• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nothing Short Of Perfection

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE

Forum Members :



REGARDING THE HISTORY OF LUCIFER BECOMING AN ENEMY TO GOD, THE WAR IN HEAVEN:


Clear asked Billiardsball
: “What data can you give us concerning the origin of Lucifer, his motives and reasoning for becoming an enemy to God and the war in heaven and Lucifers motives and relationship to the fall of mankind and his continued status as an enemy to mankind?” (post 273)

Clear explained : “…early Christian doctrines and their textual witnesses contain a much more rational, logical and historically coherent and detailed model for mans existence; for God’s plans; for the origin and existence of Lucifer, and what God is doing than the later Christian theories that sprang from the later age and minds of theologians. “(Post #292 )

Billiardsball answered : " From where, then, in the scriptures, is it logical and intuitive that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" (post 298)


Simply offering this currently irrelevant question does not provide data, rational and logical data for understanding the origin of Lucifer.

“I remember a historical discussion regarding the origin of Satan where the poster commented :
...there's nothing, scripturally speaking, that addresses the question of the origin of evil (or Satan, if you prefer). The only hint is in Genesis 3 where the serpent (in later tradition -- again without scriptural support -- identified as the devil) appears quite suddenly as part of an apparently very good creation. Nary a word of comment on the origins of this creature....

That’s it, in toto.

Such statements reveal a lack of a framework for understanding the basic issues surrounding what is going on with all of this “good” and “evil” that none of us avoid inside of creation; and demonstrate the value of turning to the earliest Christian teachings and their writings on such issues (in the period before many of the important doctrines were lost or changed). I do not believe that modern christian theory is as coherent; nor as understandable as the early Judao-Christian doctrines regarding Lucifers origins and motives for his fall from heaven.

Though there are many modern theories regarding how Lucifer, an archangel with some authority became Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, there is a great deal of early literature regarding what the early christians themselves believed regarding the Origin and motives of Lucifer (his “name” before he became “satan” or the “devil”...)

In posts 265, 266 and 267 of this thread I demonstrated that the early Judeo-Christians taught that the earth was created from chaotic matter. In posts 272 and 273 I demonstrated the early Judeo-Christians taught that spirits of mankind and others, existed before birth. The reason that the early Christian belief in creation from matter and the early Judeo-Christian doctrine of pre-birth existence of spirits of mankind is important is that they form part of the Historical context for the origin of Lucifer as well.

It is important historically, to keep in mind that Lucifer’s “fall” did not happen suddenly nor in a contextual vacuum. That is, the “good” Archangel Lucifer didn't simply wake up in a bad mood and decide to be “evil” one morning. But instead, Lucifers fall was more logical and it occurred in the context of several frustrating controversies, (some more important than others). The most famous controversy in the ancient texts occurred during the honoring of Adam which itself takes place in the greater context of God the Fathers Plan. To best understand this cascade of events, I think one should start with God’s original plan according to ancient Judeo-Christian textual witnesses and consider events from there forward.


It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology :

1) The spirits of angels, men and God existed prior to mortality

2) God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

3) The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

4) Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

5) Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

6) Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan


Without considering conditions PRIOR to Lucifer’s rebellion, then the rebellion cannot be understood as the ancient Judeo-Christians (who wrote the texts) understood it. Without considering the nature of the rebellion, then Lucifer’s punishment and his current dominion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians understood and taught such doctrines.



A) SPIRITS OF MANKIND EXISTED BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.

Long before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits. Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation :
Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23). Enoch continues : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"

At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, .... Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this that this place, into this and this body.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits of mankind and angels and the texts describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits.



B) INTELLIGENT SPIRITS HAD THE CAPABILITY OF LEARNING AND CHANGING AND PROGRESSING.

It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge consistent with God’s plan. He says : “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. (2 Baruch 21:16-17)

Even at this early, less sophisticated stage of existence, spirits were able to exercise agency
. Thus the spirits of men were able to exercise choice to take part in this plan despite difficulties they will experience in mortality (as Job was reminded), just as they are allowed moral choice in this life.

Given the grandeur and the pure intent and profound implications of God’s plan for mankind, it may start to make some sense of what it meant for Lucifer, not only to refuse to take part in the plan, but to openly rebel against the plan, and ultimately rebel against God the Father himself.



C) BECAUSE GOD WAS INTELLIGENT AND POSSESSED POWER AND CHARITY, HE DEVISED A PLAN SO AS TO ALLOW THESE SPIRITS TO ADVANCE

The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts : "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264) “....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Though these texts tell us that all the spirits of men existed before the creation of the earth, the spirits were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; i.e. those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In addition to Lucifer, God the Father and Adam, all other key players are all present in this pre-mortal realm. In Enoch’s vision, he also see’s the pre-mortal Jesus with the Father. Upon seeing the two together, Enoch asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan : "At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)

It is in this context that the Apostolic Father Ignatius taught that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father..” (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, both possessed a great similarity and unity of Purpose. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). Diogenes relates this ancient doctrine : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of [us] ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO


D) DESPITE CONCERNS, THE PLAN WAS GENERALLY, RECEIVED JOYOUSLY

Ancient pre-creation histories describe that the Father’s plan, revealed to these spirits before the foundations of the earth were laid was generally joyously received. God’s question to Job was not merely rhetorical, but was a contextual reminder to Job of an actual occurrence. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

The advancement entailed by God's plan was something the spirits wanted : Enoch says that he saw : "...the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones.

Who among them, (or us) would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect?

The Zohar relates mortality to a moral education received by coming to mortality : “...why do they [the spirits of mankind] descend to this world only to be taken thence [back to heaven] at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day..... “ (The zohar - A seal upon your heart)


E) LUCIFER REFUSES TO HONOR ADAM FOR ADAMS IMPORTANT ROLE IN GODS PLAN


Among the several controversies that arise, the most famous one is that, as Adam is chosen to inaugurate the plan of God upon the earth, he is honored for this important role. Lucifer, refuses to honor Adam and rebels and this forms the most famous of the historical controversies involving Lucifer and play into his ultimately becoming an enemy to God and being cast out of heaven. This specific controversy is not the only controversy, but it is the most famous and the most well documented one that all three abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims) agreed on in their earlier textual witnesses.

It is important that readers understand that I did not simply pick out a single “obscure” reference describing this story. Rather, this early doctrine was taught and described in many texts over a great deal of time and space.

The early Christian Text “Cave of Treasures” relates : “And when the prince of the lower order of angels saw what great majesty had been given unto Adam, he was jealous of him from that day, and he did not wish to honor him. And he said unto his hosts, "Ye shall not honor him, and ye shall not praise him with the angels. It is meet that ye should worship me, because I am fire and spirit; and not that I should worship a thing of dust, which hath been fashioned of fine dust."

For examples : Sedrach relates : “You commanded your angels to honor Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not honor him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to honor) the creation of your hands." (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7)

Jewish Haggadah (having Talmudic origins) also relates : “The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels...After Adam had been endowed with a soul, God invited all the angels to come and pay him reverence and homage. Satan, the greatest of the angels in heaven,....refused to pay heed to the behest of God, saying, “You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”... (The Haggadah -The Fall of Satan)

The text then relates the "battle of wits" between Lucifers spirit and Adam's spirit where Lucifer is bested and loses "face".

Christian Bartholomew also confirms the story as Lucifer says : “And when I came from the ends of the world, Michael said to me: ‘Honor the image of God which he has made in his own likeness.’ But I said: ‘I am fire of fire. I was the first angel to be formed, and shall I worship clay and matter?” And Michael said to me: ‘Honor, lest god be angry with you.’ I answered: ‘God will not be angry with me, but I will set up my throne over against his throne, and shall be as he is [cf. Isa. 14:14]. ‘ then god was angry with me and cast me down,...” (The Gospel of Bartholomew Ch IV)

Jewish Enoch relates, in the context of this Lucifer’s rebellion : “ the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it. ....And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam. (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

The Christian text “Life of Adam and Eve” relates the same incident : Speaking to Adam, the Devil said : "...because of you [Adam], I [Lucifer] am expelled and deprived of my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels, and because of you I was cast out onto the earth.” 2 Adam answered, “What have I done to you, and what is my blame with you? Ch 13 “The devil replied,...It is because of you that I have been thrown out of there. 2 When .......Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 3 And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ 15 1 When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3)

This doctrinal controversy is not simply Jewish and Christian in it’s nature, but it’s also confirmed by the Sixth Century Quran text : "..And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him." So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together. Except Iblis (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators. (Sura 15:28-31)

In Sura 20 : “ And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves to Adam." They prostrated (all) except Iblis (Satan), who refused. (Sura 20:116)

In Sura 38 : “ (Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to create man from clay". So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him." So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them: Except Iblis (Satan) he was proud and was one of the disbelievers. (Sura 38:71-74)

In Sura 7 : "And surely, We created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being), then We told the angels, "Prostrate to Adam", and they prostrated, except Iblis (Satan), he refused to be of those who prostrate. (Allah) said: "What prevented you (O Iblis) that you did not prostrate, when I commanded you?" Iblis said: "I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay." (Sura 7:11-12)

In Sura 18 : “And (remember) when We said to the angels; "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the jinns; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord.... (Sura 18:50)

The point in repeating this doctrine from so many different ancient sources and versions is to show that this specific controversy and it’s relation to the doctrine of the “Origin” of Satan, is VERY ancient, the doctrine is VERY widespread among a large group of ancient literature, and the doctrine is VERY “orthodox” to the ancient Christians and other religious groups as well. It was one of the "crossroad" doctrines that was a common agreement and tradition shared by all three major abrahamic religions.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST THREE

F) THE HONOR DUE ADAM WAS PERFECTLY LOGICAL IN VIEW OF GOD’S PLAN

It ought to be perfectly clear that as milestones were reached in the moving forward of God’s Plan for the spirits of mankind, the inauguration of mortality was an incredibly important phase that all spirits had long been anticipating. Thus, the “honoring of Adam” was not simply an arbitrary and spontaneous “office party” thrown at a whim, but it was a recognition of the culmination of organization and creation over a great deal of time and the inauguration of the opening phase of mortality of all mankind..

The jewish Haggadah describes the “wary reluctance” some souls experienced to leave a pre-mortal “heaven” to be born into mortality. Speaking this sort of “reluctance” the Zohar describes how God, tells a spirit to “Go now, descend into this and that place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

Such “unconfidence” is not “rebellion” and such souls are given encouragement and still sent into mortality through birth according to God’s plan. However, just as “reluctance” is not “rebellion”, Lucifer’s “rebellion” was not merely “reluctance”. Lucifer’s rebellion was described as a willful and confident full fledged disagreement which evolved into a plan for an asaultive counter “coup” having a DIFFERENT administration under a DIFFERENT King and DIFFERENT goals to the ultimate effect of nullifying God’s initial plan. In the context of controversies such as Lucifer’s “last straw” over Adam, one can better understand the sparks that made up the fires of the Rebellion or “war in heaven” itself.

In reference to a different, earlier controversy regarding the knowledge, that IF man, having free will, was sent to earth, then mankind would certainly commit moral atrocities. This was known long before the fall of Adam, and in fact, long before Adam was placed into the Garden. 3rd Enoch relates the fallen angels complaints against God the Father and his plan : "Then three of the ministering angels, Uzzah, Azzah, and Aza’el [Lucifer], came and laid charges against me in the heavenly height. They said before the Holy One, blessed be he, ‘Lord of the Universe, did not the primeval ones give you good advice when they said, Do not create man!’ The Holy One, blessed be he, replied, ‘I have made and will sustain him; I will carry and deliver him.’ (3rd Enoch 4:6) Aza'el (and other spellings) are applied to Lucifer. Thus, this references another specific disagreement Lucifer had with Gods plan (i.e. that evil would result in God the Fathers' plan).

Such references hint of the other controversies and together, they offer a coherent history regarding such related controversies and their relationship to Lucifers Fall.

As the earth was created and it’s preparations finished and the time arrived for God’s plan to be inaugurated, the mood among the hosts of heaven becomes one of anticipation and excitement. It is under these circumstance that the body for Adam is created and joined to his spirit and God commanded that Adam was to be honored for his role in inaugurating God’s plan upon the earth. Michael calls all the angels to honor Adam for what he is about to do. A seemingly “fed up” Lucifer arrives to the occasion with a bad attitude.

It is in such a context that later, the fallen Lucifer later explained to the fallen Adam : ..Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And I answered, ‘I do not honor Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. And Michael asserted, ‘Honor the image of God. But if now you will not honor, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High.” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3)

As I’ve pointed out, there are many, many confirming versions of this same story. In these early christian texts, the anger and frustration of Lucifer does not remain a private gripe, but becomes an open rebellion.

”... one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power. 5 And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels.” (2nd Enoch 29:3-5)

The Book of John the evangelist confirms Satan’s presumption in similar language “He set his seat above the clouds of heaven”. Bartholemew records this occurrence in almost the same words as the other versions : “I will set my throne over against his throne” (bar 4:55) ;

It is for carrying out the actual plan and organized attempt to “set up [his] throne above the stars of heaven and ..be like the Most High” that Lucifer was punished. (“Stars” was a euphamism for the greatest angels). Speaking of Lucifer and the angels who allied with him the ancient psalm read : “Now as they were warring with each other, they made bold to attack the land of Light, considering themselves capable of conquering it. Yet they know not that what they thought will recoil upon their own heads. But there was a host of angels in the Land of Light which possessed the power to issue forth and overcome the enemy of the Father, whom it pleased that through the Word that he would send, he should subdue the rebels who desired to raise themselves above what was more exalted than they.... (The Coptic Psalm-book - Let us worship the spirit of the paraclete) Psalm 223 (allberry 9-11) p 328; )

This attempted “coup” would have divided heaven and created a rival Kingship over a rival group in heaven. It was an attempt to set up a rival administration with it’s own rival plan for man. This was no mere show of minor “disloyalty”. Also, one should note the doctrine that the father delegated the successful battle which overcame Lucifer “through the Word” (who was his son). The earthly Devil had undergone multiple prior perceived offenses as the pre-mortal Lucifer. AND, his memories of pre-mortal happenings were not “veiled” from him, as Adams were. Certain battle lines were drawn long, long ago.




G) THE NATURE OF LUCIFER’S REBELLION IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN.

The nature of Lucifer’s punishment indicates the seriousness of what he did : When Enoch tells the fallen angel Azaz’el that “There will not be peace unto you; a grave judgment has come upon you. They will put you in bonds because you have taught injustice (1st Enoch 13:1-3), Enoch is not speaking of mere “naughtiness” or mere “disagreement” with God’s plan. Such fallen angels were told “judgment is passed upon you. 5 From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, (1st Enoch 14:3-5) because their rebellion had much greater ramifications than simple disagreement with God.

It is in this larger set of contexts that it was said : “And the Rebel meditating these things Fol. 5b, col. 2 would not render obedience to God, and of his own free will he asserted his independence and separated himself from God. But he was - swept away out of heaven and fell, and the fall of himself and of all his company from heaven took place ...because he turned aside from the right way, ... he lost the apparel of his glory. And behold, from that time until the present day, he and all his hosts have been stripped of their apparel, (Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan”)

It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this post to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth. This is the context surrounding such biblical statements as Jesus' statement "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham “...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

When biblical Jude describes the early history regarding "...the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 4, 6), he is referring to this same history the writer of Jude found in early Enoch that he quotes from.

It is not simply Lucifer that is cast out, as early biblical texts tell us, but other colleagues of Lucifer are cast out with him. Thus biblical text of revelations summarizes these early traditions saying : "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 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." (Rev 12:7-9)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but recognition was not associated with remorse, but rather formed an obstinate resolve for continuing his rebellion. : “..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

I hope that it is clear that the early Judeo-Christians had sensible traditions concerning the origin of and underlying motives for Lucifer battling against God and his plan for the moral education of mankind who are willing to live by the moral laws which will ultimately prepare them to live in happiness and harmony. The ancient Christian doctrines were, I think, more coherent and more logical and represented a more accurate view of the Devils origin. Restorationists of ancient Christian Doctrine (such as the LDS) will be aware of some ancient doctrines, but they may not realize how they parallel their own.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST FOUR

I noticed that I failed to point out shifts in names or appellations of the key players.

Just as the mortal Jesus was called by different names or appellations in his pre-mortal roles (e.g. "The Right Hand", "the righteous one", "the creator", occasionally "the Father" - which is confusing since he is normally "the son", etc), often attached to specific and varying roles he plays, Lucifer and others have different names as well in different texts.

In ancient Christian Texts he is most often "Lucifer" before his fall, and then Satan (or devil, etc) AFTER his fall from heaven. In The Holy Quran, Satan is often referred to as "Iblis". In Jewish records Satan is represented by varying names but Azaz'el, in the quote in the posts above, also refers to Satan. I hope the mixing of various names for Lucifer/Satan/Devil was not confusing. Historians are used to such transitions, but the shift in appellations or names sometimes causes confusion if one is not used to reading them in the ancient literature.

I am speaking from memory on this point, but the great Milton also created another appellation that relates to Lucifers important role in God's plan and that, despite Lucifer's unwillingness, his obstanant rebellion serves the very purposes of God.

Just as Abraham asked why God has any association with Lucifer, the Prophet Sedrach also wondered at the purpose underlying the irony of God, letting Lucifer live : “Sedrach said to him. “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master. You commanded your angels to honor Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not honor him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to honor) the creation of your hands. If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him..... (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7)

I suppose a more knowledgeable person could spend many posts to discuss the importance of Lucifers role, but I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are clear regarding Lucifer's necessary role :

These Jews taught regarding the struggle between Good and Evil : “The character and fate of all humankind reside with these spirits. All the hosts of humanity, generation by generation, are heirs to these spiritual divisions, walking according to their ways; ... God has appointed these spirits as equals until the last age, and set an everlasting enmity between their divisions. False deeds are thus an abomination to the truth, whereas all the ways of truth are for perversity equally a disgrace. Fierce dispute attends ever point of decision, for they can never agree. In his mysterious insight and glorious wisdom God has countenanced an era in which perversity triumphs, but at the time appointed for visitation He shall destroy such forever. Then shall truth come forth in victory upon the earth. [...] Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a person’s endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages of eternity. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil, deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him, until the day of the appointed visitation.” CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26

In this early model, Mankind are placed in the middle of good and evil, and allowed their own choice. In this model, Mankind's fate is decided by how they used their free will and choice in doing good and evil and which of the two come to predominate in an individuals heart. We are ultimately punished for the evil we chose to do, and ultimately rewarded for the good that we chose to do.

My point to forum member is that even this superficial survey of some of the early judeo-christian texts demonstrates that the early judeo-christians possessed a far greater depth of doctrinal detail and tradition regarding the war in heaven, Lucifers role and motives, the relationship and role of Adam and others.

Forum members : I honestly hope your spiritual journeys are good for you as you are exposed to new historical data and as you come to form your own models as to what God is doing with mankind so that existence takes on profound meaning for you, whatever you choose to believe. I hope it also makes sense why historians and scholars have a different historical models as to what Christianity was like than a normal "sunday school" christian. This is not to say the early Christians were correct or incorrect in their beliefs. It just means that their beliefs and their interpretations of early texts, including the bible, were often quite different contextually than modern christians inside modern Christian movements.

Clear
φυτωακσε
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And, how do you know it's a utopia.

What do you know about Heaven from the scriptures?

There is no more sorrow there. What do you call a place where 24/7, there is no sorrow?

I use the word "utopia" for ease of use.

You can ask me to prove Heaven exists before you acknowledge that is logical that only perfect persons can behave perfectly at all times to make a utopia a utopia, but at some point, I suspect that no matter what I say, you have an infinite regression of "prove it" to employ before handling the syllogism. If you want me to prove that Heaven is a perfect place, perhaps we can ask you to prove you exist, first.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
POST ONE

Forum Members :



REGARDING THE HISTORY OF LUCIFER BECOMING AN ENEMY TO GOD, THE WAR IN HEAVEN:


Clear asked Billiardsball
: “What data can you give us concerning the origin of Lucifer, his motives and reasoning for becoming an enemy to God and the war in heaven and Lucifers motives and relationship to the fall of mankind and his continued status as an enemy to mankind?” (post 273)

Clear explained : “…early Christian doctrines and their textual witnesses contain a much more rational, logical and historically coherent and detailed model for mans existence; for God’s plans; for the origin and existence of Lucifer, and what God is doing than the later Christian theories that sprang from the later age and minds of theologians. “(Post #292 )

Billiardsball answered : " From where, then, in the scriptures, is it logical and intuitive that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" (post 298)


Simply offering this currently irrelevant question does not provide data, rational and logical data for understanding the origin of Lucifer.

“I remember a historical discussion regarding the origin of Satan where the poster commented :
...there's nothing, scripturally speaking, that addresses the question of the origin of evil (or Satan, if you prefer). The only hint is in Genesis 3 where the serpent (in later tradition -- again without scriptural support -- identified as the devil) appears quite suddenly as part of an apparently very good creation. Nary a word of comment on the origins of this creature....

That’s it, in toto.

Such statements reveal a lack of a framework for understanding the basic issues surrounding what is going on with all of this “good” and “evil” that none of us avoid inside of creation; and demonstrate the value of turning to the earliest Christian teachings and their writings on such issues (in the period before many of the important doctrines were lost or changed). I do not believe that modern christian theory is as coherent; nor as understandable as the early Judao-Christian doctrines regarding Lucifers origins and motives for his fall from heaven.

Though there are many modern theories regarding how Lucifer, an archangel with some authority became Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, there is a great deal of early literature regarding what the early christians themselves believed regarding the Origin and motives of Lucifer (his “name” before he became “satan” or the “devil”...)

In posts 265, 266 and 267 of this thread I demonstrated that the early Judeo-Christians taught that the earth was created from chaotic matter. In posts 272 and 273 I demonstrated the early Judeo-Christians taught that spirits of mankind and others, existed before birth. The reason that the early Christian belief in creation from matter and the early Judeo-Christian doctrine of pre-birth existence of spirits of mankind is important is that they form part of the Historical context for the origin of Lucifer as well.

It is important historically, to keep in mind that Lucifer’s “fall” did not happen suddenly nor in a contextual vacuum. That is, the “good” Archangel Lucifer didn't simply wake up in a bad mood and decide to be “evil” one morning. But instead, Lucifers fall was more logical and it occurred in the context of several frustrating controversies, (some more important than others). The most famous controversy in the ancient texts occurred during the honoring of Adam which itself takes place in the greater context of God the Fathers Plan. To best understand this cascade of events, I think one should start with God’s original plan according to ancient Judeo-Christian textual witnesses and consider events from there forward.


It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology :

1) The spirits of angels, men and God existed prior to mortality

2) God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

3) The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

4) Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

5) Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

6) Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan


Without considering conditions PRIOR to Lucifer’s rebellion, then the rebellion cannot be understood as the ancient Judeo-Christians (who wrote the texts) understood it. Without considering the nature of the rebellion, then Lucifer’s punishment and his current dominion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians understood and taught such doctrines.



A) SPIRITS OF MANKIND EXISTED BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.

Long before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits. Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation :
Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23). Enoch continues : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"

At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, .... Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this that this place, into this and this body.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits of mankind and angels and the texts describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits.



B) INTELLIGENT SPIRITS HAD THE CAPABILITY OF LEARNING AND CHANGING AND PROGRESSING.

It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge consistent with God’s plan. He says : “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. (2 Baruch 21:16-17)

Even at this early, less sophisticated stage of existence, spirits were able to exercise agency
. Thus the spirits of men were able to exercise choice to take part in this plan despite difficulties they will experience in mortality (as Job was reminded), just as they are allowed moral choice in this life.

Given the grandeur and the pure intent and profound implications of God’s plan for mankind, it may start to make some sense of what it meant for Lucifer, not only to refuse to take part in the plan, but to openly rebel against the plan, and ultimately rebel against God the Father himself.



C) BECAUSE GOD WAS INTELLIGENT AND POSSESSED POWER AND CHARITY, HE DEVISED A PLAN SO AS TO ALLOW THESE SPIRITS TO ADVANCE

The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts : "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264) “....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Though these texts tell us that all the spirits of men existed before the creation of the earth, the spirits were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; i.e. those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In addition to Lucifer, God the Father and Adam, all other key players are all present in this pre-mortal realm. In Enoch’s vision, he also see’s the pre-mortal Jesus with the Father. Upon seeing the two together, Enoch asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan : "At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)

It is in this context that the Apostolic Father Ignatius taught that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father..” (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, both possessed a great similarity and unity of Purpose. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). Diogenes relates this ancient doctrine : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of [us] ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)

Sorry, I asked "From where, then, in the scriptures, is it logical and intuitive that Jesus and Satan are brothers?"

Or, if you like, you can perhaps explain outside the scriptures where it is logical and intuitive that Jesus and Satan are brothers. That is what you believe... or is it? Please advise.

Thanks!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
“LOGICAL” AND “INTUITIVE” AND “INFORMED” RELIGION ANCIENTLY

Informed religion has more data (ignorant religion has less data)
I’ve demonstrated that early Judeo-Christian religion not only had more and better descriptive data, but that their interpretation created theological models that were more logical and intuitive and more detailed than modern Christian theories.

For examples :
Posts 265-267 demonstrated Early Judeo-Christians taught that God used chaotic matter as the source of organization of material things (as opposed to creation from “nothing” for lack of information)
Posts 272 & 273 demonstrated Early Judeo-Christians taught spirits existed long before their birth (as opposed to creation from “nothing” at the time of birth for lack of more information)
Posts 292-295 demonstrated Early Judeo-Christians saw mortality as an educational experience designed to help uneducated and relatively uncivilized spirits to have greater social joy and harmony as opposed to religion that simply must "believe" in a savior for lack of better data as to what they are to accomplish in this life to best engage and contribute to God's plan.


Abandonment of data increases error in theological models
Once the Jewish Talmud prohibited all inquiries and records regarding pre-creation time periods then Rabbinic Judaisms which obeyed this prohibition, lost these traditions and texts. This explains the distinct shift in early Judeo-Christian literature versus post Talmudic literature regarding this subject. Such losses of texts and traditions also affected later religions who used such data for their theological models. As more data is lost, the religion created by theologians has more errors.


Intuitive nature of informed Christianity
Judeo-Christianity which retained the beliefs in creation from matter, and in pre-birth existence of spirits of mankind were more intuitive and logical.

Given the base and original conditions of a loving God existing with “nacent” spirits, Early Christians had simply to ask :
“What would a loving and intelligent God do with uncivilized and uneducated spirits?”
Would God intervene in their evolution or not?
If he would, then what would God teach them?
If he was going to teach them how to interact with each other and with a material world, would he teach them rules of social harmony before he taught them how to make things that could harm each other?
If he was to both teach them laws of social interaction (so as to produce harmony and joy) first, how would he identify and filter ones who will not learn laws of social joy and harmony from those who wanted to learn those laws?

Inside early, informed Christianity, the model of mortality as a learning experience was quite logical.


Ignorant religion is less intuitive
The later Judeo-Christian movements which lacked knowledge of original conditions were left to ask questions for which they had no answers and had only narrow glimpses of data upon which to speculate answers. For examples :
Ignorance of creation of matter from matter results in creation from “nothing”. IF God created from nothing then this makes him responsible for evil (if he could have created without evil).

The theory that God creates all spirits at birth or beyond creates speculations regarding unfairness surrounding conditions of birth. IF God determines the nature of spirits (which he creates from nothing) this makes him responsible for their sinful natures (since he created them to have the nature he then punishes them for having).


Ignorant religion tends to become more complex in multiple theories to support itself
Orontes offered us a very simple summary of ancient Christian points :
A) There is a God
B) There is man
C) Man is separated from God.
D) The separation and barrier is twofold: man suffers from physical death and spiritual death
E) Christ is the vehicle through which the barriers can be breeched.
F) Physical death is overcome through resurrection via Christ
G) Spiritual death may be overcome through the atonement of Christ


The model is simple, and it does not violate rational thought and it is logically arranged without multiple, complicated modern interpretations and modern complexity, at least, much less complex and more logical than the later types of religion created by the theologians.




Billiardsball asked : “where it is logical and intuitive that Jesus and Satan are brothers. #306

The seemingly irrelevant question lacks context as to what Billiardsball means by the term “brothers”.


A LITERAL “brother” may be one who was born from the same mortal womb. This does not apply.
A METAPHORICAL “brother” may apply if there is something these two individuals have in common.
Still, whatever they might have in common is outweighed in many ways by what they do NOT have in common.



If one is referring to the early doctrine where Light and darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. “ (g. of Phillip) it explains that they are brothers because “They are inseparable. “ That is, one cannot know a thing is “good” without it’s opposite. Just as the early Christians taught the doctrine of the “two ways”, one leading to light and the other to dark, there are many early traditions that respond to Jesus as the messenger to light and Satan as the messenger to darkness. This concept of these two individuals sharing the common goal of gathering souls toward them is repeated in multiple ways in early texts.

If I am a fisherman of men,” says Jesus (in the Gospel of the twelve apostles), “the Devil is also a fisherman, who catches many in his nets…If I have come to take for my kingdom those who are mine, why should not he do the same?

The concept of opposites in all things was not simply a Christian principle, but a Jewish principle as well. For example, Asher, in the text, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 5:1-2 tells his children, “ Children, you see how in everything there are two factors, one against the other, one concealed by the other: In possessions is greed, in merriment is drunkenness, in laughter is lamentation, in marriage is dissoluteness. Death is successor to life, dishonor to glory, night to day, darkness to light, but all these things lead ultimately to day: righteous actions to life, unjust actions to death, since eternal life wards off death.” Judah teaches his children : “So understand my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. In between is the conscience of the mind which inclines as it will. The Things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man, each one of whom the Lord knows.” We see this same principle in multiple early Jewish texts as well (1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26).

If they are brothers it is because there is something they share, a commonality on some principle. For examples, they are “brothers in creation” in the context of being created by the same being that calls himself a “Father”, but they are NOT brothers in that Jesus loves and honors and is obedient to the Father. They may be brothers of origin since their place of origin (heaven) is similar, but they are NOT brothers in that Jesus honors the Fathers plan and is committed to it’s full sway for the benefit of mankind. They may be “brothers” in their description as “fishers of men”, but they are NOT pulling mankind in the same moral directions. The examples could go on. They may be “brothers” in their shared monikers as “rulers”, but their kingdoms are quite dissimilar. As the Talmud reminds us, "Man's eyes have white and black in them; but the power of sight, the lens supplying the light, is the black." Numb Rabba 15) In this way, both are teachers, and to know and understand and appreciate the light, one has to understand the darkness. Both teachers. Perhaps. However, one is teaching light, and the other darkness.

Examples could be made to continue but I think it is unnecessary.



In whatever ways they may be viewed as brothers either now or anciently, still, I think there are many MORE ways that they are NOT brothers and in which they are dissimilar.


Clear
φυδρνεσιω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Clear, I don't think you view this as such--but I think this statement is a smokescreen:

I’ve demonstrated that early Judeo-Christian religion not only had more and better descriptive data, but that their interpretation created theological models that were more logical and intuitive and more detailed than modern Christian theories.

The "earliest Judeo-Christian religion" is found in the scriptures. After the scriptures were written, the church and Jewish leaders you quote were sharing doctrines composed from the scriptures. And where you feel certain doctrines are modernist, the modernists were drawing doctrines from the scriptures. I have frequent, pleasant conversations with Latter Day Saints that are from the scriptures. I encourage you to try to prove or disprove what you believe, not just what I believe, from the scriptures.

This is why I see a lot of your comments aren't scriptural, but personal commentary, for example, regarding the fact that Latter Day Saints believe Jesus and Satan are literal, not metaphorical, brothers. I invited you to explain if I misunderstood LDS doctrine there and your report seems to defend Satan as Jesus's brother, so I must have gotten my LDS doctrine correct...? Since no other church group has "discovered" this truth of LDS yet, I'm asking you to explain what you believe from the scriptures. I don't want you to be uncomfortable or resort to sophistry when explaining LDS doctrine, I only ask that you help me understand the scriptures:

*The scriptures seem to teach that Jesus died not as a mere example, but to literally redeem us from our state. Which state? Sin, aka imperfection. Sin in Greek is like literally missing a target with an arrow. You hit the target always, you are perfect. You miss a target you aim for, you are imperfect.

*Their are implications to this idea, including assurance. You and others have emphasized human logic and philosophy to explain why we must participate in salvation as free moral agents, and I agree. The difference is I understand the scriptures to say salvation is an irrevocable gift, not a participation we indulge in by works and/or continued faith or faithfulness. I responded to Christ of my volition, and I received an irrevocable gift. Romans says both that salvation is a gift and that the gifts God gives are irrevocable.

Irrevocable: an adjective--not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final.

*The scriptures inform me that Jesus saves, no ifs or buts. It's not "Jesus saves and I also..." or "Jesus saved me but..." but rather, "Jesus saves."

A growing problem worldwide is that unbelievers reject Christ, saying "Look at X Christian idea and Y Christian idea!" Sure, but are X and Y from the words of Christ and others in the scriptures, or mere human philosophy and logic? I leave it to you to help me in this fight for scriptural adherence. I've further opened the door, repeatedly now, for you and others to quote LDS canon if that is helpful. Surprisingly, you all seem far more interested in quotations of quasi-Christians and non-Christians from the centuries after Christ than of the apostles, Jesus, the Tanakh, Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, etc. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the appeal of such, and to whom you are addressing the quotations from fallible persons?

Thank you.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Forum members :


A) REGARDING THE COMPARISONS OF EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY TO MODERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

In response to the criticism of early Christian Theology by a modern Christian Theist I explained that early Christian Theology contained more and better descriptive data with interpretations that resulted in theological models that were more rational, logical and coherent and detailed than modern Christian theories and modern Christian interpretations. To support this premise I gave many, many, many examples : For examples :

1) In Posts 265, 266 and 267 I gave multiple examples where the early Judeo-Christians taught material things such as planets and stars, etc. were created from matter, rather than creating from “nothing” as theorized by later Christian movements.

2) In Posts 272 and 273, I gave multiple examples where the early Judeo-Christians taught the spirits of mankind existed prior to birth rather than at or after birth as theorized by later Christians.

3) In posts 286, 287 and 288 I gave examples of Theosis or the process by which mankind becomes more like God as mankind receives moral education.

4) In Posts 292, 293, 294, and 295 I summarized Gods initial purposes and plan inside early Judeo-Christian theology in the context of education of spirits.

In Post 273 I asked Billiardsball (“or any other poster”) to offer data regarding “…the origin of Lucifer, his motives and reasoning for becoming an enemy to God…” as a comparison example to early Christian theology Neither Billiardsball nor other posters responded. So…

5) In post 301, 302, 303, and 304 gave multiple examples from Christian, Jewish and Islamic literature that demonstrated the early orthodox teaching regarding origins and motives for Lucifers rebellion and his process of becoming an enemy to God and mankind.

I did not get a single disagreement in any post to this premise that early Christian theology had more detailed information and better descriptive data, and that their intepretations and theological models on these points were more logical and more rational, and more coherent and historically based than modern Christian theories.

Thus, I claimed : “I’ve demonstrated that early Judeo-Christian religion not only had more and better descriptive data, but that their interpretation created theological models that were more logical and intuitive and more detailed than modern Christian theories.

Billiardsball replied : Clear, I don't think you view this as such--but I think this statement is a smokescreen (#308) .

I am perfectly content to allow all posters to review any or all of these posts and to make their own judgment as to whether these 17 posts are a “smokescreen” or whether they do in fact demonstrate that early Christian doctrines were more historically detailed, more logical and intuitive, more historically accurate, and more coherent descriptions than modern Christian theories in modern Christian movements.



B) REGARDING THE THEORY OF WHERE “EARLIEST JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION” ORIGINATES AND IS TO BE FOUND

Regarding Billiardsballls theory that : “The "earliest Judeo-Christian religion" is found in the scriptures. After the scriptures were written, the church and Jewish leaders you quote were sharing doctrines composed from the scriptures (#308) . “

Religious doctrines are composed of many, many sources. Even when the original thought that comes to mind is from a religious text, the person reading then must then make sense of what is written. This interpretation and model for meaning stems from and is affected by many factors such as the readers ability to read and understand; their sense of historical context and meaning; their innate intelligence or ignorance of the subject; their own biases and prejudices; their own sense of rational and logical thought, etc.

If early Christians were correct in their belief that Adam was taught concerning a redeemer (a “Christ”) for him, This religious belief predates any text. This is also true of later historical periods. For example, Clement, a convert-colleague to the apostle Peter is writing his diary while he is traveling with Peter. Clement is writing down sayings and explanations of the gospel that he is hearing from the very mouth of this great apostle. Written witnesses such as Clements diary contained Christian religion existing long before New Testament scriptures. None of the individuals mentioned in the New Testament ever lived to be able to read any of the multiple versions of our "New Testament".

The point is that religious witnesses, whether from revelations, from oral stories or from written texts, whether first hand or handed down, existed from all generations of time and, the initial revelation and it’s oral versions and traditions, always predates the writing down of the revelation or story. Obviously, many revelations and acts of prophets and apostles and Jesus and other Christian histories and stories were never written in the scriptures, but some exist in the diaries and traditions surrounding the Christian movement.

While a typical Christian may limit their data to a single book or even to a single sentence if they want, anyone who wants to actual understand historical Christianity would never do such a silly thing as to limit their stream of data, but instead, wants as wide a data stream with as much proper context surrounding an event as possible.


C) REGARDING THE CREATION OF CONFLICTING CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES AND THE SOURCE OF CONFLICT

Billiardsball pointed out : “ And where you feel certain doctrines are modernist, the modernists were drawing doctrines from the scriptures (#308). “

Billiardsball :

Perhaps the initial thought that forms a "seed" for the mature, detailed religious theory came from a sacred text, but the larger personal interpretations and meaning individuals apply to scriptures (which are used to create the larger religious theories) are drawn from conditions outside the scriptures to a great extent. For example, someone who knows greek, or Hebrew, or history, will not take away the same meaning from a text than one who is ignorant of language or history. This was partly the source of the many errors in interpretation you made in the “God in Mormonism” thread. (Do I need to provide examples of your attempted interpretations?)

It is NOT just you who mis-interpret and therefore create doctrines which have error. ALL OF US are limited by our own understanding, our own knowledge base, our own innate knowledge of or our own ignorance of language and meanings. We all tend to create and then apply meaning to texts and interpret according to our own experience and limitations, thus there are many, many, differing Christian interpretations and movements which conflict and argue regarding what scriptures mean.

WHY IS A MODERN INTERPRETATION BETTER THAN, OR PREFERRED TO AN ANCIENT INTERPRETATION?
You, for example, have never been able to justify the readers, why your interpretation of the apostle Peters writing should have any priority over Peters’ colleague, Clements ‘interpretation of what the Apostle peter wrote or what Clement heard Peter actually say, (which may not be what is written in your text.). Describe to forum readers : Why is your modern interpretation of biblical text to be preferred over the early Christians with their different interpretation of what their bibles said? If early Christians are correct, you cannot be saved without repenting and attempting to be obedient to God, regardless of your claim or personal expectation that he will save you in willful defiance and disobedience to God.


Papias who actually heard John Speak, or Clement, who actually heard Peter Preach and accompanied Peter on many of Peters travels and heard Peter explain the gospel probably had a better understanding of what Peter was teaching than you. Since these individuals who heard Peter or John speak, their textual witnesses regarding what Peter or John meant, are therefore, to be preferred to yours. Early religious witnesses are more consistent with history than yours are. Their textual witnesses are more logical and rational than your illogical and irrational theories. Their textual witnesses are more coherent than your witness. Explain to forum members why your witness to your religious theories are to be preferred to the witnesses of the early Christians who were interpreting similar texts to your biblical text differently than your interpretation.



D) REGARDING HOW LUCIFER AND JESUS CAN BE REFERRED TO AS BROTHERS AND HOW THEY ARE NOT BROTHERS

Perhaps we can also use your question on Satan as another example of how one comes to interpret and the results. Despite more than 18 posts on early Christian doctrines which have a plethora of doctrines which disagree with your theories, you have not criticized them directly but have fixated on the single concept of how two beings (Jesus and Satan) who share the same sire/creator/father/God can be called “brothers”. If this is correct, then to try to inject some logic and rational thinking into this historical point, will you define how you think the familial terms “brother” and "father" are to be used in the context of ancient Christian religion. That is, what did it mean to be a "Father" or a “brother” of in this historical context.


Clear
φυσεειειω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I did not get a single disagreement in any post to this premise that early Christian theology had more detailed information and better descriptive data, and that their intepretations and theological models on these points were more logical and more rational, and more coherent and historically based than modern Christian theories.

Correct, but you omitted “Clear uses sources more modern than the earliest sources, since Billiards Ball uses the Bible, and Clear uses sources hundreds of years after Jesus and the apostles gave doctrine.”

While a typical Christian may limit their data to a single book or even to a single sentence if they want, anyone who wants to actual understand historical Christianity would never do such a silly thing as to limit their stream of data, but instead, wants as wide a data stream with as much proper context surrounding an event as possible.

I’m not limiting my data, I’m saying I read widely, and can compare early Christian testimonies to scripture, to learn which are heretical and which aren’t. You believe things from the Book of Mormon that over 99% of Bible readers disbelieve, based on their knowledge of the scriptures and their knowledge outside the scriptures. So I’d say you are the one with a narrow data stream.

You, for example, have never been able to justify the readers, why your interpretation of the apostle Peters writing should have any priority over Peters’ colleague, Clements ‘interpretation of what the Apostle peter wrote or what Clement heard Peter actually say, (which may not be what is written in your text.).

I’m open to discussing something specific of Clement that you have in mind, but I resent the idea that:

…what Clement heard Peter actually say, (which may not be what is written in your text.

…means that Clement had wax in his ears if so, since Peter was a chosen amanuensis! Peter would say, Clement, listen better next time!

Papias who actually heard John Speak, or Clement, who actually heard Peter Preach and accompanied Peter on many of Peters travels and heard Peter explain the gospel probably had a better understanding of what Peter was teaching than you.

Again, I agree but you seem ignorant of the fact that apocrypha were circulated at that time, and that Peter and Paul both warned NT readers of false writings and false teachers. You have the following curious (contradictory) positions:

  1. We can’t trust everything written in the NT is true.

  2. We can trust everything from writers who knew the NT writers.

  3. I, Clear, will ignore early Christian writers who support BB’s doctrines, and cherry pick the writings I prefer—but in most cases, I will echo the writers who knew and loved the NT writers, but not the NT writers!
If this is correct, then to try to inject some logic and rational thinking into this historical point, will you define how you think the familial terms “brother” and "father" are to be used in the context of ancient Christian religion. That is, what did it mean to be a "Father" or a “brother” of in this historical context.

I call baloney, sir, because you know well that ONLY Mormons EVER say Jesus was Satan’s brother. Period. Ever. Next, you will tell us all how God the Father “allegorically” fornicated with Mary to bring forth the Christ.

Jesus Christ is GOD. He is ABOVE all angels in Hebrews.

Satan is an ANGEL.

We are aware that Jesus calls us beloved, friends and brothers. Satan is THE ENEMY, not a trusted brother. Learn this. Save yourself from heresy. Please!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Orontes,

Is your stance that ALL of Romans is one long prosoepoeia, or just some of the text? Paul writes, "Then what advantage has the Jew?" Why would he write that if he's role playing what the unsaved Gentile mind struggles with? That makes no sense to me, but I'm open.

Thanks.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
post one

1)
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ARE MORE DETAILED AND COHERENT THAN THE MODERN THEORIES


Clear said (post # 309) : “…To support this premise I gave many, many, many examples : For examples :

1) In Posts 265, 266 and 267I gave multiple examples where theearly Judeo-Christians taughtmaterial things such as planets and stars, etc. were created from matter, rather than creating from “nothing” as theorized by later Christian movements.

2) In Posts 272 and 273, I gave multiple examples where theearly Judeo-Christians taught thespirits of mankind existed prior to birthrather than at or after birth as theorized by later Christians.

3) In posts 286, 287 and 288I gave examples of Theosis orthe process by whichmankind becomes more like Godas mankind receives moral education.

4) In Posts 292, 293, 294, and 295I summarizedGods initial purposes and plan inside early Judeo-Christian theologyin the context of education of spirits.

In Post 273I asked Billiardsball (“or any other poster”) to offer data regarding “…the origin of Lucifer, his motives and reasoning for becoming an enemy to God…” as a comparison example to early Christian theology Neither Billiardsball nor other posters responded. So…

5) In post 301, 302, 303, and 304gave multiple examples from Christian, Jewish and Islamic literature that demonstrated the early orthodox teaching regarding origins and motives for Lucifers rebellionand his process of becoming an enemy to God and mankind."


Billiardsball : You keep complaining that you want to use the bible to Rebut early Christian textual witnesses I've offered, yet you never do. Your only rebut was a reference to “the big bang theory” (an extra-biblical theory which turned out to undermine your own position). You have always been welcome to use the bible if you want. No one has tied you up with ropes. Rebut the points I've made to your hearts content.



2) REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS’ “USE” OF THE BIBLE IN CREATING THEORIES

Billiardsball : Your complaint that early Christians wrote textual witnesses you are unfamiliar with is noted. You are not a historian. I do not expect you to be familiar with historical Christianity nor all of it’s witnesses.

IGNORANCE IS A PROBLEM WITH UNINFORMED CHRISTIANITY
However, the complaint itself reveals more historical blunders relating to early Christian texts. For example, some of these texts you complain about as “extra biblical” were not "extra-biblical", at all, but instead, are found inside early bible canons. For example, I quoted from Hermas and Barnabas which are from the 4th Century Christian New Testament (Sinaiticus is one of the 5 most important early Uncials known to Christian historians). I quoted from other books that you assumed were "extra-biblical" but which were actually in the bible. For example, eastern Christians would have read enoch and jubilees, barnabas and others in their old testament. In fact eastern Christians nowadays still have these books inside their eastern Old testament. When Columbus quoted scripture to the King, it is from Esdras. When Maria Celeste writes to her Father Galileo regarding the doctrine of the wintertime of the Just doctrine, it comes from Hermas. Your lack of historical training will always cause these sorts of contextual problems for you until you become more historically aware. If you cannot learn to think historically, you will continue to make these sorts of historical blunders.

LOYALTY TO IDEOLOGY MORE THAN THE BIBLE ANOTHER PROBLEM
However, an even greater problem for you is your loyalty to your personal ideology over the actual biblical theology. For examples : Readers will remember prior threads where your misuse of biblical texts was one of the reasons your own theories were not credible even when you claimed to get your ideas from the bible..

Your lack of understanding of greek in your attempts to use greek references got you into trouble almost every time you used greek beyond cutting and pasting someone elses thoughts. Your attempts to interpret historical meanings of bible text also got you into trouble just as often. Even the naïve request to discuss biblical history outside of its’ historical context reveals a naïve limitation of historical context rather than illumination of historical context.

For examples :

If you remember, in an attempt to increase your credibility, you claimed to forum members that you had training in greek and history. But then you were never able to use significant historical greek and when you did use greek, it was more often incorrect than it was correct. This unwise bragging damaged your credibility as much as the problems in your use of biblical text.

For example, If you remember, you attempted to mis-context the word αρραβων to support your theory (in post #216) and you were caught in this misuse.

Remember, You wanted to use Isaiah 43:10 but were caught “embellishing” the quote so much that it was no longer the biblical quote at all. (post #83) YOU could not even find the quote you gave us in any bible….

If you remember, You were caught misusing Romans 11:5 to support your theory. (post #117)

You attempted to use greek Μετανοεω / in it’s incorrect context (post #121) and that caused your theory even more grief.

You attempted to use 1John 5 incorrectly in order to support your theory (post #124)

You misunderstood and misused 1 Peter 3:22 to support your theory (post # 186 gim)

You misunderstood baptism in early Christian worldview and confused resurrection with baptism.

You were caught (again) using the term Baptism incorrectly in Matt 28 to support your theory (post #181)

You tried to use Eph 1:13-14, misquoted it and then even interpreted it incorrectly (post #199 gim)

When you were caught adding incorrect meaning to the text, you finally admitted to doing this (post # 207), but still, such indiscretions with text damaged your credibility as much as our rebuttals.

To your credit, you apologized when you were caught (post # 208), but then, you did not stop adding words to the text that were not in the biblical text to support your theories.

You attempted to use Romans 3:24-26 to support your penal substitution model of the atonement. When you were asked you multiple times, how it supported your theory that murderers and rapists were guaranteed heaven simply by momentary, (but then repudiated) belief, you never found answers to support it.

When caught abusing the text of romans and then taken to task for abusing it, you returned to complaining. This is a bad habit.

You again tried Galatians 3 and that was shown to be misinterpreted

When you were caught, It took multiple posts for you to finally admit (post #280) that you were adding to this scripture as well.

In post # 324 you admitted using Πιστεύω (a form of faith) incorrectly to support your theology. When you were again caught, you attempted to excuse yourself, claiming others had mis-interpreted it as well.

Then, when you were asked who the “others” were, you were unable to find any others who had mis-interpreted it.

The point is that you are NOT a Biblicist nor a historian and your misuse of biblical text reveals a greater loyalty to ideology rather than to the text. You are simply a Christian that uses biblical texts that use some words you like. Ignorance is not a shameful thing since ALL OF US are, to some extent ignorant. But the origins of your theories are not from ancient biblical religion but instead come from your modern ideology. You are simply systematizing your religious errors as described in Eph 4:14 …carried about by every wind of teaching in the games of men, toward the cunning systemization of errors.

Though your individual ideas may be systemized (and synthesized) into theories as per Ephesians 4:14, your modern religious theories have no advantage over authentic ancient Christian beliefs that used the same scriptures more correctly, inside their ancient historical context, and with different biblical interpretations than yours. Certainly the manner in which you have systemized your interpretations and beliefs are not as coherent, not as historically accurate and certainly not as logical and as rational as the earlier Christian beliefs.

Why are your interpretations of biblical text to be preferred over the early Christian interpretations such as Clement or Papias who lived and hear the gospel from the actual mouth of an apostle?
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
post two

3) Billiardsball responded (post # 210) : “ You have the following curious (contradictory) positions: "
You are returning to mischaracterizations. This was bad form the first few times you were caught doing it. It will not increase your credibility to do this now. Also, the fact that you must mischaracterize means that you cannot rebut historical Christianity "head on" with historical data and rational thought, but must mischaracterize it (i.e. create a strawmen). This will not change the minds of people who disagree with you as efficiently as offering honest and accurate criticism of their actual positions.

FORUM MEMBERS : The problem with creation of strawmen and mis-characterizing another persons theology is that IF the actual theological issue is not rebutted, but instead a different one, then the original theological issue remains untouched.

Billiardsball said : “We can’t trust everything written in the NT is true.”
Your position was that the biblical text is “inerrant”. My position was that biblical texts are not perfect. No ancient texts of any length are perfect. If we re-visit this discussion again, you will fair no better the second time around.

Billiardsball said : “We can trust everything from writers who knew the NT writers.”
This is another strawman. My position is that all ancient texts of significant length have errors. Early Christians who lived with early apostles and described early Christianity in their texts make mistakes. Thus, not all points the extra-biblical christians offer are is trustable. Occassionally it is the translations that are at fault, occasionally the point is simply incorrect.

However, individuals who knew and traveled with the apostles were generally more familiar with what the apostles taught than you or other individuals living 2000 years later. Thus the doctrinal interpretation of these Christians who lived with an original apostle are more likely to be correct than conflicting interpretations from individuals living 2000 years later.

Why is your interpretation of what an apostle meant, to be preferred over the interpretation of one who lived and traveled with an apostle?

Billiardsball said : “I, Clear, will ignore early Christian writers who support BB’s doctrines, and cherry pick the writings I prefer—but in most cases, I will echo the writers who knew and loved the NT writers, but not the NT writers!
This is clearly a case of putting words in my mouth that mischaracterize my beliefs.

Firstly, cherry picking means to pick something from a bunch having variations, some better than others. However, NONE of the earliest Jewish or Christian or Islamic texts I’ve studied, share your interpretation on the subject we’ve disagree on. Your interpretation did not come into existence until later eras and it is not seen in early Judeo-Christianity. This does not mean your interpretation is wrong or that it is right, merely that it did not exist in the earliest witnesses. It is more modern.

Secondly, the writings I offered on the origin of Lucifers' enmity with God (as an example) came from a broad selection of Jewish writings, from a broad selection of Christian writings, and from Islamic writings (the Holy Quran) of the early centuries. There are many other sources that speak to these traditions (I didn’t even get into Al-Thalabi or Abrahamic youth histories, or some others)

Examples from multiple sources from all main abrahamic religions agree on this one tradition regarding the fall of Lucifer. Their agreement is not cherry picked, but rather it is the ONLY historical version of this specific contention that I am aware of and all versions agree on the main points. Try to find another one on this point that differs. Readers are encouraged to search the web and early Abraham texts to see if another version even exists.

Thirdly, as I have shown, your “re-interpretations” of biblical text are not biblical era interpretations, but instead, these are your own modern interpretations of a biblical text that you only have a incomplete historical knowledge of. Readers who have followed the threads we have engaged in have seen multiple examples of your mis-interpretation of and improper “embellishment” of the text to create theories that are unlike the apostolic doctrines.


4) REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS’ THEORY THAT THE DEVIL IS BAD
Billiardsball
tells us that “Satan is the enemy”.

Oki, Doki. Good tip…. Devil/Satan = "bad".

However, readers are aware that this is the ONLY insight your modern Christian theory has offered regarding Satan in this entire discussion. This is yet another example of the difference between the depth of information and insight available from ancient informed Christianity which had more information, more detail, better historical coherence and offered much more profound insight regarding WHEN he, as an angel in power, BECAME “bad”, HOW the devil became “bad”, WHY he decided to become “bad”, WHO he was mad at in his “badness”, and how his “badness” serves Gods ultimate purposes so that he does not destroy the devil. The ancient Christians knew that Satan was “bad”, but the early Christians also knew much, much more than that.

Good spiritual Journey to Billiardsball and all of the rest of you

Clear
φυσιακσιω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I see. Of the over 14,000 Bible-based Christians sects and denominations, only Mormons have special knowledge that Jesus is Satan's brother. And you could only wish I enjoyed further special knowledge, that Satan is not only bad, but "helpful" and therefore currently remains undestroyed. Perhaps I should pray:

"Jesus, please have Satan help me, today."

...Clear, I've already used the Bible to refute your stance (again) without your responding at all to what I actually wrote (again). So...

Feel free to tell me how I've "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" Hebrews, where it says Christ is above angels (and there cannot be Lucifer/Satan's brother).

If you can narrow the focus a bit, please also feel free to stay on my one question and this one concept (Satan as brother) rather than rehashing why you feel are my past errors, your special knowledge, and mixing in a variety of other (unique, special) heretical doctrines.

Thanks!
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Why do you claim Jesus is perfect without sin when the bible says he sinned many times including when he got angry at the temple money changers?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball :

The reason I enumerated so many of your historical blunders in post # 312 is to demonstrate to you how a disregard for historical meaning and your habit of placing your loyalty to your ideology above that of the biblical text creates so many errors in your theories. Your habit is to quote a scripture, and then apply an erroneous meaning to it without attention to what the scripture meant to the individual who wrote it. Thus, your theories “sound” biblical, without ever being biblical. If you will learn to pay more attention to historical meanings and language in creating your theories, you will make fewer historical and linguistic blunders and your theories will be more correct and useful to you and others.


Billiardsball said
: “Jesus Christ is GOD. He is ABOVE all angels in Hebrews. Satan is an ANGEL.” (Post # 310)

Billiardsball saidFeel free to tell me how I've "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" Hebrews, where it says Christ is above angels (and there cannot be Lucifer/Satan's brother).” (Post # 314)

Below is a demonstration of how you’ve “misunderstood” and “misinterpreted” in your attempt to differentiate Jesus from other beings in heaven based on the word “angel” :

In the ancient Judeo-Christian worldviews, Jesus, in his role as a messenger for God, is not just an angel, he is the angel.

I'll explain. The meaning of Greek Αγγελοσ (angel) and Hebrew מלך (angel) means “messenger”. Thus Malachi refers to Jesus as “the angel of the covenant” and refers to John as the angel who preceeded him. (Mal 3:1) When Jesus or John or anyone else serves as messengers of God, they were referred to as Αγγελοσ (Grk) or מלך (Hebr) which means “messenger” (an angel IS a messenger), thus Malachi is using correct language in referring to Jesus as “The angel of the covenant” and in referring to John as the angel who was sent before Jesus.

Malachi’s prophecy had special importance and meaning to early Christians. Mark refers to John :, “Behold, I send my angel before thy face…”. The greek is “Ιδου, εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου…”. Matt 11:10 and Luke 7:27 both repeat this same reference and both use τον αγγελον (angel) μου in describing how Malachi 3:1 applied to John and Jesus.

The normal use of Αγγελος as “messenger” in normal, everyday koine Greek is demonstrated in multiple Papyri of the early period. In Syll Papyrus (512:71 of ii a.d.) αγγελοι are “envoys”. Syll 122:25 (of 4 b.c.) also confirms the meaning of “intermediaries” (..ομοσαι δ]ι αγγελλων). Early Christians simply use the same term for “messenger” in its’ use for sacred messengers and intermediaries from God. Even Homer, long before used the term as a “messenger” of the gods. One can only use context to tell whether a messenger/angel is from God, or a messenger is from the local government office.

The verb forms follow the meaning of the noun in that Αγγελλω means to “proclaim”, or “summon” to an office or task. Thus For example, in Giss Papyri 1.3:2 (117 a.d.) the term is to summon to the celebration of the ascension of Hadrian “…...ανακτα καινον Αδριαν ον αγγελω[ν]...” . Even related forms and uses have to do with a message that is carried.

Αγγελια
Is used for the word “news” in the Rylan I. 28:161 Papyrus (of 4 a.d.) since messengers deliver news. Even the related word Αγγειον used in Papyrus Tor I. I.ii:6 (ii b.c.) is a “Chest” which bore messages of petitions of plaintiffs of a court. In the Gen I 74:8 Papyrus (iii a.d.) it is used to describe requests as messages placed into a chest and sealed.

Cognates of greek are used similarly. The old Persian αγγαρου used for a “courier” is a cognate of greek αγγελος. Moulton says it suggests the meaning of a “foreman” or superintendent” since it is not the Lord, (Κυριε) who always carries out a specific task, but another who sees that they are carried out. We haven’t even touched upon the many examples of similar compound words that demonstrate similar uses.

In my original response, I also referred to the fact that Jesus and Satan are both messengers, but their messages are very different. One messenger leads to life and salvation while the other leads to spiritual death. I said : If they are brothers it is because there is something they share, a commonality on some principle. A common origin (God), a common goal (to bring men to their fold), a common characteristic (both are messengers), but there are many MORE ways that they are NOT brothers, i.e. their level of power, their different goals, their different commitments, their different choices, their different fates, their difference in what they love, etc.

I think there are ways in which they are brothers, i.e. they have the same origin (God organized or created both Jesus and the angel Lucifer), but I think there are many more ways in which they are NOT brothers and are opposites. (CLEAR)


2) Intentional Mischaracterization is a type of bearing of false witness
If you should be ashamed, it is not for accidental ignorance since all of us share in that, but rather for attempts to mischaracterize anothers’ beliefs. Though mischaracterizing my belief of Satan as “a trusted brother” (as you put it) satisfies a desire for spite or revenge, readers already know it is a deception, (which, is a cousin to bearing false witness). This does not increase your credibility when readers realize you are willing to do this.


3) The ancient concept of Satan and Jesus sharing a common creator/Father God.

You asked in what way Satan and Jesus could be “brothers”. I responded : “The seemingly irrelevant question lacks context as to what Billiardsball
means by the term “brothers”. A LITERAL “brother” may be one who was born from the same mortal womb. This does not apply. But they do have the same creator, inventor, originator, father. This is correct.

The early Church Father Lactantius, describes the early concept of the relationship of Jesus to Satan. Lactantius explained that God “produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father... Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. ….For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.

Both Jesus and Satan shared the same creator/Father. The fact that these two spirits (and all other spirits) shared one and the same creator, that relationship is a brotherhood of shared creation. They did NOT share common moral characteristics.

As I said : A METAPHORICAL “brother” may apply if there is something these two individuals have in common. Still, whatever they might have in common is outweighed in many ways by what they do NOT have in common

All of these types of examples demonstrate that early, informed Christianity had more data, was more rational and more historically coherent than later, uninformed religion.

In any event, I hope your spiritual journey is good and you find wonderful satisfaction in this life.

Clear
φυνετωσιω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Why do you claim Jesus is perfect without sin when the bible says he sinned many times including when he got angry at the temple money changers?

Hi Riders,

Jesus Himself spoke of the sin of being angry without a righteous provocation. He was not only right to be cross with the money changers, He quoted scriptures showing He was fulfilling prophecy! The apostles also remarked per prophecies that Jesus was consumed with zeal.

I guess it will also depend on your views of sin and the Bible. I cannot remember a verse saying, "Jesus was sin filled." Quite the opposite, actually, and therefore, the OP.

Thanks.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
  1. You are saying Jesus is THE angel of the covenant in HEBREWS and not the divine? Please share your HEBREWS quotations here?
Hebrews #1 ___________________________

Hebrews #2 ___________________________

Hebrews #3 ___________________________

2. Intentional Mischaracterization is a type of bearing of false witness.

I agree. So why you are again defaming me? You indicate how Satan is LITERALLY Jesus’s brother (see below) and with the same post you say “I’m seeking revenge”. That’s a tad judgmental of you, isn’t it? Why do I need to seek revenge against a lost Mormon brother? I’m rather seeking your repentance.

The ancient concept of Satan and Jesus sharing a common creator/Father God.

I see. Satan and Jesus are “metaphorical” brothers since they share the same CREATOR.

  1. That is a giant heresy, saying that God the Father CREATED Jesus!



  2. Every born again Christian who knows the Mormon doctrines in the slightest knows why they should be uncomfortable with Satan as a literal brother of the Lord. Here’s Joseph Smith giving us a Moses quotation:
“And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.” – Moses 4 from Pearl of Great Price

I’m unsure how to characterize the above quote—since I would obviously hesitate to mischaracterize it. How do YOU think the average Christian characterizes a quote saying Satan is “from the beginning” and sought before his fall to redeem mankind, as the Father’s Son? And, perhaps you might tell me why Satan needed to redeem mankind BEFORE he fell and tempted Adam and Eve?! Do you not get how far off Mr. Smith was from Bible truth?

In any event, I hope your spiritual journey is good and you find wonderful satisfaction in this life.

If you indeed wish me to find satisfaction, kindly answer some of the questions I post for a change rather than cherry picking my words. (Hint: The questions have a “?” symbol to end them.) I’ll help you:

You are saying Jesus is THE angel of the covenant in HEBREWS and not the divine? ___

Please share your HEBREWS quotations here? ___

So why you are again defaming me? ___

That’s a tad judgmental of you, isn’t it [to say I seek revenge when I seek cessation of Bible heresy]? ___

Why do I need to seek revenge against a lost Mormon brother [rather than cooperation and understanding]? ___

How do YOU think the average Christian characterizes a quote saying Satan is “from the beginning” and sought before his fall to redeem mankind, as the Father’s Son? ___

And, perhaps you might tell me why Satan needed to redeem mankind BEFORE he fell and tempted Adam and Eve? ___

Do you not get how far off Mr. Smith was from Bible truth? ___
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Why do you claim Jesus is perfect without sin when the bible says he sinned many times including when he got angry at the temple money changers?

You must be smoking some good dope. The Bible doesn't ever say Jesus sinned. His anger at the money changers was righteous anger. Matthew even says that OT scripture said that Jesus would be zealous for His Father's house.

Please. :rolleyes:
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball : "You are saying Jesus is THE angel of the covenant in HEBREWS and not the divine? Please share your HEBREWS quotations here?"

You are again confused. Malaki is in the Old Testament. You are also mistaken regarding Jesus. He IS divine in early Christian theology. Your mistake in assuming Jesus cannot be an “angel” is due to ignorance of the meaning and usage of this word in it’s historical context. Thus, your theory that Jesus is different than angels based on your personal concept of what an "angel" is, will not work. He IS different than all other angels and from all other messengers, but not because the word "angel" never applied to him. You cannot disregard history and it's language and expect to build correct historical theories.

THE USE OF THE APPELLATION "ANGEL" OR "MESSENGER" IN HIS ROLE AS MESSENGER OF HIS FATHER, APPLIED TO JESUS, TO HEAVENLY HOSTS AND MEN AS WELL
The prophet Malachi said : “ Behold I am sending my angel (messenger) and he prepares the way before my face; and the Lord, whom you seek, shall come suddenly to his temple, even the angel (messenger) of the covenant whom you delight in. He comes, says Yahweh of hosts… (masoretic) (mal 3:1)

הִנְנִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָכִי, וּפִנָּה-דֶרֶךְ לְפָנָי; וּפִתְאֹם יָבוֹא אֶל-הֵיכָלוֹ הָאָדוֹן אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם מְבַקְשִׁים, וּמַלְאַךְ הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּםחֲפֵצִיםהִנֵּה-בָא--אָמַר, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת (heb)

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε καὶ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης ὃν ὑμεῖς θέλετε ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ (LXX)

Both Masoretic and Septuagint use the word for angel / messenger for both of these individuals, one of whom, is Jesus. Those who read hebrew will recognize the supreme irony of this passage being found in MALACHI since the name of the prophet Malachi means "my angel" or "my messenger" (מַלְאָכִי IS "malachi")

Jesus himself in the New testament applies Malachi’s prophecy to John and himself in their role as the messengers spoken of in Malachi 3:1. Jesus quotes Malachi 3:1 (speaking of John) “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold I send my angel/messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way..” (Matt 11:10) The greekis : “…ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου...”

In early Christian doctrine, the John, as an angel/messenger/αγγελοσ, is preparing the way for the angel of the covenant, who is Jesus in this early theological model.

Mark 1:2 uses this same verse and again, applies it to John, who is the angel/messenger who prepares the way of the Lord, who is the angel (messenger) of the covenant. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my angel/messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;…” Though the New Testament is in error in reading “Isaiah” (It is Malachi, not Isaiah where it is written), Mark applies the same meaning to the scripture as Jesus did in Matthew 11:10.

Jesus is the angel of the Covenant in early Judeo-Christian texts. He is very different from other individuals and in important ways, but one cannot distinguish him simply based on a modern re-definition or a misunderstanding of the word "angel". You must pay attention to history and language for a historical theory to have relevance.

I will respond to your other points later when I get a bit of time, since I’m at work.


Clear
σετζσισεω
 
Last edited:
Top