131 replies to this topic

[InChristAlways]

In discussions with a messianic [Deacon] on another board, I was asking him about the "court" in revelation. My question is on the greek word used for "devil".

Quote

Originally Posted by The deacon
The "court of the priests" wouldnt make any sense to you because you dont believe the Temple will be rebuilt. It refers to the court that WILL be there when Messiah comes. Revelation also wont make sense with your view about pre etc. There will also be an area set aside for Gentiles, but outside the Court of Israel, but why confuse you any more is the question?

The simple answer to your question is that during those 40 and 2 months it will be the anti messiah that will be in residence in the Temple which BTW destroys your idea that the Temple wont be there. Its in the middle that Jesus will come and the war with Satan and his minions will begin. It isnt very hard to know IF you know basic Hebrew.

Hi Deacon. I now have all of revelation translated and am now working on Genesis and Isaiah so I can better harmonize it with the NT/NC of Jesus Christ.

Have you seen this topic I put up on Hebrew translations?

http://newjerusalemm....7804#post17804

And as you said, the "anti-messiah" sits in the temple as they did in the first century, the same ones Jesus talked against.

I found it interesting that the word "Devil" also comes from the same greek word as the one used in revelation 11:2.

1228. dia-bolos dee-ab'-ol-os from 1225; a traducer; specially, :--false accuser, devil, slanderer.
1225. dia-ballo dee-ab-al'-lo from 1223 and 906; (figuratively) to traduce:--accuse.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Quote

Reve 11:2 And the Court [#833] [with the Altar of Burnt Offerings/Laver of Water?], the one without[#2081] the Sanctuary/Naos [#3485] be Casting- Out! [#1544] Out-side [#1854] and ye should not be measuring it/her,

1544. ek-ballo ek-bal'-lo from 1537 and 906; to eject (literally or figuratively):--bring forth, cast (forth, out), drive (out), expel, leave, pluck (pull, take, thrust) out, put forth (out), send away (forth, out)

.
Matthew 26:3 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace/court [#833] of the High Priest, who was called Caiaphas,

Matthew 8:12 "But the sons [#5207] of the kingdom [#932] shall be being "cast out" [#1544] into outer [#1857] darkness.

http://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/S...ilAndSatan.html

The Word 'Devil' In The Bible
And so it is with the word 'devil' too. Jesus said, "Have not I chosen you twelve (disciples), and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot..." who was an ordinary, mortal man. He was not speaking of a personal being with horns, or a so-called 'spirit being'. The word 'devil' here simply refers to a wicked man. 1 Tim.3:11 provides another example. The wives of church elders were not to be "slanderers"; the original Greek word here is 'diabolos', which is the same word translated 'devil' elsewhere. Thus Paul warns Titus that the aged women in the ecclesia should not be "false accusers" or 'devils' (Tit.2:3). And likewise he told Timothy (2 Tim.3:1,3) that "In the last days...men shall be...false accusers (devils)". This does not mean that human beings will turn into superhuman beings, but that they will be increasingly wicked. It ought to be quite clear from all this that the words 'devil' and 'satan' do not refer to a fallen Angel or a sinful being outside of us.

Sin, Satan And The Devil
The words 'satan' and 'devil' are used figuratively to describe the natural sinful tendencies within us which we spoke of in Study 6.1. These are our main 'satan' or adversary. They are also personified, and as such they can be spoken of as 'the devil'- our enemy, a slanderer of the truth. This is what our natural 'man' is like - the very devil. The connection between the devil and our evil desires - sin within us - is made explicit in several passages: "As the children (ourselves) are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus) also himself likewise took part of the same; that through (his) death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb.2:14). The devil is here described as being responsible for death. But "the wages of sin is death" (Rom.6:23). Therefore sin and the devil must be parallel. Similarly James 1:14 says that our evil desires tempt us, leading us to sin and therefore to death; but Hebrews 2:14 says that the devil brings death. The same verse says that Jesus had our nature in order to destroy the devil. Contrast this with Rom.8:3: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (that is, in our human nature) condemned sin in the flesh". This shows that the devil and the sinful tendencies that are naturally within human nature are effectively the same. It is vitally important to understand that Jesus was tempted just like us. Misunderstanding the doctrine of the devil means that we cannot correctly appreciate the nature and work of Jesus. It was only because Jesus had our human nature - the 'devil' within him - that we can have the hope of salvation (Heb.2:14-18; 4:15). By overcoming the desires of his own nature, the Biblical devil, Jesus was able to destroy the devil on the cross (Heb.2:14). If the devil is a personal being, then he should no longer exist. Heb.9:26 says that Christ was manifested "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself". Heb.2:14 matches this with the statement that through his death Christ destroyed the devil in himself. By His death Jesus in prospect destroyed "the body of sin" (Rom.6:6), i.e. human nature, sin revealed in (the form of) our very bodies.

"He that committeth sin is of the devil" (1 Jn.3:8), because sin is the result of giving way to our own natural, evil desires (James 1:14,15), which the Bible calls 'the devil'. "For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn.3:8). If we are correct in saying that the devil is our evil desires, then the works of our evil desires, i.e. what they result in, are our sins. This is confirmed by 1 Jn.3:5: "He (Jesus) was manifested to take away our sins". This confirms that "our sins" and "the works of the devil" are the same. Acts 5:3 provides another example of this connection between the devil and our sins. Peter says to Ananias: "Why hath Satan filled thine heart?" Then in verse 4 Peter says "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?" Conceiving something bad within our heart is the same as Satan filling our heart. If we ourselves conceive something, e.g. a sinful plan, then it begins inside us. If a woman conceives a child, it doesn't exist outside of her; it begins inside her. James 1:14,15 use the same figure in describing how our lusts conceive and bring forth sin, which brings forth death. Ps.109:6 parallels a sinful person with a 'satan': "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand", i.e. in power over him (cp. Ps.110:1).

Personification
However, you may reasonably reply: 'But it does talk as if the devil is a person!' That is quite correct; Heb.2:14 speaks of "him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil". Even a small amount of Bible reading shows that it often uses personification - speaking of an abstract idea as if it is a person. Thus Prov. 9:1 speaks of a woman called 'Wisdom' building a house, and Rom.6:23 likens sin to a paymaster giving wages of death. This feature is further discussed in Digression 5. Our devil, the 'diabolos', often represents our evil desires. Yet you cannot have abstract diabolism; the evil desires that are in a man's heart cannot exist separately from a man; therefore 'the devil' is personified. Sin is often personified as a master (e.g. Rom.5:21; 6:6,17; 7:3). It is understandable, therefore, that the 'devil' is also personified, seeing that 'the devil' also refers to sin. In the same way, Paul speaks of us having two beings, as it were, within our flesh (Rom.7:15-21): the man of the flesh, 'the devil', fights with the man of the Spirit. Yet it is evident that there are not two literal, personal beings fighting within us. This sinful part of our nature is personified as "the evil one" (Mt.6:13 R.V.) - the Biblical devil. The same Greek phrase translated "evil one" here is translated as "wicked person" in 1 Cor.5:13, showing that when a person gives way to sin, his "evil one" - he himself - becomes an "evil one", or a 'devil'.

'Devil' And 'Satan' In A Political Context
These words 'devil' and 'satan' are also used to describe the wicked, sinful world order in which we live. The social, political and pseudo-religious hierarchies of mankind can be spoken of in terms of 'the devil'. The devil and satan in the New Testament often refer to the political and social power of the Jewish or Roman systems. Thus we read of the devil casting believers into prison (Rev.2:10), referring to the Roman authorities imprisoning believers. In this same context we read of the church in Pergamos being situated where Satan's seat, or throne, was - i.e. the place of governorship for a Roman colony in Pergamos, where there was also a group of believers. We cannot say that Satan himself, if he exists, personally had a throne in Pergamos.

Individual sin is defined as a transgression against God's law (1 Jn.3:4). But sin expressed collectively as a political and social force opposed to God is a force more powerful than individuals; it is this collective power which is sometimes personified as a powerful being called the devil. In this sense Iran and other Islamic powers have called the United States, "the great Satan" - i.e. the great adversary to their cause, in political and religious terms. This is how the words 'devil' and 'satan' are often used in the Bible.

In conclusion, it is probably true to say that in this subject more than any other, it is vital to base our understanding upon a balanced view of the whole Bible, rather than building massive doctrines on a few verses containing catch-phrases which appear to refer to the common beliefs concerning the devil. Study 6.1 and this section will repay careful, prayerful re-reading. It is submitted that the doctrinal position outlined there is the only way of being able to have a reasonable understanding of all the passages which refer to the devil and satan. Those words can be used as ordinary adjectives, or in some places they refer to the sin which is found within our own human nature. Some of the most widely misunderstood passages which are quoted in support of the popular ideas are considered in the Digressions which accompany this study.

Those who have problems in accepting our conclusions need to ask themselves: (1) Is sin personified? Clearly it is. (2) Is it true that 'satan' can be used just as an adjective? Yes, it is. What real problem, therefore, can there be in accepting that sin is personified as our enemy/satan? The world is often personified in John's letters and Gospel (see R.V.); what better title for this personification than 'satan' or 'the devil'?

Edited by InChristAlways, 12 November 2006 - 09:55 PM.

[The Areopagite]

While I do not deny that the words are often used in the sense that you are advocating, I feel you are not taking into account that these words can also be used as epithets for an individual being with an identity apart from all else.

The book of Job clearly shows the Satan as an individual being capable of conversing with God, as does the temptation of Messiah in the wilderness.

Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Re 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

If the devil is only the nature of flesh man, how is it that the devil is in heaven, and is then cast into the earth? Note that the passage states that the devil "is now come down to you" meaning that the devil has not been among them until this point in time. If the devil is only the nature of flesh man, how is it that he is said to "come down" to them at a fixed time. Would he have not always been with them? Or, in them?

[Richie]

The devil in Revelation 12 refers to the pagan Roman Empire and the heaven is symbolic of the political arena. You can't read Revelation literally, just does not work (unless you want a third of the stars to hit the earth and think the earth would survive).

[InChristAlways]

Quote

If the devil is only the nature of flesh man, how is it that the devil is in heaven, and is then cast into the earth? Note that the passage states that the devil "is now come down to you" meaning that the devil has not been among them until this point in time. If the devil is only the nature of flesh man, how is it that he is said to "come down" to them at a fixed time. Would he have not always been with them? Or, in them?

Do you see any Scriptural reason for the devil to be "cast into the lake of fire" in chapter 20 instead of chapter 19? Another words the "devil" gets a "second chance?

[Young] Reve 19:20 and the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who did the signs before him, in which he led astray those who did receive the mark of the beast, and those who did bow before his image; living they were cast--the two--to the lake of the fire , that is burning with brimstone;

Quote

[Young]Reve 20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night--to the ages of the ages.

http://www.awitness....ess/daniel.html

This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.' I have found that most interpreters focus on chapter nine, and, it would seem, just ignore chapter 11. It is, after all, a simpler solution to their problem here.) Harmonization usually requires one to endure laborious 'explanations' and sheer rationalizations, and even a few pure, one hundred per cent speculative inventions,

Edited by InChristAlways, 21 November 2006 - 10:14 PM.

[The Areopagite]

Since the Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and this is not an eschatological thread, I will concede the point (though I do not agree with the exegesis).

What about the instances mentioned in which the Satan converses with other beings (i.e. Job 1, and the trials in the wilderness)?

[Richie]

An adversary conversed with God in Job. Whether it was an angel or a man, we know not - we aren't told. We do know that it was God who brought the trials into Job's life, as the rest of the book shows. So however we view the adversary's role it all helped produce in Job a better character.

As for the temptations in the wilderness I view the devil/Satan here as the Jewish world that Jesus grew up in which he then wrestled with in the wilderness. I.e. their expectations of Messiah were that he would do miracles, mighty signs and be a militant leader to quash the Roman power. He had to wrestle against these ideas because they appealed to the flesh.

[The Areopagite]

Richie, on Nov 22 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

An adversary conversed with God in Job. Whether it was an angel or a man, we know not - we aren't told. We do know that it was God who brought the trials into Job's life, as the rest of the book shows. So however we view the adversary's role it all helped produce in Job a better character.

I disagree. The Hebrew reads, "gham-ha'sâtân be'tokh'âm" and not, "gham-sâtân be'tokh'âm". This means that "the adversary" conversed with God, and not simply "an adversary". Whoever the being was, the writer writes as though the reader is already familiar with this being. This being only appears by title in Job, and in Zechariah.

I agree that the text does not explicitly state whether the being was a man or an angel. However, the text does show that:

1: This being goes "to and fro in the earth" "walking up and down in it".
2: He is able to enter the presence of God, and converse with God.
3: By being asked, "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth?" it is shown that this being possesses the capability of acquiring knowledge that no mere man can acquire.
4: By writing, "So went Satan forth from the presence of Jehovah, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown." it is shown that the satan is a supernatural being.

Whether the satan is an angel, or something other, is inconsequential. What it shown is that there is an individual being of a status far greater than man and who is called "the satan".

Quote

As for the temptations in the wilderness I view the devil/Satan here as the Jewish world that Jesus grew up in which he then wrestled with in the wilderness. I.e. their expectations of Messiah were that he would do miracles, mighty signs and be a militant leader to quash the Roman power. He had to wrestle against these ideas because they appealed to the flesh.

Ideas do not converse with people. "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine." It is clear that Jesus, like Jehovah, was conversing with an individual being.

And the devil said unto him.
And Jesus answered him.

[Richie]

Whether it's ha-satan or just satan is inconsequential. If I said "a man went to mow" or "the man went to mow", what would be the difference?

So in Job where we read "the adversary" it means "the adversary in this story".

And you missed this point:

Quote

We do know that it was God who brought the trials into Job's life, as the rest of the book shows. So however we view the adversary's role it all helped produce in Job a better character.

So even if it was an angel it was an angel doing God's work, on God's side, on Job's side - helping discipline Job.

As for the temptations you forget that Jesus was taken to the pinnacle of the temple in the wilderness and that he saw all the kingdoms of the world. These things are obviously not literal: he is playing things out in his mind's eye.

Also you will note that all three temptations came up later in his ministry and were presented by the Jews each time - he was training himself to overcome temptations that would keep coming up from the world around him.

[InChristAlways]

Quote

I disagree. The Hebrew reads, "gham-ha'sâtân be'tokh'âm" and not, "gham-sâtân be'tokh'âm". This means that "the adversary" conversed with God, and not simply "an adversary". Whoever the being was, the writer writes as though the reader is already familiar with this being. This being only appears by title in Job, and in Zechariah.

I agree that the text does not explicitly state whether the being was a man or an angel. However, the text does show that:

Thanks for that clarification.

Richie, on Nov 22 2006, 12:43 PM, said:

Whether it's ha-satan or just satan is inconsequential. If I said "a man went to mow" or "the man went to mow", what would be the difference?

There is a fairly significant difference.
There is no article "the" before beginning in Genesis or Revelation.
If I say "the dog" I usually mean a specific one, but if I say "a dog" it is generally not specific.

This interlinear uses the article where it is in the Hebrew and Greek and why I like reading the Bible with it a lot. It does show the article "the" before "satan" [16 times in 12 verses] and "day" in Job 1:6 for example. Regardless of whether it is significant or not, if it is in the Hebrew/Greek it should be translated such. [May have to use more "ink" though] Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Quote

[ISA}Job 1:6 And he is becoming the day and they are coming sons of the Elohim to station themselves on Yahweh and he is coming moreover the Satan in midst of them.................

http://www.olivetree...nglishBible.htm

(Young) Job 1:6 And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst.

(NKJV) Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Quote

quote: The devil in Revelation 12 refers to the pagan Roman Empire and the heaven is symbolic of the political arena. You can't read Revelation literally, just does not work (unless you want a third of the stars to hit the earth and think the earth would survive).

Not all christians or denominations agree it "eschotologically" represents Pagan Rome.

Edited by InChristAlways, 22 November 2006 - 07:19 PM.

[Gileade]

InChristAlways, on Nov 22 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

If I say "the dog" I usually mean a specific one, but if I say "a dog" it is generally not specific.

You are assuming that the article usage is the same in English, Hebrew and Greek. Which isn't.

Some sentences in Hebrew require the article as a grammatical tool to differentiate that sentence type from others which are similar but not the same in meaning. In these cases the article doesn't mean something specific. The article in semitic languages is much more used than in English.

[InChristAlways]

Quote

The Hebrew reads, "gham-ha'sâtân be'tokh'âm" and not, "gham-sâtân be'tokh'âm". This means that "the adversary" conversed with God, and not simply "an adversary". Whoever the being was, the writer writes as though the reader is already familiar with this being. This being only appears by title in Job, and in Zechariah.

I agree that the text does not explicitly state whether the being was a man or an angel. However, the text does show that:

Gileade, on Nov 22 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

InChristAlways, on Nov 22 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

If I say "the dog" I usually mean a specific one, but if I say "a dog" it is generally not specific.

You are assuming that the article usage is the same in English, Hebrew and Greek. Which isn't.

Some sentences in Hebrew require the article as a grammatical tool to differentiate that sentence type from others which are similar but not the same in meaning. In these cases the article doesn't mean something specific. The article in semitic languages is much more used than in English.

The only thing is, we are talking about the Bible, not just any book and I myself will not add or drop any words that is in the original language.
But hey, that is just me, as I read much of the Bible with an interlinear now anyway and it has come more alive to me than ever before [especially Paul's epistles].

http://www.scripture4all.org/

............Our next example has proven a puzzle to the greatest Bible scholars. They have written reams of "Explanations" but the real difficulty remained. In 2 Tim.1:10 the old version reads "Who hath abolished death..." With all due respect to the Bible, we may safely conclude, from the sad evidences so abundant on every side, that death hath not been abolished. It has been in the case of Christ. It will be for His own at His presence, and it will be for all at the consummation. The abolition of death is partly past but mostly future. How can we express this in English? By the very form by which we have chosen to render the Greek indefinite. All incongruity vanishes when we translate "Who, indeed, abolishes death..." Hath abolished will not be true until after death has been done away with as the last enemy. There is a negative test which proves our position as to the aorist, which supplies an interesting example. The statement "in Adam all die" (1 Cor.15:22) was quite perturbing to the writer at one time, as he clings hopefully to the expectation of being alive at the Lord's presence and being changed without passing through death, as set forth in this very chapter (verse 52). It was a welcome relief for him when he noticed that die is not indefinite, but incomplete. It should be rendered are dying......................

Edited by InChristAlways, 22 November 2006 - 07:43 PM.

[Gileade]

InChristAlways, on Nov 22 2006, 07:40 PM, said:

Quote

The Hebrew reads, "gham-ha'sâtân be'tokh'âm" and not, "gham-sâtân be'tokh'âm". This means that "the adversary" conversed with God, and not simply "an adversary". Whoever the being was, the writer writes as though the reader is already familiar with this being. This being only appears by title in Job, and in Zechariah.

I agree that the text does not explicitly state whether the being was a man or an angel. However, the text does show that:

Gileade, on Nov 22 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

InChristAlways, on Nov 22 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

If I say "the dog" I usually mean a specific one, but if I say "a dog" it is generally not specific.

You are assuming that the article usage is the same in English, Hebrew and Greek. Which isn't.

Some sentences in Hebrew require the article as a grammatical tool to differentiate that sentence type from others which are similar but not the same in meaning. In these cases the article doesn't mean something specific. The article in semitic languages is much more used than in English.

The only thing is, we are talking about the Bible, not just any book and I myself will not add or drop any words that is in the original language.
But hey, that is just me, as I read much of the Bible with an interlinear now anyway and it has come more alive to me than ever before [especially Paul's epistles].

In portuguese we use the article also a lot more than the English speaking people do, if I am going to translate a text from portuguese to English and translate all the articles it will be quite weird and cumbersome, and the meaning will be affected, as in portuguese we might use the article and it doesn't make any noun 'special' and when translated literally to english the reader will think that the noun is emphasized and it isn't.

[InChristAlways]

Quote

In portuguese we use the article also a lot more than the English speaking people do, if I am going to translate a text from portuguese to English and translate all the articles it will be quite weird and cumbersome, and the meaning will be affected, as in portuguese we might use the article and it doesn't make any noun 'special' and when translated literally to english the reader will think that the noun is emphasized and it isn't.

OK.

[The Areopagite]

@Richie

Quote

Whether it's ha-satan or just satan is inconsequential. If I said "a man went to mow" or "the man went to mow", what would be the difference?

There is a large difference. The use of (or lack thereof) an indefinite article conveys possessable quality. "A man" invites the question, "What is 'man'?" The use of the definite article conveys possessable identity. "The man" invites the question, "Which specific 'man'?"

Quote

So in Job where we read "the adversary" it means "the adversary in this story".

The definite article shows familiarity to the reader. By using the article, the writer is acknowledging that the reader is already aware of the identity of this specific adversary. It is as if I say, "I am going to the river"- I have acknowledged that you are already familiar with the specific river.

To convey "the adversary of this story" the writer would first use the word "satan" without the article, and then would begin to use the article. "A satan came among them" and then "the satan (the one that was previously shown coming among them and is now the adversary of this story)."

That is not what is done. The writer begins "the satan" which acknowledges "the satan you already know about, who is also now being spoken of in this story."

Quote

So even if it was an angel it was an angel doing God's work, on God's side, on Job's side - helping discipline Job.

The chapter does show that there is an individual being called "the satan", who is not a man, nor a mischievious tendancy of the flesh, nor a political body. He is the only individual being specifically designated as "the adversary".

Also, I object to the notion that the satan was on the side of God. In the conversation, the satan implictly accuses Jehovah of being an incompetant judge. This is not the act of a "good guy working with God". God has pronounced Job as "perfect and upright". The satan clearly says, "You are wrong." The satan has done nothing less than to accuse God of incompetance, and that right during the gathering of the sons of God. He has done nothing less than to place God on trial. If Job fails the test, God is proven wrong. This is not the act of a being on the side of God.

Quote

As for the temptations you forget that Jesus was taken to the pinnacle of the temple in the wilderness and that he saw all the kingdoms of the world. These things are obviously not literal: he is playing things out in his mind's eye.

If the satan is shown in Job as having the power to control humans, call down fire and control the winds; there is no problem with him being able to transport Jesus anywhere. I do not know how he showed Jesus all the kingdoms "in a moment of time"; I do know that he did. And this is clearly quite real. This is a narrative. A being came to Jesus, conversed with Jesus and departed Jesus.

"And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

The being asked Jesus to "prostrate and worship". Someone was there in order for Jesus to be able to prostrate before.

Quote

Also you will note that all three temptations came up later in his ministry and were presented by the Jews each time - he was training himself to overcome temptations that would keep coming up from the world around him.

Elaborate on this statement, if you will.

@Gileade

Quote

You are assuming that the article usage is the same in English, Hebrew and Greek. Which isn't.

Some sentences in Hebrew require the article as a grammatical tool to differentiate that sentence type from others which are similar but not the same in meaning. In these cases the article doesn't mean something specific. The article in semitic languages is much more used than in English.

This is certainly not one of those construct instances. There is no question that the writer is speaking of a specific being whose identity the reader is already aware of.

Edited by The Areopagite, 22 November 2006 - 08:27 PM.

[Richie]

The Areopagite, on Nov 22 2006, 12:26 PM, said:

@Richie

Quote

Whether it's ha-satan or just satan is inconsequential. If I said "a man went to mow" or "the man went to mow", what would be the difference?

There is a large difference. The use of (or lack thereof) an indefinite article conveys possessable quality. "A man" invites the question, "What is 'man'?" The use of the definite article conveys possessable identity. "The man" invites the question, "Which specific 'man'?"

Quote

So in Job where we read "the adversary" it means "the adversary in this story".

The definite article shows familiarity to the reader. By using the article, the writer is acknowledging that the reader is already aware of the identity of this specific adversary. It is as if I say, "I am going to the river"- I have acknowledged that you are already familiar with the specific river.

To convey "the adversary of this story" the writer would first use the word "satan" without the article, and then would begin to use the article. "A satan came among them" and then "the satan (the one that was previously shown coming among them and is now the adversary of this story)."

That is not what is done. The writer begins "the satan" which acknowledges "the satan you already know about, who is also now being spoken of in this story."

Will get back to this thread later (lack of time right now) but just quickly... if you were writing a play on an established theme you might have in the list of parts at the beginning something like this:

The Villain - played by Ima Nactor

The term "The Villain" is used because there is a certain villain in the play whose exact identity we perhaps not need to know and all we really need to know is he is the villain, as every good story needs a villain.

In Job the Satan is The Villain.

[Steven]

The Areopagite, on Nov 22 2006, 09:26 PM, said:

And this is clearly quite real. This is a narrative. A being came to Jesus, conversed with Jesus and departed Jesus.

Areopagite
If I said I'd met Santa Claus, Jack Frost or Uncle Sam you wouldn't take it literally, so what hard evidence do you have that the disciples took Jesus literally?

While there may well have been a real historical Job (much earlier than the book) it's clear that Book of Job is highly stylised, a wisdom book or poetry - especially the Prologue - the proof being "fire of God" not "fire of Satan". The book is probably contemporary with, and shares a common origin, with Micaiah's sarcastic rebuke to Ahaz' prophets in 1Kings22. Angels don't talk-back to God. Not in real life. Neither do angels hold court cases for the priests in the day of Ezra (Zech3). Nor is there really a Prince of Persia, any more than there were 20 new national angels appointed when the USSR fell apart. These things are stories, images, symbols, metaphors, parables

And if Job's throneroom, Micaiah's throneroom, Zechariah's courtroom, are only stories, so is Matt.4.

Sorry but it's the only solution that ties all the Bible verses together.
God bless
S

[The Areopagite]

@Richie

Quote

if you were writing a play on an established theme you might have in the list of parts at the beginning something like this:

Job does not begin with a cast list, so the analogy is a false one.

Quote

In Job the Satan is The Villain.

I do not disagree. However, the discussion was not the status of the satan; but whether or not the term "the satan" refers to a specific individual being rather than an abstract tendancy of the flesh, a political body, etc.

Unless one wishes to state (without just cause) that Job and the trials in the wilderness are pure fabrication; these both show that there is clearly an individual being of supernatural power who is known by the epithet "the satan".

@Steven

Quote

If I said I'd met Santa Claus, Jack Frost or Uncle Sam you wouldn't take it literally,

This is because my conclusion would be based on the unstated premise that Santa Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam are ficitonal; and this is held because of established reasons. I would then conclude that you were lying to me when you said you had met them.

However, the unstated premise "the satan is fictional" is held by you and is not held by me. Therefore this analogy is also a false analogy.

Quote

so what hard evidence do you have that the disciples took Jesus literally?

The manner in which the disciples, took Jesus, is irrelevant and unknowable. What is knowable is that the narrative speaks in clear language and presents the satan as an individual being capable of conversing with another individual being; having a desire; and being supernatural.

Quote

While there may well have been a real historical Job (much earlier than the book) it's clear that Book of Job is highly stylised, a wisdom book or poetry - especially the Prologue - the proof being "fire of God" not "fire of Satan".

I do not follow how men using the phrase "fire of God" and not "fire of Satan" proves that the account is fictional. Are the trials in the wilderness also fictional? Is the exodus from Egypt fictional? Is Seth fictional? Where is the line drawn if one arbitrarily assigns reality status to biblical events based upon whim of conflicting doctrine?

Quote

The book is probably contemporary with, and shares a common origin, with Micaiah's sarcastic rebuke to Ahaz' prophets in 1Kings22.

This is both irrelevant and unable to be demonstrated.

Quote

Angels don't talk-back to God. Not in real life. Neither do angels hold court cases for the priests in the day of Ezra (Zech3). Nor is there really a Prince of Persia, any more than there were 20 new national angels appointed when the USSR fell apart.

How do you know this?

Quote

Sorry but it's the only solution that ties all the Bible verses together.

I do not follow as to how this conclusion is being reached.

[Steven]

Hi Areo

The Areopagite, on Nov 24 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

@Richie

Quote

if you were writing a play on an established theme you might have in the list of parts at the beginning something like this:

Job does not begin with a cast list, so the analogy is a false one.

Neither does Pagliacci. Nevertheless the reason commentaries call Job 1 "The Prologue" is because, as Tonio's "stagesetting" first aria in Pagliacci, it does actually function as a prologue. Like it or not this is a distinct literary form - and Job - while it is certainly unusual even without direct parallel in ANE wisdom literature, does have a prologue-dialogues-summation-conclusion-coda structure which isn't like (say) straight history of 1 Kings.

Quote

@Steven

Quote

If I said I'd met Santa Claus, Jack Frost or Uncle Sam you wouldn't take it literally,

This is because my conclusion would be based on the unstated premise that Santa Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam are ficitonal; and this is held because of established reasons. I would then conclude that you were lying to me when you said you had met them.

Well I wouldn't be "lying" I'd be about to tell you a parable, and I'd assume that since you'd read your Old Testament and knew that Santas Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam were symbols, figures.

Quote

However, the unstated premise "the satan is fictional" is held by you and is not held by me. Therefore this analogy is also a false analogy.

Correct - between you and me. But I would never talk casually about "Satan" to you because I know that. The issue is whether the premise that Satan is an allegory was held on the basis of the OT verses by the 12.

How do you know for a fact that the 12 read Job1 as a literal historical sequence of events with a real angel.

How do you know this? Because there's plenty of 1st Century Rabbis who didn't take Job literally, so how do you know for a fact that the 12 did?

Do you know for a fact they read the Woman in the Basket in Zech3 literally?
Do you know for a fact they took Micaiah's slap in the face prophecy literally?

How do you know what the disciples believed re OT references to Satan?
S

[The Areopagite]

Quote

Hi Areo

Greetings, Steven.

Quote

Quote

Quote

if you were writing a play on an established theme you might have in the list of parts at the beginning something like this:

Job does not begin with a cast list, so the analogy is a false one.

Neither does Pagliacci.

This is another false analogy since Job isn't being performed on stage as theatrics. If you refer to the written composition, then it does begin with a list of roles; Job doesn't.

Quote

Nevertheless the reason commentaries call Job 1 "The Prologue" is because, as Tonio's "stagesetting" first aria in Pagliacci, it does actually function as a prologue. Like it or not this is a distinct literary form - and Job - while it is certainly unusual even without direct parallel in ANE wisdom literature, does have a prologue-dialogues-summation-conclusion-coda structure which isn't like (say) straight history of 1 Kings.

I do not disagree. Irrelevant, however.

Quote

Quote

Quote

If I said I'd met Santa Claus, Jack Frost or Uncle Sam you wouldn't take it literally,

This is because my conclusion would be based on the unstated premise that Santa Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam are ficitonal; and this is held because of established reasons. I would then conclude that you were lying to me when you said you had met them.

Well I wouldn't be "lying" I'd be about to tell you a parable

There would be no way for me to come to that conclusion. I would conclude you were lying to me. If you said to me, "I will tell you a parable" then I would then understand. If you do not tell me, "I will tell you a parable" then there is no way for me to know that you are not lying to me.

Quote

and I'd assume that since you'd read your Old Testament and knew that Santas Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam were symbols, figures.

I do not follow this statement.

Quote

Quote

However, the unstated premise "the satan is fictional" is held by you and is not held by me. Therefore this analogy is also a false analogy.

Correct - between you and me. But I would never talk casually about "Satan" to you because I know that. The issue is whether the premise that Satan is an allegory was held on the basis of the OT verses by the 12.

That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not "the satan" ever refers to an individual being.

Quote

How do you know for a fact that the 12 read Job1 as a literal historical sequence of events with a real angel.

Neither of us knows the minds of the apostles on the matter. Therefore, the question is irrelevant, and unknowable. Conclusions must be based on the information presented.

Quote

How do you know this? Because there's plenty of 1st Century Rabbis who didn't take Job literally, so how do you know for a fact that the 12 did?

The beliefs of others are irrelevant to the issue. Knowing what the apostles believed 'for a fact' on this matter is irrelevant.

Quote

Do you know for a fact they read the Woman in the Basket in Zech3 literally?
Do you know for a fact they took Micaiah's slap in the face prophecy literally?

How do you know what the disciples believed re OT references to Satan?

All irrelevant.

Prima facie, the satan is used in reference to an individual being in these accounts. By what reasoning do you conclude otherwise? Why do you believe that the trial in the wilderness narrative is not to be taken as written? What other instances in the ministry of Jesus were also fabrications?

If the satan is fictional in the story of Job, is Jehovah also fictional? If the satan is fictional in the trials in the wilderness, what else of the gospels are fictional? Why is it so difficult to take the account of the trials in the wilderness at face value?

Edited by The Areopagite, 25 November 2006 - 06:47 PM.

[Richie]

It is possible to take the wilderness temptations at face value, and then by letting Scripture interpret Scripture you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh - not to some fallen angel or some such monster.

If you dive into Job or Matthew 4 head first without the context of Scripture you can make up who the devil/Satan is and invent any interpretation you want. But if you use the rest of Scripture you are never going to come to the conclusion that the devil and Satan refers to a supernatural monster of wickedness.

That's especially the case if you start from the beginning of the Bible and start reading. You are never going to conclude there is such a notion as the popular devil idea.

[The Areopagite]

Quote

It is possible to take the wilderness temptations at face value, and then by letting Scripture interpret Scripture you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh - not to some fallen angel or some such monster.

Can you demonstrate why, "you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh" is supposed to be taken as a true statement?

Quote

If you dive into Job or Matthew 4 head first without the context of Scripture you can make up who the devil/Satan is and invent any interpretation you want.

Disagree. If you read the account prima facie it shows that the devil is an individual being capable of conversing with another individual, having desires, and being supernatural. I do not follow how you conclude anything else. Are there any other narratives in the gospels that are similar; i.e. in which Jesus converses with what is prima facie an individual being, but the being is not real? Or is this account (or, your understanding of the account) wholly unique and without precedent in the gospels? Is this the only narrative account in the gospels where one is not to believe what is said prima facie?

Quote

But if you use the rest of Scripture you are never going to come to the conclusion that the devil and Satan refers to a supernatural monster of wickedness.

Can you demonstrate this statement in any way?

[The Areopagite]

Quote

It is possible to take the wilderness temptations at face value, and then by letting Scripture interpret Scripture you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh - not to some fallen angel or some such monster.

Can you demonstrate why, "you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh" is supposed to be taken as a true statement?

Quote

If you dive into Job or Matthew 4 head first without the context of Scripture you can make up who the devil/Satan is and invent any interpretation you want.

Disagree. If you read the account prima facie it shows that the devil is an individual being capable of conversing with another individual, having desires, and being supernatural. I do not follow how you conclude anything else. Are there any other narratives in the gospels that are similar; i.e. in which Jesus converses with what is prima facie an individual being, but the being is not real? Or is this account (or, your understanding of the account) wholly unique and without precedent in the gospels? Is this the only narrative account in the gospels where one is not to believe what is said prima facie?

Quote

But if you use the rest of Scripture you are never going to come to the conclusion that the devil and Satan refers to a supernatural monster of wickedness.

Can you demonstrate this statement in any way?

[Steven]

Hi Areo

The Areopagite, on Nov 25 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

if you were writing a play on an established theme you might have in the list of parts at the beginning something like this:

Job does not begin with a cast list, so the analogy is a false one.

Neither does Pagliacci.

This is another false analogy since Job isn't being performed on stage as theatrics. If you refer to the written composition, then it does begin with a list of roles; Job doesn't.

Again. How do you know how Job was originally performed? How do you know for certain that it isn't designed to be read out by different actors?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If I said I'd met Santa Claus, Jack Frost or Uncle Sam you wouldn't take it literally,

This is because my conclusion would be based on the unstated premise that Santa Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam are ficitonal; and this is held because of established reasons. I would then conclude that you were lying to me when you said you had met them.

Well I wouldn't be "lying" I'd be about to tell you a parable

There would be no way for me to come to that conclusion. I would conclude you were lying to me. If you said to me, "I will tell you a parable" then I would then understand. If you do not tell me, "I will tell you a parable" then there is no way for me to know that you are not lying to me.

Does that mean in the NT that every time Jesus tells a parable and doesn't use the word "parable" he is "lying"?

Quote

Quote

and I'd assume that since you'd read your Old Testament and knew that Santas Claus, Jack Frost and Uncle Sam were symbols, figures.

I do not follow this statement.

If Santa Claus appeared in Zech., as a Woman in a Basket, Four Horsemen etc. you'd know that it was a symbol, figure.

Quote

Quote

How do you know for a fact that the 12 read Job1 as a literal historical sequence of events with a real angel.

Neither of us knows the minds of the apostles on the matter. Therefore, the question is irrelevant, and unknowable. Conclusions must be based on the information presented.

But I believe we do know what the minds of the apostles were on the matter. Their own usage (and non-usage) of the terms "devil" and "Satan" shows to me that they read Job 1 as a story, not as history.

Quote

Quote

How do you know this? Because there's plenty of 1st Century Rabbis who didn't take Job literally, so how do you know for a fact that the 12 did?

The beliefs of others are irrelevant to the issue. Knowing what the apostles believed 'for a fact' on this matter is irrelevant.

That's about the fifth or sixth "irrelevant". Let's imagine I told you a story about Guan Yu. You'd want to know whether Guan Yu was a historical or legendary figure before trying to interpret the story. But if the story contained fantastical elements ~ such as the fantastical elements in Micaiah's throne room vision, you'd know that the story was probably symbolic and as such Guan Yu might be a non-historical character.

Quote

Quote

Do you know for a fact they read the Woman in the Basket in Zech3 literally?
Do you know for a fact they took Micaiah's slap in the face prophecy literally?
How do you know what the disciples believed re OT references to Satan?

All irrelevant.

Why? Who says it's irrelevant. We're making a judgment of what Satan means in the writings of the apostles and it's irrelevant what they believed re Satan in the OT?

Quote

Prima facie, the satan is used in reference to an individual being in these accounts. By what reasoning do you conclude otherwise? Why do you believe that the trial in the wilderness narrative is not to be taken as written? What other instances in the ministry of Jesus were also fabrications?

Well all Jesus' parables which don't begin with "this is a parable" are fabrications by your definition of "lying" above.

Quote

If the satan is fictional in the story of Job, is Jehovah also fictional?

Yes. Of course. Jehovah never had this conversation.

Quote

If the satan is fictional in the trials in the wilderness, what else of the gospels are fictional?

All the parables. Jesus literally being manna from heaven. etc.

Quote

Why is it so difficult to take the account of the trials in the wilderness at face value?

Because they feature a character who in the OT only exists in stories and prophecies taking Christ up to see all the kingdoms of the world in an instant.
S

[Richie]

The Areopagite, on Nov 25 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Quote

It is possible to take the wilderness temptations at face value, and then by letting Scripture interpret Scripture you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh - not to some fallen angel or some such monster.

Can you demonstrate why, "you have to conclude that the devil refers to the thinking of the flesh" is supposed to be taken as a true statement?

Because everything connected with the devil is earthly and sensual: utterly natural and not at all supernatural. Think of Genesis 3 where sin enters the world. An animal speaks forth animal logic. Eve's natural animal tendencies take over. God speaks to Cain and warns about the animal within. Echoes with the serpent in Romans 16 (which mentions Satan) and Philippians 3 speak of serving one's belly or appetite - it's all about the propensities of the flesh and not some super-powerful spirit being.

Edited by Lectron, 26 November 2006 - 07:18 AM.

[Richie]

The Areopagite, on Nov 25 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Are there any other narratives in the gospels that are similar; i.e. in which Jesus converses with what is prima facie an individual being, but the being is not real?

In Gethsemane, when he was all alone, and he said "not my will but yours..." - he was struggling with the animal within, the thinking of the flesh, the same thing he was stuggling with in the wilderness.

Have a look-see at Romans 7 to see how we can view the law of sin in our members as a different being, even though it's not.

Quote

Or is this account (or, your understanding of the account) wholly unique and without precedent in the gospels? Is this the only narrative account in the gospels where one is not to believe what is said prima facie?

What does prima facie mean?

[Richie]

The Areopagite, on Nov 25 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Quote

But if you use the rest of Scripture you are never going to come to the conclusion that the devil and Satan refers to a supernatural monster of wickedness.

Can you demonstrate this statement in any way?

Yes very easily. If you do the exercise of looking up the word "Satan" in the Old Testament you will see the vast majority of times it refers to human beings.

If you look up the word "devil" in the Old Testament you won't find it even once.

If you look up occasions where sin or evil happen in the Old Testament you will read multiples accounts in

- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus

Before you come to Numbers where the first occurrence of the term Satan occurs, but it refers to an angel of God.

Then you can read through Deutronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth... and so on... and you never come across any supernatural reason for sin - it always comes from people listening to their fleshly instincts and there is never any responsibility thrown on the shoulders of some supernatural being.

And then when you read about evil you learn in places such as Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 45 and Job that it is God who is responsible for bad things happening like plagues and disease. In fact to say otherwise: to say that it is the workings of unclean spirits is tantamount to blasphemy.

So in the Old Testament the devil is unemployed: he doesn't cause sin and he doesn't cause evil.

So why do you think it's any different in the New Testament? Don't you think the terms devil and Satan need to be interpreted in light of the Old Testament revelation that some supernatural being of wickedness simply does not exist? All you have to go on in the Old Testament is one book: Job, a book of poetry! And even there the cause of Job's calamity, all the way through the book, is ascribed to God.

The evidence is overwhelming that there is no such thing as the popular devil character. The Bible devil is something completely different. The Bible devil is something like that manifested by Peter when he said "pity yourself" to his Lord and Jesus said "get behind me Satan! you are an offence to me and are savouring the things that be of men". Of men: that which is earthly and sensual.

Why do you think the Old Testament opens in the way it does? Don't you think it's reminding us of Adam and Eve and the serpent? Don't you think that their conversation with the animal is repeated by the Son of God, who converses with the animal within and overcomes what Adam and Eve succumbed to?

And what do you make of John 3:14?

[Lectron]

The Areopagite, on Nov 21 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

The book of Job clearly shows the Satan as an individual being capable of conversing with God, as does the temptation of Messiah in the wilderness.

Taking the second point first, a quick read of the temptation seems to indicate the accompaniment of a person coming and entering into a discussion with Jesus, however, a closer study indicates this is a cosmic internal struggle by the Lord Jesus which he is well able to overcome by quoting a few scriptures!!

Think about that! The person he is conversing with (if indeed a person) is in full respect of God's word - so who would that be then?

Now coming to Job, you find the same problem of character. If the Satan of Job is a personage such as a 'fallen' angel why does this personage have to go to God Almighty and get His permission before bringing the plagues of loss of property, loss of children, loss of health etc? If an under-manager in a Company went to the general manager of that firm to obtain an endorsement for his action,(say to sack an employee), who is morally responsible for it?

Edited by Lectron, 26 November 2006 - 07:49 AM.

[The Areopagite]

@Steven

Quote

Hi Areo

Greetings, Steven.

Quote

Again. How do you know how Job was originally performed? How do you know for certain that it isn't designed to be read out by different actors?

This is something that needs to be demonstrated by you, and not me. One can make the claim, "Jesus was a space man from Betelguese"; however, when pressed for reasons to believe this, it is not reasonably permissable for the one making the claim to state, "How do you know for certain that He was not?" as a form of demonstration.

If you believe that Job is designed to be a stage play, then you must demonstrate that proposition. It is not my responsibility to demonstrate that He was not a space man.

Quote

Does that mean in the NT that every time Jesus tells a parable and doesn't use the word "parable" he is "lying"?

Jesus is not speaking in this account. It is narrative. Since Jesus is not speaking, one can be reasonably sure that this is not a parable. Are any other narratives in the gospels "parabolic narratives"?

Quote

If Santa Claus appeared in Zech., as a Woman in a Basket, Four Horsemen etc. you'd know that it was a symbol, figure.

I have already stated that Santa Claus is a false analogy since I already have knowledge of the fictional status of Santa Claus. The fictional/non-fictional status of the satan is the very argument in this discussion. By introducing Santa Claus by way of analogy, you are attempting to circumvent the argument and disguise your premise as the conclusion. This is begging the question.

The woman in the basket and the four horsemen are reasonably said to be symbols because the scripture provides information to the reader stating that Zechariah is seeing visions. This information is not presented in either Job or the trials in the wilderness accounts. I will also note that the woman in the basket and the four horsemen do not hold conversations with Zechariah and Jehovah. Again, this is another false analogy.

Quote

But I believe we do know what the minds of the apostles were on the matter. Their own usage (and non-usage) of the terms "devil" and "Satan" shows to me that they read Job 1 as a story, not as history.

Cite a passage to support this claim. Note that the use of the word must be preceeded by the definite article. I have already agreed, and noted, that the word "diabolos" and "satan" respectively mean "false accuser" and "adversary" and can be applied to anything that does such. With the definite article, the words can be applied to a specific individual being, as well.

Quote

That's about the fifth or sixth "irrelevant". Let's imagine I told you a story about Guan Yu. You'd want to know whether Guan Yu was a historical or legendary figure before trying to interpret the story. But if the story contained fantastical elements ~ such as the fantastical elements in Micaiah's throne room vision, you'd know that the story was probably symbolic and as such Guan Yu might be a non-historical character.

This is altogether untrue. If I trusted you, and you told me a story of Guan Yu without hinting that this individual was a symbol, and spoke of Guan Yu conversing with Liu Bei, I would believe you were telling me a true story about a real individual. Nothing would lead me to conclude that you were speaking in symbols, and no such an individual existed.

If your story contained fantastical elements, this would also be irrelevant in concluding that you were not intending me to understand that you were speaking of an existent individual. I may be inclined to surmise that you were embelishing the events of the account, but this would not affect my understanding of Guan Yu being taken as a real individual.

Also, if the presence of fantastical elements suggest to you that accounts of individuals are meant to be taken as symbols, and not real people; then it must follow that you have dismissed a great many biblical individuals as being symbols- Jesus at the fore.

Quote

Why? Who says it's irrelevant. We're making a judgment of what Satan means in the writings of the apostles and it's irrelevant what they believed re Satan in the OT?

What is written in scripture is relevant.

Quote

Well all Jesus' parables which don't begin with "this is a parable" are fabrications by your definition of "lying" above.

If that were true, then yes. However, scripture provides information directly stating that Jesus only spoke in parables to the peoples; and, for the most part, the parables are plainly stated as being such. Job is nothing like this in presentation. It is another false analogy.

Quote

Yes. Of course. Jehovah never had this conversation.

I asked whether you believe that Jehovah is fictional.

Quote

All the parables. Jesus literally being manna from heaven.

I am talking about narrative accounts. If Jesus were speaking the entire account (i.e. the account is all in red letters in the red letter KJV) then I would agree with you without doubt. However, this is a narrative account. I ask again, what other narrative accounts in the gospels do not occur as they are said to have occured? What other narrative accounts in the gospels feature talking symbols not to be taken at face value?

I believe that you will find that your argument is wholly unprecedented in all of the gospels. I believe you will argue that all narrative accounts are to be taken at face value- except this one. The question still remains, "Why?" I believe your doctrine is forcing your hand, and forcing you (without right cause) to believe something that you would never believe in any other narrative account in the gospels.

Quote

Because they feature a character who in the OT only exists in stories and prophecies taking Christ up to see all the kingdoms of the world in an instant.

In other words, "Because they feature a fictional character". This is nothing more than begging the question. Many real scriptural beings (i.e. Messiah) are spoken of in prophecy; so being spoken of in prophecy does not equate to fictional. The entire scripture is a series of stories; so being spoken of in a story does not equate to fictional. Many real individuals in scripture perform fantastic feats; so working in fantastic ways does not equate to fictional.

[The Areopagite]

@Richie

Quote

Because everything connected with the devil is earthly and sensual: utterly natural and not at all supernatural.

And yet in the Job account the satan is supernatural (i.e. no natural being has the power to "consider Job" among "all the other peoples of the earth") and in the trials in the wilderness the satan is also supernatural (i.e. can transport himself and another to distant locales and show visions in an instant). Therefore, your statement "everything connected with the devil [is] not at all supernatural" is false.

Quote

Quote

Are there any other narratives in the gospels that are similar; i.e. in which Jesus converses with what is prima facie an individual being, but the being is not real?

In Gethsemane, when he was all alone, and he said "not my will but yours..."

Since you have answered the question in such a way, it must follow from your reasoning that:

(1) God is not a real being.
(2) Jesus is not a real being.

I wager that the true answer is:

(3) You misunderstanding the question, and Jesus and God are both real, and that there is no other narrative account contained in the scripture in which Jesus converses with a being who is actually an unreal symbol?

Quote

What does prima facie mean?

"At face value" "Upon first appearence". This means that when you read a narrative account which contains two conversing individuals, then "upon first appearence" it is talking about two conversing individuals. It should continue to be considered this way until an affirmative defense is proposed.

Quote

Quote

Quote

But if you use the rest of Scripture you are never going to come to the conclusion that the devil and Satan refers to a supernatural monster of wickedness.

Can you demonstrate this statement in any way?

Yes very easily. If you do the exercise of looking up the word "Satan" in the Old Testament you will see the vast majority of times it refers to human beings.

Interestingly enough, you are going to go everywhere in the bible except Job and the trials in the wilderness in an attempt to address the question. This is merely concealed evidence fallacy. I will note firstly that I have already agreed that the words can refer to anything that falsely accuses and/or is adversarial; so this answer is irrelevant.

I have also stated that the words can refer to specific individuals. This occurs in the two accounts I have mentioned. In both accounts the being is shown to be a supernatural entity of some sort. So, merely asserting "If you look at this verse, the flesh is an adversary; therefore all instances of 'satan' must refer to the flesh" is wrong.

Quote

If you look up the word "devil" in the Old Testament you won't find it even once.

That is not entirely true since you are basing your statement on an assumed translation (i.e. the word does appear in the KJV old testament); however, the word is generally derived from the Greek "diabolos" and is therefore not going to be found in the Hebrew old testament. This is to be expected and is neither a surprise or a reasonable argument.

Quote

If you look up occasions where sin or evil happen...

You have a lengthy post following this statement which provides much rhetorical about the cause of sin and evil. But since I am not arguing that the satan is the direct cause of all evils and sins, this line of argument is irrelevant. I am arguing that "the satan" refers to a specific individual being of supernatural status. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Quote

The evidence is overwhelming that there is no such thing as the popular devil character.

The evidence is overwhelming that the words "satan" and "diabolos" can be, and frequently are, ascribed to various things which are "adversarial" and "accuse falsely"; and also that the words "ha'satan" and "ho'diabolos" refer to a specific invididual being who is both adversarial and a false accuser.

Quote

The Bible devil is something like that manifested by Peter when he said "pity yourself" to his Lord and Jesus said "get behind me Satan!

Because Peter was being adversarial to the work of Christ. Naturally, the word "satanos" applies to him in this case. And if Peter, a specific individual being (not a talking symbol), can be addresses as "an adversary"; then it is reasonable to conclude that a specific individual being (not a talking symbol) can be addressed as "the adversary".

Quote

Why do you think the Old Testament opens in the way it does? Don't you think it's reminding us of Adam and Eve and the serpent? Don't you think that their conversation with the animal is repeated by the Son of God, who converses with the animal within and overcomes what Adam and Eve succumbed to?

The serpent was a real entity; or, are you saying that the serpent is also a talking symbol?

Quote

And what do you make of John 3:14?

The seraph foreshadowed the crucifixion.

[The Areopagite]

@Lectron

Quote

Taking the second point first, a quick read of the temptation seems to indicate the accompaniment of a person coming and entering into a discussion with Jesus, however, a closer study indicates this is a cosmic internal struggle by the Lord Jesus

How so? What other narrative accounts in the gospel seem to indicate the accompaniment of a person coming and entering discussion with Jesus but closer study indicates the account is an internal struggle, and the person conversing with Jesus is actually a talking symbol?

Quote

The person he is conversing with (if indeed a person) is in full respect of God's word

It is not possible to determine the respect of the being in relation to the scripture he quotes. One is perfectly able to quote something without respecting the source of the quote.

Quote

so who would that be then?

The satan.

Quote

If the Satan of Job is a personage such as a 'fallen' angel why does this personage have to go to God Almighty and get His permission...

Because God is sovereign and nothing can be done without His permission.