Understanding Spiritual Warfare

I am going to quote Elaine Pagels in her book; The Origin of Satan.

In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaism today, Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know him, as a leader of an "evil empire," an army of hostile spirits who make war on God and humankind alike. As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants-a messenger, or angel, a word that translates the Hebrew term for messenger(mal'ak) into Greek(angelos). In Hebrew, the angels were often called "sons of God" (bene'elohim), and were envisioned as the hierarchical ranks of a great army, or the staff of a royal court.
In the biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the same of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as 6th century b.c. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human acivity. The root stn means "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as adversary." The Greek term diabolos, later translated devil, literally means "one who throws something across ones' path."
The satan's presence in a story could help account for unexpected obstacles or reversals of fortune. Hebrew storytellers often attribute misfortune to sin. Some, however, also invoke this supernatural character, the satan, who, by God's own order or permission, blocks or opposes human plans and desires. But this messenger is not necessarily malevolent. God sends him, like the angel of death, to perform a specific task, although one that human beings may not appreciate. Thus the satan may have been sent by the Lord to protect a person from worse harm. The story of Balaam in the biblical book Numbers, for example, tells of a man who decided to go where the Lord had ordered him not to go. Balaam saddled the ass and set off. " but God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his satan" (le sa ta n lo) that is, as his adversary, or his obstructer.
numbers 22:23-25
 
"Fine. Ignore what the Bible says. Satan is the Devil, and the Devil is a little god..."

I love God, I wont ignore his word. The Bible says that satan is the god of this world system. He blinds the people of the world from truth. Jesus is the truth, and he frees us, and removes the lies that blind us.

This is new to you?
 
Conscience said:
"Fine. Ignore what the Bible says. Satan is the Devil, and the Devil is a little god..."

I love God, I wont ignore his word. The Bible says that satan is the god of this world system. He blinds the people of the world from truth. Jesus is the truth, and he frees us, and removes the lies that blind us.

This is new to you?
Didymus, Pagels is not the Bible.

Conscience... "Well, demons are also known as gods by people who dont know what the bible says"

your words. But whether the truth set us free or not, the fact is there is a bad man named what? The Devil, Satan, Lucifer?

No, my friend. The news is not new to me. And I suspect I've known it a bit longer than you have been alive...but I digress.

v/r

Q
 
Wisdom comes with time, not necessarily with age. But, I digress.
 
I thought that this passage was interesting as to the historcity of the meaning and the term satan.

Conscience, where does the Bible say that Satan is God of this earth? I'm just curious.
 
"Satan is the 'God' of this earth." I dont remember saying that! I beleive what I said, is that Satan is the god of this world system (unbelieving world). The Bible clearly teaches that Satan blinds men from truth (Ephs. 6:12), and that before the 7th angels sounds, In Rev. 11:15, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and he SHALL reign forever and ever. The sad thing about all of this is, MOST people dont even know they follow Satan. But, I'll tell you the truth, according to the Bible if you serve yourself, and you're not serving God through his Christ, you're serving Satan.
 
More scripture teaching about the god of this world. 2 Corinth. 4:4....satan is god of this world and mt. 4:8-10 he is able to reward those that follow him with great riches and success in this world. 2 Corinth. 4:4 in whom god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
 
Wow, Conscience. You sound like Jehovah's Witnesses.

Whether we choose to be blind or walk with Christ or serve 'the little god', we do just that - make a choice. 'The Devil' is a spirit entity that has the power to consume you but you must give up control of yourself. Those who believe the devil rules the world is saying that God has no power because he gave it to the devil. But didn't he give it to Jesus? I mean, which one is it?

The devil only has as much power as you give up. And even God will not take over in your life if you will not give Him that power. Same thing with Jesus. Everyone doesn't view the world in the same manner. So maybe the devil rules your world. He doesn't rule mine.
Conscience said:
But, I'll tell you the truth, according to the Bible if you serve yourself, and you're not serving God through his Christ, you're serving Satan.
Doesn't sound like any freedom in there. I don't think God would have given us our own minds and ability to reason if things were that rigid. How do you know if you are serving Satan? I don't think serving myself is serving Satan. As a matter of fact, you can not truly get acquainted with God if you don't know who you are. Following a rule book is easy. Taking the chance to get to know God's creation, which includes yourself, is the hard part. But I guess if you think Satan rules the world then there is nothing here that represents God but the Holy Spirit. So then nothing of this earth is Good. In that case, you'd better hold on to your sword and shield - but try not to cut yourself.
 
Conscience said:
More scripture teaching about the god of this world. 2 Corinth. 4:4....satan is god of this world and mt. 4:8-10 he is able to reward those that follow him with great riches and success in this world. 2 Corinth. 4:4 in whom god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
From the NASV:
Mt 4:8-10 "Again, the devil took Him to a very high moutain and showed Him all the kigndoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"

This does not state that Satan is a god over the world. It is the temptation of Jesus by Satan, which, by the way, does not undermine the original Judaic understanding of Satan that is put forth in the OT.

2 Corinthians 4:4 talks of the "god of this world" but not Satan by name.

I will say that for varied reasons I do not hold Paul's letters as sacred, but obviously you do. There is an excellent article on this website that illuminates why I do not consider Paul's text as sacred, and it has a lot to do with contradicting the words of Jesus in the gospels. I do read Paul's letters and extract what is in line with the teachings of Jesus, as guided by the Spirit, but I do not put the letters on the same level as Jesus' teachings in the gospels.

That said, even accepting Paul's letters as sacred text does not mean that the "god of this world" is Satan, especially if you study the meaning of Satan (and the term Satan) in the original Hebrew scriptures (the Jewish Torah, our OT).
 
Conscience said:
Wisdom comes with time, not necessarily with age. But, I digress.
and you have seen what I have seen? And age is all? Digress well you should.

carry the dead for a time my friend. In the mean time, back off a bit.

v/r

q
 
From the NASV:
Mt 4:8-10 "Again, the devil took Him to a very high moutain and showed Him all the kigndoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"

This does not state that Satan is a god over the world. It is the temptation of Jesus by Satan, which, by the way, does not undermine the original Judaic understanding of Satan that is put forth in the OT.

For it to be a temptation it would have to be true. Jesus was "tempted" to worship Satan, but he didnt! The reason Satan could offer the world, was because he runs it. Again, what I and the Bible is talking about is the "unsaved world." Ephs. 6:12 says that we dont fight against people, but evil spirts, e.g., "powers," and "Principlities." These powers and principlities (Evil spirits) work through personalities (unsaved people). About Satan's character changing though. Are you aware that the OT is the NT consealed, and the NT is the OT revealed? Its not strange when you think about it, like most books, the Bible has all the answers to the back.

2 Corinthians 4:4 talks of the "god of this world" but not Satan by name.

LOL. Did it really have to name him? Isnt it obvious?

I will say that for varied reasons I do not hold Paul's letters as sacred, but obviously you do. There is an excellent article on this website that illuminates why I do not consider Paul's text as sacred, and it has a lot to do with contradicting the words of Jesus in the gospels. I do read Paul's letters and extract what is in line with the teachings of Jesus, as guided by the Spirit, but I do not put the letters on the same level as Jesus' teachings in the gospels.

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2Tim. 3:16" The 66 books of the bible prove that it was engineered by God. The mere fact that it proves to be written from outside of our time domine gives credit to its supernatual nature. But, I understand if you dont believe what I beleive.

That said, even accepting Paul's letters as sacred text does not mean that the "god of this world" is Satan, especially if you study the meaning of Satan (and the term Satan) in the original Hebrew scriptures (the Jewish Torah, our OT).

Again, satan hasnt changed. The NT just reveals what the OT consealed.
 
You can make those leaps of faith if you like, but I prefer to study history and the cultural context in which concepts such as Satan came about. If the OT version of Satan is very different from the current Christian theological one, I'm going to go with the original Jewish concept because it would be more authentic. I highly recommend "A History of Hell." Concepts like heaven and hell, Satan, etc. have changed much in the last two thousand years, and this is documented.

Secondly, I highly recommend the article on Paul's documents hosted on this website. The Christian church was never unified even in its beginnings, and Pauline Christianity (with some ideas that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words in the gospels) dominated over the church that was formed by the disciples themselves. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to think that the original disciples had the right ideas about what Jesus was there for and trying to convey than some guy that came along after the fact. And, no, I won't waste my time debating this. You can read the articles for yourself and post a debate after you've read them if you'd like to take them on.

The Bible says it was "inspired" by God, not channeled through humans as a complete text. I fully believe the Bible was inspired by God. I have also been "inspired" to write by God, as well as by the beauty of nature, by other people, etc. That does not mean that God took my hand and physically wrote down what to say. It means that God was my muse. So, the Bible is a result of people having God as their muse, their inspiration. The Christian Bible was not canonized until several hundred years after Christ's death, at which time they chose Pauline Christianity over many other varieties and barred the other gospels, acts, revelations, etc. from the Bible. Furthermore, the history of the Bible is such that it is highly likely that some books were altered or parts were copied from other books, that people were discussing things before writing them all down, etc. It is not as if Jesus himself wrote any of it. People were writing about Jesus and interpreting what his actions and words were from memory, and Paul had never even been with Jesus while he was alive!

That said, I feel that the Bible is full of truth if one reads it with the Holy Spirit in one's heart and with an open mind, paying attention to what we can know through history, linguistic, and cultural study. I myself have seen certain passages misinterpreted simply because people reading the Bible in English did not realize that the phrase was an Aramaic idiomatic expression. Like a Chinese person reading the direct translation of English expressions like "time flies when you're having fun" or "he kicked the bucket," we don't get very far when we think Jesus was literally saying "if your eye offends thee, cut it out."

Now, it's up to you if you wish to acknowledge the need for historical, cultural, and linguistic context for yourself. I have no doubts that these are unnecessary for some people to feel that they are getting the right message from scripture. That is what works for you. What works for me is scholarship and careful study, along with prayer for insight. I would rather know the history of my religion and be sure that I am not practicing something that Jesus did not intend. Ultimately, I'm very liberal and think that everyone who truly seeks God will find the Kingdom of Heaven, so in my belief system accuracy really doesn't matter, it is faith and action and God's infinite grace that do, but my personality is such that I still demand accuracy for myself.
 
"You can make those leaps of faith if you like."

Yeah, I want!
 
path_of_one said:
Secondly, I highly recommend the article on Paul's documents hosted on this website. The Christian church was never unified even in its beginnings, and Pauline Christianity (with some ideas that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words in the gospels) dominated over the church that was formed by the disciples themselves. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to think that the original disciples had the right ideas about what Jesus was there for and trying to convey than some guy that came along after the fact. And, no, I won't waste my time debating this. You can read the articles for yourself and post a debate after you've read them if you'd like to take them on.
I feel it is important also to study the history & culture of the times & other writings. At the same time I don't see contradictions in the 66 books, rather the way people interpret it that brings contradiction. I dont see any differences, rather an expounding on what Satan & temptation with spiritual warfare is about in the New Testament. From what I can see, Paul & Luke support what Jesus taught about Satan & what the rest of the bible teaches.

I cant change the way it happened after the Apostles, but I am pretty sure that what happened through Rome is the way God intended it.
There has always been efforts to destroy & stamp out the bible & some will use any angle they can think of. I would not say that the early church was not unified, because according to the bible & the Apostles, it was unified with one mind & one accord.
I believe all 66 books are the Word of the Lord.

Acts 2
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

1 Corinthians 1:10 )
(10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and {that} there be no divisions among you; but {that} ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(1 John 1:3,7)
(3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship {is} with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
 
I do believe we are all unified in our love of Jesus and our commitment to our faith. But it is clear that throughout history, even in the earliest days, there were doctrinal differences, which have only become more prevalent as time goes on. Personally, I don't think the doctrinal differences matter much as long as we are all respectful of the differences and love one another and God. But as a scholar I simply can't ignore the history. I do not seek to disprove the Bible. I do not think it can be disproven, as it is a sacred text and its acceptance in any form (as inerrant or not, as literal or metaphoric) must be taken on the faith that it contains wisdom. For me it is not damaging to carefully study the history of the religion, when doctrine changed or was developed, how this is different or similar to traditional Jewish doctrine, etc. It has only deepened my understanding of my own faith and sacred text. I recognize that for some it has the opposite effect, and I would urge them to avoid practices that they worry would undermine their faith in God.
 
path_of_one said:
I do believe we are all unified in our love of Jesus and our commitment to our faith. But it is clear that throughout history, even in the earliest days, there were doctrinal differences, which have only become more prevalent as time goes on. Personally, I don't think the doctrinal differences matter much as long as we are all respectful of the differences and love one another and God. But as a scholar I simply can't ignore the history. I do not seek to disprove the Bible. I do not think it can be disproven, as it is a sacred text and its acceptance in any form (as inerrant or not, as literal or metaphoric) must be taken on the faith that it contains wisdom. For me it is not damaging to carefully study the history of the religion, when doctrine changed or was developed, how this is different or similar to traditional Jewish doctrine, etc. It has only deepened my understanding of my own faith and sacred text. I recognize that for some it has the opposite effect, and I would urge them to avoid practices that they worry would undermine their faith in God.

:) A true bible study can not ignore the history and the history serves to strengthen the truth that lies in the wisdom of the words.

Argueing about whether Jesus was God or man is like argueing over whether Jesus was black or white - you stand to lose or never really grasp the meaning of his message. It is one that incorporates all people through reverence of all mankind. Jesus didn't say 'Join my army: Everlasting life in Heaven is the fringe benefit'. It is difficult to really understand Jesus if you can't open your mind to understanding the whole of mankind.
 
truthseeker said:
Argueing about whether Jesus was God or man is like argueing over whether Jesus was black or white - you stand to lose or never really grasp the meaning of his message. It is one that incorporates all people through reverence of all mankind. Jesus didn't say 'Join my army: Everlasting life in Heaven is the fringe benefit'. It is difficult to really understand Jesus if you can't open your mind to understanding the whole of mankind.
Hmm.. Jesus is God and He is man.. you either believe Him or you dont. Simple as that. No point in arguing it if your not convicted of it by The Spirit.. you arent ready or you'll never be ready..

From a bible believer.
 
path_of_one said:
...The Christian church was never unified even in its beginnings, and Pauline Christianity (with some ideas that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words in the gospels) dominated over the church that was formed by the disciples themselves. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to think that the original disciples had the right ideas about what Jesus was there for and trying to convey than some guy that came along after the fact...

The Bible says it was "inspired" by God, not channeled through humans as a complete text.
... Furthermore, the history of the Bible is such that it is highly likely that some books were altered or parts were copied from other books, that people were discussing things before writing them all down, etc. It is not as if Jesus himself wrote any of it. People were writing about Jesus and interpreting what his actions and words were from memory, and Paul had never even been with Jesus while he was alive!

...I would rather know the history of my religion and be sure that I am not practicing something that Jesus did not intend. Ultimately, I'm very liberal and think that everyone who truly seeks God will find the Kingdom of Heaven, so in my belief system accuracy really doesn't matter, it is faith and action and God's infinite grace that do, but my personality is such that I still demand accuracy for myself.

That is an incredible mouthful. I agree.
 
truthseeker said:
That is an incredible mouthful. I agree.
Then we are back to square one. The faith? or the law?

hard to choose...

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Then we are back to square one. The faith? or the law?

hard to choose...

Why is it so hard to choose? The Law becomes you when you locked into the faith. We are saved by faith because we can not have any true regard for the Law with out first tuning into God. Without that connection, the need to deed becomes elusive. By faith, God is on your mind and as you see the things that God is doing in your life on a regular basis and give him glory, then you reciprocate that by obeying the Law because you see the true effect that it has in your life. Not only to serve God, but God gives man the Law so that we have life more abundantly!
 
Back
Top