Actually that is not entirely correct. He was to under strict teaching "set himself up AS God." Being as powerful as God was not the "full picture" of modern day theology.

Actually there are mixed messages on this one. Some believe that the angels are bound in outter darkness and it is a mystery as to where "demons" came from. Others believe that the fallen angels are demons. Still others believe that God (Himself) sends all types (good and bad) to mankind. A purely Judaic take upon the "bad spirits" denotes quite clearly that they come from God directly. The dualism found in Christianity was adopted by corruption through influences of Persian dualism, perhaps some form of Zoroastrianism or some such.

Common error but let me clarify.
The "serpent" in the garden was not Lucifer. God punished the serpent itself NOT the "spirit within the serpent." Therefore if you hold to the story as told in Genesis, the serpent can not be Lucifer/Satan because the serpent was cursed.

Actually, Lucifer did not gain the title "Prince of the Power of the Air" until much later in history. He still must (under logic) be commanded/allowed by the Omnipotent God to do anything that he does. Also, if you accept the Book of Job, then HaSatan is nothing more than "another angel." The "fallen angel" spoken of in Isaiah's mistranslated morning star reference is a strange mythos within Christianity indeed, ESPECIALLY in light of this title being placed upon Jesus in Revelation.

Since Satan is the lacky under-god in the mythos, anything he does is under the Will of God indirectly anyways. Sorta like the guy from Willie Wonka and the chocolate factory who tries to get Willie to sell him the everlasting gobstopper. The guy worked for the man who owned the factory in the end, and it was a test, and the owner had hired the man to tempt Willie into selling him the gobstopper.

Again, the easy answer is that you don't 'imprison' someone working for you. Also note that "evil" from a human perspective is not absolute. Therefore to allow Satan's freedom for purpose does not remove from the deity omnibenevolence under such light. Since Christianity doesn't really teach relative morality however, I find it difficult to fit the idea of God allowing Satan's freedom EVEN for purpose (sorta like saying ends justify means if you ask me). For a relativist theological stance it is simple however (that is what Judaism teaches).

Since it says that the Earth was without form and void, some have inferred there was a great battle when Satan fell and it destroyed the Earth. Adam and Eve thus came afterward.

To "setup" what was to happen?
heh.

The story goes that Satan fell to Earth after being kicked out of heaven. Remember when it was written the Earth was flat, Heaven was a "hard" place "up there" and the Sun went around the Earth. There was no other place for Satan to be "sent" at that time.

Seems they fixed that however with the invention of Hades, Hell, Netherworld however.

I always say, "Pawns tend to be the strongest and most important pieces at times."

Most would answer it was "God's Will" that the person die then, we all have to go someway after all. Others would say that prayer is the finite requesting of the Infinite and thus the only prayer that makes even a wink of sense is "Thy Will Be Done."

I heard this one answered before:
Because God knew Job wouldn't stray.
Satan lacked such knowledge.
God was proving a point.

The entire story of Job is a theological impossibility under Christian doctrine. It goes much further than this, trust me. One of the FUNDAMENTAL tenants required to be a Christian is to believe that mankind is in "total depravity" and can only be saved by the death of the mangod. That Job could hold onto his faith in God against such horrors goes directly against this fundamental teachings of christian doctrine. It represents the syncretic nature of this religion and how their attempt to incorporate the historical lessons of the Tanakh into their new doctrine was a horrible flaw.

The short answer is "God doesn't cease existing without still existing."
Since the one causing the most harm is the one with Omnipotence, the "buck stops at the top not at Satan."

I have heard a few people on here say that those between Adam and Jesus are in hell under Christian doctrine. This is not true and let me say why. For God to be just He is held to what He has told man in a given age. Therefore those that followed God's teachings in any given age are saved by those teachings. Therefore those that lived according to their faith in God before Jesus were "saved" under Christian doctrine. It is "our age" inwhich you must decide to put away your knowledge of justice and accept the doctrine of Original Sin and the brutal murder of an innocent mangod upon a stake at the hands of pagans as salvatory. Those before Jesus had it damn easy if you ask me, heck Abraham was found righteous JUST because he had faith in the LORD, go figure.

But who would be the scapegoat so that people could believe in the carebear version of deity found in most modern religions?

Here's my problem, which is more important. Jesus looking the height of beauty, glory and power. Or human beings being saved from an eternity in hell (speaking from a Christian taught standpoint). As a human being, my priority would be to avoid as much human suffering as possible.

Why was the loss of Christ's life a "cost" to Him? Being human was "lowly", already being God, shedding a lesser life form to go back to a divine life form would hardly seem a "cost". Other than that, a day of pain and 3 days dead aside, there really was no "loss" to God. Especially since a thousand years is like a day to God, those three days were a nanosecond in time.

I'm not sure that Satan would feel "triumphed" over by watching millions go to heave over the past 2000 years, when probably billions are still going to hell for not being Christians. Since Satan does not care for or love humans, he doesn't feel a "loss" when some leave his control. God is the one who feels the loss, I guess, so He really is the one still losing the numbers game.

And this sounds good, but I have not met any Christians who have successfully "turned their back on Satan", (ie: turned completely from sin).

I've been taught two things. 1.) that angels do not have freewill, that was something given special to humans and the angels envy us for having it. (yea, um I'm sure the angels are sitting up in perfect heaven envying the tsunami victims) Anyway, if that is true, then is leaves open the question of how Satan could have rebelled without freewill. And it also leaves open the question of how sin is supposed to be completely obliterated in heaven and why that would even work. 2.) That angels have limited freewill and they do not get an opportunity to repent. Only humans get that because we are a special creation, above the angels.

I was going to make the subtitle: "Digging in deep and rooting out the crap". Sorry to disappoint though, no devil porn going on.

JosephofMessiah,
Thanks for your post. It was very interesting. I always like to see if there are connections between Christianity and earlier religions. And I also like to see what Judaism traditionally teaches as opposed to Christianity.

Well - (when will I ever learn that I must NOT 'take a quick peek' back at this site in the middle of a work day) - I just end up taking yet more 'time off'.

I am still asking some questions (which I haven't found a completely satisfactory the answer to .... yet).

I called in to the 'unchained' radio program a few nights ago - where Gene Cook was discussing predestination - and he referred me to these verses:

Romans 9:22-24 (ESV) :

(I added Bold emphasis)

My thoughts were along lines concerning the "vessels of wrath" - it didn't look (to me at that time) as if God is concerned with their best interests.

I don't completely understand why that is.

I remember some of the verses where Jesus was mentioning about the sheep that the father has given to him. For instance:

John 10:27-29 (ESV) :

](I added Bold emphasis)

I am not so sure that the "imperative to evangelize" is so much about just keeping people out of Hell - (especially if Jesus' sheep are already predestined to go to Heaven anyway) - rather, I am wondering if perhaps the main reason for evangelism is to obey Jesus and spread the good news (which when received by those who God enables ... will bring more Glory to God and thereby increase the joy of Jesus' sheep) as the "vessels of mercy" come to the understanding that the object of their faith and hope has actually already come to earth (as a human being) and taught about how we can begin living in the "Kingdom of God" right here on planet earth ... even while we are still living in these physical bodies!

Consider for instance:

John 17:1-26 (ESV) :

(I added the numbers and Bold for emphasis)

I think (1) was necessary in order to achieve (2).

I think humans need to return to the awe and trust (Faith) in the gloriousness of God - and we need to see the glory of God (through His demonstration by becoming human) in order to return to that state (like we were prior to 'the fall'). I think part of what Hell is, is the total lack of that awe and trust in God - so that we are 'stuck with' only ourselves.

Perhaps the humility Jesus endured (in the eyes of people) was part of the "cost" to Him. At least that is one thing that turns my stomach when I think about Jesus' passion. I consider Jesus to be worthy of ultimate honor - and I sense great injustice when I read how He was subjected to such humbling treatment.

-- God didn't marry Satan.

-- The child originally left the "good parent"/"mom" in favor of siding with the "bad parent"/"dad" - and later learned that the beatings started happening as a result of that decision.

-- The way God has chosen to show us He loves us, is not only by creating us ("giving birth to you") and trying to help us feel better ("cleaning up your wounds"), but rather by taking the same kind of beating that the child was receiving.

-- Perhaps the analogy could end on this note: the mom might say to the child: "By leaving your dad 'in close proximity', you will be able to decide ultimately (now, judging with the wisdom that comes from real experience), if you really want to continue on with your decision to switch your allegiance from me to him, or if you would rather switch your decision ('repent'), and let me take the blows along with you", you will understand better how much I care, if we both deal with this bad guy together - verses if I just make him completely go away.

(I don't know if this all makes sense - but this is what is going through my mind at any rate.)

Yes, I remember you.

True, but according to the Job story they work in conjunction with each other.

Which "child" decided this besides Adam and Eve? That's my problem, basically Christian doctrine says that every human that will ever be born decided to leave God by proxy. Because of "sin nature", there was no "choice".

One of the great Mafia Don in the Sky passages. God is not "un-just" because he can do any thing he likes. After all, who is going to call him on it? There is no Elliot Ness to mess with this Don's bidness. This is one of the passages that shows that there is no absolute morality as is maintained by much of the church. Morality is arbitrary and dependent on the Don's whim. You must fear god and keep your eye on him to see which way his smoke is blowing today. Even then, who knows. You may be the next example used to proclaim the Don's name in all the earth.

The process of making the SkyDon's name known is the same that Osama uses to make his name known.

We see here that even Paul is having trouble maintaining his oxymoron "arbitrary justice". He steps in front of the question, "if god might make me bad, how shall I be good, like he says I should be?" The answer, a backhand slap to the mouth and a "ah, shutup already". Sure the potter has the right to make a leaky pot, but it is then the ultimate in stupidity to blame the pot for leaking after you do.

Can a Christian see that? Sure but s/he better not mention it. You just don't tell Drunk Daddy, he's a drunk. You have to pretend that he is the best Daddy ever, at least in his presence. That is why we get such convoluted commentary on this passage.

Again the height of the absurd, being angry with something for being crap that you intentionally made to be crap

Mark 3:22-30 (ESV) :

(Bold emphasis mine)


Michael,

If you are saying that Jesus was playing the role of "The Prince" - then wouldn't the following scripture passage go against the part that I put in Bold?

Luke 23:33-34 (ESV) :

Michael,

Overall, I still don't think I understand, from the "big picture" angle, what you have been trying to communicate in this thread.

However, some of the sentences you write I do seem to agree with in some ways of looking at them - but the big points - (like for instance Jesus and Satan being one and the same person) - I consider to be completely wrong.

Now - I will at least provide just a few verses that came to my mind when you posted the Mark 15:34 passage.

From the Paraphrase/Commentary/'loosely sometimes thought of as a Translation' - entitled http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65 from :http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%204;&version=65; and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%205;&version=65;