Oakspear

Do you think that Paul was saying anything different at his new location (the "school" of Tyrannus) than he was at his old hangout (the synagogue)?It seems pretty apparent that Paul was operating within the standard Mediteranean cultural norm, i.e. going to a place where public discourse was allowed and encouraged, like a synagogue or marketplace, and speaking his peace, while engaging others in discussion and debate. After three months in Ephesus, the synagogue wasn't as hospitable a place as it had been, few were believing and were bad-mouthing him. "School" is not necessarily what we in modern times would call a school. It is translated from the Greek word σχολη, which means a place free from labor, where one has the leisure to learn, not not a place with a cirriculum, textbooks and a schedule. Paul was going to a location where he could continue as he had been, without the opposition of the Jewish leaders that he had to deal with in the synagogue. There is no indication that there was a "graduation" or anyone going out formally as "ambassadors", just that after two years of teaching all of Asia had heard what he had to say. By the way, "Asia" is not "Asia Minor", now known as Turkey, as Wierwille stated in PFAL. Asia was a province, centered on Ephesus, that was only a small part of what we now call Asia Minor.

Here's some interesting discussion from the catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

There's a requirement that we all be negative about Wierwille & his class? :o I think that there are positive things to be said, and that there were benefits to be had, but everything in context: the topic of this thread is that God did not ordain that his Word be taught via a "class". If someone thinks that he did, then it shouldn't be difficult to come up with biblical citations to back up that opinion. I think a better case can be made that in early Christianity, i.e. The Book of Acts, the gospel was learned by associating with other Christians and by observing their example and hearing what they taught, every day of their lives. There was no graduation, no attainment of ultimate knowledge. Christianity was a community, and could no more be learned from a syllabus or sitting in a seminar than a new baby can become a functioning adult part of a culture by a stint in kindergarten.

Sometimes the numbers of people who were supposedly 'delivered' are tossed out. Even assuming that A) The 'deliverence' took place & B) The numbers are accurate - even the most optimistic estimates are just a drop in the bucket to those who claim to have been delivered, healed, born again, what have you, by other minsitries and churches. Not that PFAL was necessarily any better or worse than any other church, but the numbers are meaningless in that context. As far as the 'minimum amount of time' aspect; why is learning fast necessarily learning best?

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha....foolish mortal!

I never go away bro'....I'm walking up and down and to and fro in the earth...

You would think that this applies to Satan, but do we think that because we already know this verse? If we take this verse literally, then the only ones literally in Eden would be God, Satan, Adam and Eve. But could it be a figurative reference to the King of Tyre? No matter who this is talking about it's figurative. Someone pointed out that no man is ever called a "cherub". But is Satan called a cherub anywhere else. What exactly are the cherubs? Are we predisposed to think that this refers to Satan because that's what we were taught?

Isn't that attitude what got you put on moderater queue last time? Wordwolf gave you some good advice a while back on how to conduct arguments, I'd take it if I were you. So...anything to contribute? Or are you just gonna sling mud?

Why is that a problem for you? I, for one, don't always have my bible in the same room as my computer. Dancing & I see things very differently (usually), but give him credit for using specific verses to back up his opinion. Better than your usual smart-@ssed comments that assume that everybody either accepts your interpretation of the bible or is an idiot. Yeah, so? Allan...PFAL tinted glasses...again, what's your point? Have anything to contribute?

The section in Ezekiel is a little harder to dismiss as not referring to the devil: but look at this context It may or may not be talking about the same person here, Tyre & Tyrus are the same, but Prince & King are 2 different words in Hebrew, so we may be talking about 2 individuals in Tyre.However, the prince is accused of thinking that he is a god, but God emphasizes that he is a man. No more time right now, but this could argue for the following section not referring to satan at all, but to the puffed up view of the King of Tyre about himself, hyperbole again.

Okay with me I was looking at that section in Isaiah again, where the name "Lucifer" is used. If I recall correctly, Isaiah was written just before Israel was defeated and carried off to Babylon. A prophecy of the future: God's not going to allow the captivity to last forever. Up to this point, I don't see where there is any reason to suppose that this is anything but the king of babylon we're talking about. This is where (IMHO) one has to decide whether this section is literally talking about the Babylonian King, or Satan. One way or another figurative language is being employed. This could be referring to how lofty a spot the king of Babylon fell from by way of hyperbole, or literally to Satan. Although at the time that this was written there was no other verses to to back up Satan falling from heaven (In Job he still has access to heaven) There is nothing that I can see in these verses that solidly indicates that this is talking about Satan. When was it decided that this did refer to Satan? Was it ever viwed that way in pre-Christian times? Did the Church Fathers view it that way? In short, was that section always looked at as obviously referring to Satan, or did that position evolve?

You get extra husband points for that one

Sunesis, that's uncalled for. First, who is calling those who believe the bible idiots? It's not a large thread, and about 1/3 of the posts are jokes about the devil in a blue dress or playing a fiddle in Georgia :blink: so they shouldn't be hard to find. Bramble and I gave our opinions from a pagan POV, Abigail from a Jewish POV, Wordwolf gave some good reasons for his POV. Everybody appeared to acting civilly Speaking just for myself, I don't consider the bible believers idiots, I just don't believe what you do. But you chose to paint other posters as those speaking forth flowery (do you imply emptiness with the floweriness?) And no, I don't, from my POV have a decision to make. I don't have to decide to follow either a god or a devil that I don't believe exists. This doesn't have to be a fight, it can be a discussion.

From a non-God-inspired bible POV, when the different books of the bible were written, what was going on at the time, who Israel was in contact with, and what points the different writers were trying to make is all important. Throughout most of the bible evil happens without any help from a devil. In Job you have the aspect of the tempter/accuser, who is evidently on speaking terms with God, then a couple of sections in books, one which immediately precedes the captivity and one that is deep into it, that are just kinda thrown into the mix, then all of a sudden he's all over the place in the gospels. I'm sure that my fellow posters who subscribe to biblical inerranct can make it all "fit"...somehow, I find cultural influences and attempts and reconciling different aspects of theology just as reasonable.

By who? (whom?)There's a variety of opinions here. I myself don't believe in a literal devil and believe that the biblical references to him (it) are an attempt to reconcile conflicting attributes of God. But that's just me. That being said, I think if one were to take the view that the bible is inspired by God, then it is clear that not onlly are the verses in Ezekiel and Isaiah referring to literal flesh and blood men, but they are also figuratively referring to the being known as Satan/The Devil. You give some good reasons for thinking that they refer to the Devil, and I mostly agree with you. You've thought it through. I can't speak for any other poster, but I ask questions from a skeptical POV to encourage people to THINK. This may be a stupid question, but is there an actual Dictionary of Misinformation or are you poking fun at someone?

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus!

Thanks for the panties...and btw...I am from Southern New York

Maybe the "obnoxious New Yorkers" got sent there as WOWs and couldn't afford to leave. No, you said That "rudeness" - part of our culture Where's my panties? I want to wad 'em

Flavah? I got yer flavah right heah! (New Yorker in exile in Nebraska)

Sidney is about 60 miles from the Wyoming border, and about 12 miles north of the Colorado line in the Nebraska panhandle. Kearney is cloer to the center of the state.

Satan in Judaism: http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html

Since I am not one of those who believe the bible literally, I'm not going to try to make the Devil "fit".I see the bible as a collection of writings by people trying to make sense out of their spiritual experiences and to somehow make it all hang together. Some of it may have been sincere efforts to share their experiences with others, other parts seem more like partisan pamphlets, putting down the views of opposing camps and pushing their own agendas. Devil theology appears to me to be a way to make sense of the very real fact of suffering and evil in a world presided over by a loving God.

So where did he come from? Or is your point that "Satan" was not created as an evil being, but became that way? I understand that God didn't directly create everything that ever was, but that he created the raw material out of which everything consists. I don't think that a biblical case can be made that Satan evolved, or was born, or was built from angel parts by other angels, therefore, despite there being no verse that "lists" Satan as a creation from God, God created him. (note: I am using "Satan" for both his fallen and pre-fallen state. I'm not convinced that the "Lucifer" of Ezekiel is referring to Satan) Well, that's one meaning, and certainly its literal one. Figuratively it can mean the unseen abode of God. Okay, I won't argue with that Well, that's the "gap" theory, which is not universally accepted. I'm not seeing how this fits in to your point. Hmmm...no it's not. While the English word "replenish" means "to fill again", the Hebrew word from which it is translated does not. Well, anyway, the bible does say that God created evil:Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

You think maybe there were things not included in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? If you stick with biblical literalism, God created everything, including Satan and all that he was/is. Satan rebelled and as a result we had a focus, or even a source for evil. But according to Pond So that the existance of evil is part of God's plan.If evil's existance is part of God's plan, then Satan didn't really have a choice, did he? God was counting on Satan to rebel. Sounds like a setup. Nice guy, this God fella :unsure: Seems to me that with free will every single person would have the ability to choose to love and obey God or not. There would not be a need to have a focus or personification of that lack of love and of disobedience. You don't need a devil to have evil. You need a devil to take the heat off of God for all the evil that does happen on his watch.