for reacting on false
assumptions.



Glen

    Glen, let's put it this way.  If Charlie manson ran as a republican and
    you voted for him, I would have still apologized to you.
    
    Like I said, your getting the benefit of my objectivity here.  A
    freebie if you will!
    
    -Jack

	"Evil is terribly real for each individual.  If you regard the
principle of evil as reality, you can just as well call it the devil."

					- Carl Jung