David in NJ
Well-Known Member
There is a LARGE percentage of Christians who have not been Baptized in the Holy Spirit
Even among those who are there remains the spiritual sickness/disease of "respect of persons".
Christadelphians, the Devil and Satan
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Even among those who are there remains the spiritual sickness/disease of "respect of persons".
I don’t want to send the thread too far off track - just asking for a clarification on your thought - but are you referring specifically to trinitarians?
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Well, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I believe the Jews know a lot about God, especially Messianic Jews who know Christ! Just some concepts are still blurry to them. Some of the early Jewish converts were fixated on the Law. Paul called out the Judaisers and corrected them. It woudl be difficult to think of the nature of God for your entire life as you do, then change, and receive Jesus as God, Who came down and became flesh (as scripture states).
But that you came from an upbringing of Judaism, that gives you an advantage over a Christidelphian's belief system for sure.
Thank you. You haven’t ruffled my feathers. In fact, I think about trinitarianism substantially in the same way that you probably think about Jewish monotheism.
If we can use an anology, think of an airplane. In regard to Jewish monotheism, you think (I perceive) of the airplane in flight but not having a clear understanding of the destination. In regard to trinitarianism, I think of the same airplane in flight but having drifted off course.
We share the same scriptures and, to a large extent, the same understanding of them.
Jewish monotheists are bound by conscience and the constraints of history not to go beyond the 1st century (undeveloped Christianity). Trinitarians are bound by conscience and the constraints of history not to retreat from the 4th century (developed Christianity). (Unitarians and binatarians are elsewhere on the spectrum of developed Christianity.)
Have you read Pinnock’s book? If you haven’t, I recommend it to your attention. It was used in one of my college courses as a textbook. I’m rereading it now. It was challenging to me in my days as a student and it is challenging to me.
God, Pinnock posits, hasn’t left himself without witness in the religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam are his primary focus. That’s not to say that all religions are equal. He’s quick to point out that they aren’t. His thought is that the path to the life of the coming age is narrow but mission recognizes that general witness in the religions and should be used in dialogue to draw people to acknowledge and confess that Jesus is kyrios.
He, a trinitarian, addresses my faith on p. 60 of his book. You might or might not agree with his attitude toward it / me.
My feathers aren’t ruffled by what trinitarians tend to think about me / Jewish monotheism. My feathers are ruffled about what I - a Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus of Nazareth is the promised, raised up and sent Messiah, Son of the living God - tend to think about trinitarians / triniarianism.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
THREE
1 - Symbolically, the Plane is Christ just as the Ark was to Noah
2 - The Holy Spirit is the Power for flight = LIFT upon invisible air
3 - The FATHER is the Pilot
The SAVED are the Passengers in CHRIST
Fixed it for ya
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
My blessing and pleasure to pick UP the tab for seeing you face-2-face for fellowship in Christ
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
When i sit down to eat/drink i will open in prayer giving thanks to God for you Today
Be back in an hour.
While you
Thank you. It’s that kind of attitude that allows us to dialogue.
Food for thought (after you enjoy your meal).
”What if a person today were to confess Christ on the basis of a functional understanding of Jesus that was derived from the synoptic Gospels and did not move further ahead to confess him in the full incarnational sense? That is to say, what if they accepted Jesus more in the sense of Luke than of John? How would we regard such a Christian?”
(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p. 59-60)
A quick comment here. I don’t fully agree with Pinnock. He’s pitting Luke (along with Matthew and Mark) against John. It’s because of what he sees in John as “full incarnational sense” which is consistent with literal preexistence typical of trinitarianism, binitarianism and unitarianism whereas what I see in John is “incarnational sense” which is consistent with notional preexistence typical of Jewish monotheism. He sees (and holds) only one incarnational category; I see two incarnational categories (and hold only one). It’s important to understand that difference - whether or not you agree with it - before proceeding. Otherwise, his question is directed squarely at my faith in Jesus.
Pinnock continues,
”This is not just an idle question, since it would be easier for Jews and Muslims to accept Jesus in those terms rather than the incarnational category. Their difficulties with Christianity in fact lie not with biblical language so much as with the technical creedal formulations of later church tradition. Though this would be an abnormal case, I suppose that the person who held to the Christology of Luke but not of John would relate to Jesus in a saving way, just as people in Luke’s narrative do, even though they would probably not be regarded as fully orthodox Christians in terms of church tradition. It would not be a question of their denying the Incarnation in a metaphysical sense, but of preferring the dynamic biblical language as more understandable than later formulations.”
(Ibid., p. 60)
Thank you. It’s that kind of attitude that allows us to dialogue.
Food for thought (after you enjoy your meal).
”What if a person today were to confess Christ on the basis of a functional understanding of Jesus that was derived from the synoptic Gospels and did not move further ahead to confess him in the full incarnational sense? That is to say, what if they accepted Jesus more in the sense of Luke than of John? How would we regard such a Christian?”
(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p. 59-60)
A quick comment here. I don’t fully agree with Pinnock. He’s pitting Luke (along with Matthew and Mark) against John. It’s because of what he sees in John as “full incarnational sense” which is consistent with literal preexistence typical of trinitarianism, binitarianism and unitarianism whereas what I see in John is “incarnational sense” which is consistent with notional preexistence typical of Jewish monotheism. He sees (and holds) only one incarnational category; I see two incarnational categories (and hold only one). It’s important to understand that difference - whether or not you agree with it - before proceeding. Otherwise, his question is directed squarely at my faith in Jesus.
Pinnock continues,
”This is not just an idle question, since it would be easier for Jews and Muslims to accept Jesus in those terms rather than the incarnational category. Their difficulties with Christianity in fact lie not with biblical language so much as with the technical creedal formulations of later church tradition. Though this would be an abnormal case, I suppose that the person who held to the Christology of Luke but not of John would relate to Jesus in a saving way, just as people in Luke’s narrative do, even though they would probably not be regarded as fully orthodox Christians in terms of church tradition. It would not be a question of their denying the Incarnation in a metaphysical sense, but of preferring the dynamic biblical language as more understandable than later formulations.”
(Ibid., p. 60)
Thank you for posting this video Matthias. I was so pleasantly surprised going through a few of his short videos on that channel. Most especially his gift for speaking to newer converts, he just has a great way about him.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
It is funny you mention Clark Pinnock. He read my book, "Hell ... If I Know" and briefly commented on it in the fall of 2009. I read his book, "The Four Views of Hell". He also shared an annihilistic view, that Hell wasn't eternal, which is why I wanted his opinion just prior to the release of my book. I was hoping I could use his comment to advance my sales, but I could not.
I have quite a different comparison of Judaism and Christianity. I see the Jews as having known and experienced God; and the Christians having the same only with an extra - dimensionsl insight added, an up close and personal visitation from God, in the flesh. And I think of the Jews as still blind, unable to see. As the Judaisers clinged to the Law, you as well cling to old this blurred invisible God who you think has only appeared to the prophets behind a cloud. You will see Him soon and will bow a knee.
.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
I'd rather expand the context than limit it.
The idea of fallen angels comes from the Old Testament - Genesis, Job, Ezekiel, and Daniel - but it isn't well-defined there. For that, you have to go to the Deuterocanon and pseudepigraphal books. That idea was developed in the period between the Old & New Testaments.
Tobit, for example, gives us a bunch of information on archangels. The idea of archangels is a pre-requisite for having a fallen archangel - Satan.
Most of the ideas people have about fallen angels and the devil seem to come from 1Enoch. We could have a whole other topic about whether Enoch is credible (I think so) and whether the church understands it well (I don't think so). As I see it, the New Testament authors do find Enoch credible, and they do follow it in believing in a supernatural Satan/Devil/spiritual-power-of-wickedness.
No, but it interests me.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Good question(s)
i am still out-n-about and will not be able to respond in depth at this time
This is definitely one of the better ones I have seen
Hiddenthings
Well-Known Member
Did you check the list?
You are merely referring to ranking angels of which Michael and Gabriel clearly are.
The Bible is silent on the idea of a so-called supernatural creature, which is why so many across various threads are scrambling to prove its existence, and so far, they've come up empty. If there were a genuine effort to identify the adversary or false accuser in each context where those terms appear, we could be having a much more meaningful discussion.
Hiddenthings
Well-Known Member
I've found it the other way. I mean you started your post at verse 12 and then forced notions upon the Word that are not there.
Here let me help you with your study.
There are several questions that need to be addressed:
- Is Satan truly accompanied by the music of viols (or harps)? (v. 11)
- Is Satan to be covered with worms in the grave (v. 11), or is he destined to be cast into the lake of fire, as stated in Revelation 20:10?
- Why would Satan desire a place “in the sides of the north”? (v. 13)
- If Satan is a fallen angel, why is he referred to as “the man”? (v. 16)
- Why would Satan say, “I will ascend into heaven”
- What land did Satan possess that, upon its destruction, would justify his dishonorable burial? (v. 20)
- Where are Satan’s people said to be buried? (v. 20) Isn't the lake of fire described as the final destination for Satan and his followers?
- When did Satan ever control a prison and refuse to release its captives? (v. 17, RSV)
I know what you will find.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
No - I decided to cede the point. I'm sure none of the verses you listed posit angels as disobedient. Otherwise you wouldn't have listed them
Yes, Tobit gives us 7 archangels who stand before the throne of God. Michael, Gabriel and Raphael are named there. Others are named elsewhere. But the idea that there are captains over legions of lesser angels... that isn't in the Old Testament, except perhaps for one verse in Daniel, and only if you squint at it just right.
Is it silent? It depends on interpretation. We could read Genesis' "sons of God" as being angels. We could read Job's council of the Elohim that way, and Ezekiel's wheels-within-wheels and Prince of Tyrus. The prophet Daniel has Michael and his opponent, and a whole "evil empire" whose seat seems to move from Babylon to Pasargadae to Antioch and onwards.
That does sound like a better conversation. I reckon I already know a non-supernatural explanation for every one of those passages. But... how did Jesus and the apostles read it? As far as I can tell, they are credulous of supernatural demons and devils, including THE satan.
So, then... if Isaiah writes of Lucifer, but he clearly refers to the king of Babylon... yet the apostles take that and use it to refer to someone or something else entirely... who shall I believe? Shall I discard Isaiah's original meaning for the one the apostles give it? Shall I discard the apostles for Isaiah? I prefer both/and, but it seems to be shoddy hermeneutics. Perhaps I should discard my hermeneutics instead?
Hiddenthings
Well-Known Member
It's the only instances in the Master's ministry where he references angels.
Yes, agree
Do you think this is actually the origin story for fallen angels? Personally, I don’t. Most scholars agree that the Old Testament is largely silent on the topic, which is why it’s so important to carefully consider the context of any references found in the New Testament.
The vernacular of the time didn’t give them the language we might use today. If something was unknown to them, how could they possibly describe it with certainty?
Where is Lucifer mentioned in the NT?
No, I believe studying each occurrence in its context is the only way to gain an understanding. I'll give you an example.
1 Timothy 3:11 "Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers (devils), but sober-minded, faithful in all things."
Why did the translators not use the word devils here?
Titus 2:3 "Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers (devils) or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good."
And here?
The next question you would ask yourself is what if they used the words slanderer, false accuser and adversary for every occurrence?
What would that do for this study?
Similar threads
