QUOTE (Christina @ Apr 13 2009, 12:39 PM)
index.php?act=findpost&pid=72461
GET THEE BEHIND ME SATANFirst of all, Mark 16:23 is talking to Peter! (or satan moving through Peter?) So is Mrk 8:33. Mainly though he was rebuking Peter.In Mttw 4:10, and Luke 4:8 he is speaking to satan directly.This is really important because satan is the son of perdition (fate is death) and Peter is a disciple, who will inherit eternal life.He could not have meant the same thing when He told Peter to "get thee behind me satan" as he meant to satan himself.In fact the Scriptures give us the exact reason Jesus said that to Peter, and a different reason Jesus said this to satan himself.This should be properly divided, and maybe this alone will cause Tom to rethink his view, but if it doesn't then we look at the defintion of 5217 more carefully:to lead (oneself) under, that is, withdraw or retire (as if sinking out of sight), literally or figuratively: - depart, get hence, go (a-) way.Is the son of Perdition capable of "leading himself" out of sight? Would the son of Perdition willingly "sink out of sight"? Probably not! Unless he were forced to do so; hence, the battle of the ages between Michael the archangel and satan, which takes place in the place satan was told to g
BVIOUSLY, Peter was NOT the son of Perdition, so the context of the passage Matthew 16:23 naturally requires a figurative sense. Being one of "rank" or "position". Obviously, Peter was not sentenced to prison.When Jesus was speaking to satan himself, he said Matt 4:10"for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."Who is coming to be worshipped like a messiah? We know, it's satan of course. Then what, in essence, was Jesus saying to him? I think he's saying, that He's not going to LET satan come as spurious Christ (remember satan tempted Christ to worship him?) until his time.Hence, the whole purpose of locking him up "behind" our Heavenly Father. Satan wanted the whole earth to worship him, EVEN THEN!So, since satan would never "willingly" sink into the background ("lead himself"), Christ commanded him to go there, and enforced it.Remember 2 Thess 2:77 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he (Michael) who now letteth will let, until he (SATAN) be taken out of the way.Michael is holding "him" (satan) as we speak. To prevent the worship of the beast before his "set time". For he only has a "SHORT time" :Rev 12:1212 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come DOWN unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a SHORT time.OF course you know what happens then, first thing he lets the demons out of the pit with his "key". He's been waiting to do that for about 2000 of our years.I strongly believe the foundation of this truth is solid. Tea Tephi
QUOTE
GET THEE BEHIND ME SATANFirst of all, Mark 16:23 is talking to Peter! (or satan moving through Peter?) So is Mrk 8:33. Mainly though he was rebuking Peter.
I think you must mean Matthew 16:23 here because Mark doesn't have a 16:23, Mark stops with verse 20. Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. QUOTE
In Mttw 4:10, and Luke 4:8 he is speaking to satan directly.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence(G5217), Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. G5217ὑπάγωhupagōhoop-ag'-oFrom
G5259 and G71; to lead (oneself) under, that is, withdraw or retire (as if sinking out of sight), literally or figuratively: - depart, get hence, go (a-) way.G5259ὑπόhupohoop-o'A primary preposition; under, that is, (with the genitive) of place (beneath), or with verbs (the agency or means, through); (with the accusative) of place (whither [underneath] or where [below]) or time (when [at]): - among, by, from, in, of, under, with. In compounds it retains the same genitive applications, especially of inferior position or condition, and specifically covertly or moderatelyG71ἄγωagōag'-oA primary verb; properly to lead; by implication to bring, drive, (reflexively) go, (specifically) pass (time), or (figuratively) induce: - be, bring (forth), carry, (let) go, keep, lead away, be open.Companion Bible, side column, (p.1314) "Get thee hence = Go! This is the end, and the Lord ends it. In Luke 4. 13, after the third temptation, Satan "departed" of his own accord and only "for a season". Here, after the last, Satan is summarily dismissed, not to return. See Ap. 116."Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Christ is telling Satan his rightful position is "under" HimQUOTE
Just so you don't have to look it up116. THE TEMPTATIONS OF OUR LORD. It is well known that the order of the temptations in Matthew is not the same as in Luke. Commentators and Harmonizers assume that the one is right and the other is wrong; and proceed to change the order of one in order to make it agree with the other. See Ap. 96. But an examination of the combined accounts, giving due weight to the words and expressions used, will explain all the differences, and show that both Gospels are absolutely correct; while the differences are caused by the three temptations being repeated by the devil in a different order, thus making six instead of three. Mark and Luke agree in stating that the temptations continued all the forty days (Mark 1:13. Luke 4:2); they are described as follows :-- I. (Luke 4:3,4) "The devil (ho diabolos) said to Him, 'Speak to this stone (to litho touto) that it become a loaf (artos).'" This appears to be the first temptation: and there is no reason whatever why it should not have been repeated in another form; for it is nowhere stated that there were three, and only three temptations (*1).II. (Luke 4:5-8) "And the devil, conducting (anagagon) Him, shewed to Him all the kingdoms of the habitable world, or land (Gr. oikoumene, Ap. 129. 3), in a moment of time." Nothing is said about "an exceeding high mountain". Lachmann brackets the words "into an high mountain", and Tischendorff, Tregelles, Alford, WH and R.V. omit them. The devil claims to possess the right to the kingdoms of the world, and the Lord does not dispute it. Satan says : "To Thee will I give this authority (exousia) and all their glory, for to me it has been delivered, and to whomsoever I wish I give it. Therefore, if Thou wilt worship before me, all shall be Thine." Nothing is said here about "falling down", as in Matthew. Here only "authority" is offered; for all the critical Greek texts read "pasa" (not "panta") fem. to agree with exousia. The Lord did not say, "Get thee hence" (as in Matt. 4:10), but "Get thee behind Me", which was a very different thing. Satan did not depart then, any more than Peter did when the same was said to him (Matt. 16:23).III. (Luke 4:9-12) "And he conducted (egagen) Him to Jerusalem, and set Him upon the wing (or battlement, Dan. 9:27m.) of the temple, and said to Him, 'If Thou art the Son of God, cast Thyself down hence, for it is written, that to His angels He will give charge concerning Thee, to keep thee (tou diaphulaxai se)'", &c. There is nothing said about this "keeping thee" in Matthew; moreover, it is stated that having finished every form of temptation, "he departed from Him for a season". Note that the devil departed (apeste) of his own accord in Luke 4:13, while in Matthew the Lord summarily dismissed him, and commanded him to be gone. (Matt. 4:10).IV. (Matt. 4:3, 4) After the "season" (referred to in Luke 4:13), and on another occasion therefore, "he who was tempting Him (ho peirazon), having come (proselthon), said, "If Thou are the Son of God, say that these stones become loaves (artoi)". Not "this stone", or "a loaf" (artos), as in Luke 4:3. Moreover he is not plainly called "the devil", as in Luke 4:3, but is spoken of as the one who had already been named as tempting Him (ho peirazon); and as "having come" (proselthon); not as simply speaking as being then present.V. (Matt. 4:5-7) "Then (tote)" -- in strict succession to the preceding temptation of the "stones" and the "loaves" -- "Then the devil taketh (paralambanei) Him unto the holy city, and setteth Him upon the wing (or battlement) of the temple", &c. Nothing is said here about the angels being charged to "keep" Him (as in Luke 4:10); nor is there any reason why any of these three forms of temptation should not have been repeated, under other circumstances and conditions.VI. (Matt. 4:8-10) Here it is plainly stated that the second temptation (Luke 4:5-8) was repeated : for "Again the devil taketh Him unto an exceedingly high mountain, and sheweth to Him all the kingdoms of the world, kosmos (Ap. 129. 1), not oikoumene (Ap. 129. 3), as in Luke 4:5, and their glory, and said to Him : "All these things, not "all this authority", as in Luke 4:6, will I give to Thee if, falling down, Thou wilt worship me". Here, in this last temptation, the climax is reached. It was direct worship. Nothing is said in Luke about falling down. Here it is boldly and plainly said, "Worship me". This was the crisis. There was no departing of satan's own accord here. The moment had come to end all these temptations by the Lord Himself. "Go! said the Lord (hupage), Get thee hence, Satan ... Then the devil leaveth (aphiesin) Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him". This angelic ministry marked the end. There is no such ministry mentioned at the end of the third temptation in Luke 4:3-12; for then Satan "departed" of his own accord, returning (in Matt. 4:3) after "a season" (Luke 4:13). True, the Lord had said "Get thee behind Me, Satan" (Luke 4:8); but He did not, then, summarily dismiss him, nor did satan depart : he continued with his third temptation, not departing till after the third had been completed. We thus conclude that, while there were temptations continuous during the whole of the forty days (Mark 1:13. Luke 4:2), they culminated in six direct assaults on the Son of man, in three different forms; each form being repeated on two separate occasions, and under different circumstances, but not in the same order. This accords with all the variations of the words used, explains the different order of events in the two Gospels and satisfies all the conditions demanded by the sacred text. The two different orders in Matthew and Luke do not arise from a "mistake" in one or the other, so that one may be considered correct and the other incorrect; they arise form the punctilious accuracy of the Divine record in describing the true and correct order in which Satan varied the six temptations; for which variation, he alone, and neither of the Evangelists, is responsible.(*1) This is like other traditional expressions: for where do we read of "three" wise me? We see them only in medieval paintings. Where do we read of angels being women? Yet as such they are always painted. Where do we find in Scripture other common sayings, such as "the talent hid in a napkin"? It was hidden "in the earth". Where do we ever see a picture of the crucifixion with the mark of the spear on the left side?
QUOTE (Christina @ Apr 13 2009, 12:39 PM)
index.php?act=findpost&pid=72461
Christina/Tea's post cont.This is really important because satan is the son of perdition (fate is death) and Peter is a disciple, who will inherit eternal life.He could not have meant the same thing when He told Peter to "get thee behind me satan" as he meant to satan himself.In fact the Scriptures give us the exact reason Jesus said that to Peter, and a different reason Jesus said this to satan himself.This should be properly divided, and maybe this alone will cause Tom to rethink his view, but if it doesn't then we look at the defintion of 5217 more carefully:to lead (oneself) under, that is, withdraw or retire (as if sinking out of sight), literally or figuratively: - depart, get hence, go (a-) way.Is the son of Perdition capable of "leading himself"
υπαγε here is a command given by Christ and Satan does leave to come back later. QUOTE
Christina/Tea's post cont. out of sight? Would the son of Perdition willingly "sink out of sight"? Probably not! Unless he were forced to do so; hence, the battle of the ages between Michael the archangel and satan, which takes place in the place satan was told to go. ...Hence, the whole purpose of locking him up "behind" our Heavenly Father.
See above. The place Satan was told to go was his position "under" Christ in authority, not behind Him, locked in Heaven. Satan is still able to go "to and fro." Michael is keeping an eye on him, but Satan is still able to go "to and fro."QUOTE
Christina/Tea's post cont. Remember 2 Thess 2:77 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he (Michael) who now letteth will let, until he (SATAN) be taken out of the way.Michael is holding "him" (satan) as we speak. To prevent the worship of the beast before his "set time". For he only has a "SHORT time" :Rev 12:1212 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come DOWN unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a SHORT time....
This is all based on the idea that the archangels are always in Heaven, and there is NO Scripture to back that claim up, it in only Pastor Arnold Murray's conjecture. Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except(G3362) a manG5100 be born(G1080) again(G509), he cannot(G1410
G3756) see the kingdom of God. Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Now we all know that "born again" means "born fron above," so we do not need to discuss that point. The question is does "a man" mean all souls.G3362ἐὰν μήean mēeh-an' mayThat is, G1437 and
G3361; if not, that is, unless: - X before, but, except, if no, (if, + whosoever) not.G3361μήmēmayA primary particle of qualified negation (whereas G3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverbially) not, (conjugationally) lest; also (as interrogitive implying a negative answer [whereas G3756 expects an affirmative one]); whether: - any, but, (that), X forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (X wise in), none, nor, [can-] not, nothing, that not, un [-taken], without. Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations. See also G3362, G3363, G3364, G3372, G3373, G3375, G3378.G5100τίςtistisAn enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).G1080γεννάωgennaōghen-nah'-oFrom a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.G509ἄνωθενanōthenan'-o-thenFrom G507; from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew: - from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top.G1410δύναμαιdunamaidoo'-nam-aheeOf uncertain affinity; to be able or possible: - be able, can (do, + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power.G3756οὐouooAlso οὐκ ouk ook used before a vowel and οὐχ ouch ookh before an aspirate. A primary word; the absolutely negative (compare G3361) adverb; no or not: - + long, nay, neither, never, no (X man), none, [can-] not, + nothing, + special, un ([-worthy]), when, + without, + yet but. See also G3364, G3372.The question is; where are the archangels? Are they in heaven or do they come through the flesh? I am convinced they need to come through the flesh at some time. Since this is where the action is I would expect they would want to be with their troops. The only ones that do not come through the flesh in Satan and his angels, and we know their fate because of their refusal to be born of woman. "Sons of Oil" #382, Dennis MurrayQUOTE
Dennis, "I believes the two witnesses were present when Jesus Christ ascended in the host of angelic beings.
Pastor Arnold Murray, "Vision" #1198 Passover 2006QUOTE
Not then. But today. At the end. That’s when the vision is going to be. Who’s mouth is that from? Gabriel. What is it Gabriel sounds? They say he blows the horn. Okay? So he should know. Alright.
This quote from Arnold Murray is much better when you see his facial expressions and body language on the DVD of "Vision."
