When did Lucifer become Satan

[Youtellme]

My point is you said "How do you suppose Jesus (a Jew, versed in the Torah) thought of Satan?" and then quoted scripture. Scripture is not the word of Jesus, and that is exactly my point. I could say you said something, but it does not make it so. Watch this:

The president just announced he is homosexual! He told his wife who told this girl who leaked it to the news who called me because I am special. Sounds like a ridiculous idea to take my word, doesn't it...

Yes it does. Coming from you.

We are debating history, fact, and scripture. Since 2 out of 3 of those support my position, I am fine with it. Sticking with what we have to go from includes history and fact as well as what is written in scripture. And since scripture contradicts history and fact, I am going to consider it unsound, invalid, and therefore illogical in an argument.

So, are you saying 100% of the Bible is unsound, invalid, and therefore illogical in an argument?

 

[1137]

Yes it does. Coming from you.

Ah, but not from a person you know no absolute facts about, you have never talked to, you have never met, you have never met / talked to acquaintances of...? The reason we learn stranger danger as kids is you are not supposed to trust people you know nothing about.

So, are you saying 100% of the Bible is unsound, invalid, and therefore illogical in an argument?

100%? No. Especially not in the Torah and related scriptures. The NT though, for the most part, yes. A book such as the NT cannot be completely false if it tried. It is always going to be based on some facts. But most Jewish people do not take the Torah literally anyways, which is a problem I feel you are encountering here. Also, as you yourself pointed out, belief in the scripture is, in fact, illogical when put up to the historical fact that Jesus was Jewish. So, we know that the writers were blatant liars when they said Jesus believed he was the messiah, believed himself divine, believed himself the Son of God, believed Lucifer / Satan / The Devil are all the same, etc etc etc. Personally, once people blatantly lie about extremely important facts I no longer care for their stories.

 

[Youtellme]

Ah, but not from a person you know no absolute facts about, you have never talked to, you have never met, you have never met / talked to acquaintances of...? The reason we learn stranger danger as kids is you are not supposed to trust people you know nothing about.



100%? No. Especially not in the Torah and related scriptures. The NT though, for the most part, yes. A book such as the NT cannot be completely false if it tried. It is always going to be based on some facts. But most Jewish people do not take the Torah literally anyways, which is a problem I feel you are encountering here. Also, as you yourself pointed out, belief in the scripture is, in fact, illogical when put up to the historical fact that Jesus was Jewish. So, we know that the writers were blatant liars when they said Jesus believed he was the messiah, believed himself divine, believed himself the Son of God, believed Lucifer / Satan / The Devil are all the same, etc etc etc. Personally, once people blatantly lie about extremely important facts I no longer care for their stories.

Can I ask then, of the NT what books or verses do you count as honest and trustworthy? And why if at all?

 

[1137]

Can I ask then, of the NT what books or verses do you count as honest and trustworthy? And why if at all?

None. I may have read the NT numerous times but it is out of necessity for my studies. It holds,NO merit for me.

 

[Youtellme]

None. I may have read the NT numerous times but it is out of necessity for my studies. It holds,NO merit for me.

I see. So no point debating it further. Will keep going round in circles.

 

[InChrist]

None. I may have read the NT numerous times but it is out of necessity for my studies. It holds,NO merit for me.

So you do not believe the NT scriptures which indicate and warn that Satan is a wicked,cruel spiritual being much more powerful than humans and or that he is intent on our destruction?

 

[payak]

after all the things he did in the bible, it was not until 1914 he got the boot.
god really is forgiving.

 

[InChrist]

after all the things he did in the bible, it was not until 1914 he got the boot.
god really is forgiving.

The date of 1914 is just another false date set by a false prophet. Satan actually is gratified with all the fake prophets and dates people come up with who claim to believe in God and the Bible as much as he is glad when those who don't believe in God or the Bible dismiss or attack the scriptures. Either way, the scriptures are maligned and that is the thing he wants see occur.

 

[1137]

I see. So no point debating it further. Will keep going round in circles.

Or we can talk history and fact of lucifer and satan, but that would take evidence and logic. Without those I don't want to be in the therefore useless debate anyways.

So you do not believe the NT scriptures which indicate and warn that Satan is a wicked,cruel spiritual being much more powerful than humans and or that he is intent on our destruction?

Not at all. Doesn't mean I do not study and understand the mythology. I study philosophy / religion full time. All mythologies are equally important to understand how people think.

 

[fallingblood]

One author though, no?
No, at least two authors.

Who tempted Jesus?

How does that relate to what I said? Jesus is part of the NT, not OT. If you read my first post here, which you did as you did respond to it, you will see that I stated that the idea of Satan had started becoming more firm around the time of Jesus. However, that is after the OT period. So really, that is an irrelevant question.

 

[InChrist]

Not at all. Doesn't mean I do not study and understand the mythology. I study philosophy / religion full time. All mythologies are equally important to understand how people think.

If you do not believe there is a personal spiritual being as Satan, then I suppose you don't believe it is possible that you could be deceived by him. Is this correct?

 

[1137]

If you do not believe there is a personal spiritual being as Satan, then I suppose you don't believe it is possible that you could be deceived by him. Is this correct?

Can you be deceived by something that does not exist? No. However, you can be deceived by corrupt people, "gods", etc. Satan does not exist in the concept of the Devil in Christianity. If we are talking about an evil being who lies to people to control them, it is the Christian god, a lower manifestation of the god Set. Yes, "he" exists and he is truly evil.

 

[InChrist]

Can you be deceived by something that does not exist? No. However, you can be deceived by corrupt people, "gods", etc. Satan does not exist in the concept of the Devil in Christianity. If we are talking about an evil being who lies to people to control them, it is the Christian god, a lower manifestation of the god Set. Yes, "he" exists and he is truly evil.

How do you know that Satan as described in the Bible does not exist or is not deceiving you?

 

[1137]

How do you know that Satan as described in the Bible does not exist or is not deceiving you?

Logic, evidence, history, mysticism / knowledge, intelligence, truth, common sense, deep study of the evolution of spirituality... You have that man made book right? Almost equal...

 

[InformedIgnorance]

See that is the problem when they realised that the god depicted in the OT and NT were nothing alike.

When they decided that if they made the vengeful god a benevolent god all the vengence had to be put somewhere - so they attributed it to one of god's angles whom god had told to torture job (amongst other lovely little tasks), of course this meant that he could no longer remain a mere angel, he had to be a fallen angel... who had now somehow become so powerful that he could now spread 'evil' throughout the world which is why bad things can happen to good people yet it can still be claimed that there is an omnipotent god who loves us and therefore we should be able to assume would try to prevent bad things from happening to good people... yet doesnt manage it... and is still omnipotent.

 

[fallingblood]

See that is the problem when they realised that the god depicted in the OT and NT were nothing alike.

When they decided that if they made the vengeful god a benevolent god all the vengence had to be put somewhere - so they attributed it to one of god's angles whom god had told to torture job (amongst other lovely little tasks), of course this meant that he could no longer remain a mere angel, he had to be a fallen angel... who had now somehow become so powerful that he could now spread 'evil' throughout the world which is why bad things can happen to good people yet it can still be claimed that there is an omnipotent god who loves us and therefore we should be able to assume would try to prevent bad things from happening to good people... yet doesnt manage it... and is still omnipotent.

Not really. The idea of Satan began surfacing before the NT was written.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yes, but they did not attempt to change the nature of GOD, from some impartial often wrathful being into some sort of divine care-bear; when they did THAT (suggesting that god loves the world so much that he sent his only son) well that really crystallised their need for an antagonist to counterbalance god's love-fest influence. I agree that their understanding of evil had been changing to the pluralist view... however when they decided to give god a brand new personality well they had no choice but to get cracking on the 'devil'.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, but they did not attempt to change the nature of GOD, from some impartial often wrathful being into some sort of divine care-bear; when they did THAT (suggesting that god loves the world so much that he sent his only son) well that really crystallised their need for an antagonist to counterbalance god's love-fest influence. I agree that their understanding of evil had been changing to the pluralist view... however when they decided to give god a brand new personality well they had no choice but to get cracking on the 'devil'.

The NT doesn't give God a brand new personality though. We can see through the OT, and Jewish literature before the time of Jesus, that the idea of God changed. There is a gradual change in how people saw God. It wasn't an all of a sudden new personality starting with the NT.

I mean, we can look at stories such as Jonah, and see a loving God.

 

[mr black]

After the fall he is no longer called by this title. We have to understand that this being, now called Satan (meaning accuser) was created without flaws, perfect in his being until sin was manifested - which was pride). Satan is spoken of in Ezek. 28:14: “You were the anointed cherub who covers; in Ezek 28:16 he is called the covering cherub. He was the anointed angel day star, the son of the morning that was located “above God’s throne.”

Why do religionists need different definitions for words that everybody understands quite well.
Here once again we have imperfect perfection, you have an omnipotent god who can't do some things, an omniscient god who doesn't know some things, a perfect god who exhibits all of the unpleasant attributes of man.

 

[mr black]

But I want "tellme" to tell us about this war that happened in heaven in 1914, how many were involved, how many casualties, did they use flaming swords, or laser blasters or slingshots? Tell us more I love a good war story, was it like Star Wars? C'mon give!!!!!!