So, there’s a distinction drawn between the devil and the Satan, between devilish and satanic?
I'm totally ignorant on the Greek or Aramaic words for it, but I know the principle is one of "direct versus indirect," Indirect can have degrees of separation.
Does that ring a bell?
Entropy may be the deepest example of the indirect, Satan, but I have only heard and entertained this idea a few times.
Something I have always wondered about is the why is Satan usually with a capital "s" and the devil with a lower case "d" ?
I’m going to stick my neck out and say I liked your post; it reminded me of a drive through zoo we did a couple of years ago - I had the moonroof open and a giraffe had its snout poking in! We didn’t have any stretched coffee to offer…oh well… the visit was awesome!
I'm totally ignorant on the Greek or Aramaic words for it, but I know the principle is one of "direct versus indirect," Indirect can have degrees of separation.
Does that ring a bell?
Entropy may be the deepest example of the indirect, Satan, but I have only heard and entertained this idea a few times.
Something I have always wondered about is the why is Satan usually with a capital "s" and the devil with a lower case "d" ?
Direct or indirect based on what? Are you just regurgitating?
You left out Hebrew. The Satan first appears in Hebrew.
I’ll see what Heiser and others say. I’ll find out.
I'm totally ignorant on the Greek or Aramaic words for it, but I know the principle is one of "direct versus indirect," Indirect can have degrees of separation.
Does that ring a bell?
Entropy may be the deepest example of the indirect, Satan, but I have only heard and entertained this idea a few times.
Wierwille taught that the devil indicated a direct interaction, such as the devil tempting Jesus, where as satan was an indirect attack using the kingdoms of the world. Personally, I feel that such a disctinction is trivial at best and the various names simply emphasize attributes of the one named. Lucifer, devil, satan all have shades of meaning in scripture that are descriptive of lucifers nature.
Are there upper and lower case grammar rules in Greek or Aramaic languages? Otherwise, if it's just English, it would seem to be arbitrary.
I think the English convention (like my spell checker) may not be that arbitrary, but it harkens back to the KJV being such a large presence in the language for centuries. The translators may have had a reason for the upper and lower case designations?
I'm totally ignorant on the Greek or Aramaic words for it, but I know the principle is one of "direct versus indirect," Indirect can have degrees of separation.
Does that ring a bell?
Entropy may be the deepest example of the indirect, Satan, but I have only heard and entertained this idea a few times.
Something I have always wondered about is the why is Satan usually with a capital "s" and the devil with a lower case "d" ?
What? Your 25 years of collateral study have you completely unfamiliar with the DTA class in all of its formats?
Tell me it’s not so, Collateral Guru.
This means you can’t recite “The Great Prince’s Pull” from memory?
And I think this is also related to "the devil would not have crucified Jesus, had he known the mystery."
I've never thought about where I got that notion. I think from just reading the KJV
Uh huh. Or, could it be from the great mystery revealed session in PFAL? I guess I could ask a grad but most have either forgotten or weren't paying attention.
OMG! That is hilarious…I looked that up and found out from Wikipedia:
Kirby's main method of attack is to inhale enemies and objects into his mouth, after which the player can choose to swallow or spit them out as a star-shaped projectile attack. In addition to running and jumping, Kirby can fly by inflating himself with a mouthful of air and flapping his arms. Flying can be done indefinitely; however, while flying, Kirby's only method of attack is to release the air puff held in his mouth which cancels his flight.
Uh huh. Or, could it be from the great mystery revealed session in PFAL? I guess I could ask a grad but most have either forgotten or weren't paying attention.
I usually cite (1) forgotten or (2) not ready to fully absorb, but leave out (3) weren't paying attention. Dale Carnegie inspired me to omit (3).
Why did they not fully absorb? Could it have been because they weren't paying attention?
Possibly, but I like better the possibility that God was supplying the information early, knowing it would help later in life, even though we weren't mature enough for it at the time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
50
43
92
Popular Days
Jan 31
120
Feb 1
100
Feb 4
65
Feb 2
65
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 82 posts
T-Bone 50 posts
Bolshevik 43 posts
OldSkool 92 posts
Popular Days
Jan 31 2023
120 posts
Feb 1 2023
100 posts
Feb 4 2023
65 posts
Feb 2 2023
65 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I knew someone who died trying to make it work. Then, the ministry blamed him for not having big enough believing. He left behind a wife and 2 young kids.
WordWolf
Every once in a while, in society and here, there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy. "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insistin
chockfull
As a different direction with respect to all of the philosophical angles on the law of believing, I am considering Jesus teachings in Matt 6:27 “which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his
Mike
I'm totally ignorant on the Greek or Aramaic words for it, but I know the principle is one of "direct versus indirect," Indirect can have degrees of separation.
Does that ring a bell?
Entropy may be the deepest example of the indirect, Satan, but I have only heard and entertained this idea a few times.
Something I have always wondered about is the why is Satan usually with a capital "s" and the devil with a lower case "d" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Did you get that notion from L Run Hubbard or Stephen King?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Are there upper and lower case grammar rules in Greek or Aramaic languages? Otherwise, if it's just English, it would seem to be arbitrary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m going to stick my neck out and say I liked your post; it reminded me of a drive through zoo we did a couple of years ago - I had the moonroof open and a giraffe had its snout poking in! We didn’t have any stretched coffee to offer…oh well… the visit was awesome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Direct or indirect based on what? Are you just regurgitating?
You left out Hebrew. The Satan first appears in Hebrew.
I’ll see what Heiser and others say. I’ll find out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
DTA class, 4 ways of Adversary's influence . . . Satan was said to be indirect influence through other people or environment
Course they also says he's the Prince and Power of the Air . . . Now we're talking about Kingdoms . . . Did his Daddy die?
Edited by BolshevikDevil's influence on spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for the reminder…when I was drafting that post I kept trying to remember that term …and was thinking Kirby Goes Bananas - no , that’s not it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Wierwille taught that the devil indicated a direct interaction, such as the devil tempting Jesus, where as satan was an indirect attack using the kingdoms of the world. Personally, I feel that such a disctinction is trivial at best and the various names simply emphasize attributes of the one named. Lucifer, devil, satan all have shades of meaning in scripture that are descriptive of lucifers nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Never read either.
I think Jesus talked about it happening with him.
And I think this is also related to "the devil would not have crucified Jesus, had he known the mystery."
I've never thought about where I got that notion. I think from just reading the KJV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The road to TWI is paved with lots of intentions…your abundant sharing at work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You know, had Jesus learned to hold onto resentment, he might never have been crucified, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think the English convention (like my spell checker) may not be that arbitrary, but it harkens back to the KJV being such a large presence in the language for centuries. The translators may have had a reason for the upper and lower case designations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What? Your 25 years of collateral study have you completely unfamiliar with the DTA class in all of its formats?
Tell me it’s not so, Collateral Guru.
This means you can’t recite “The Great Prince’s Pull” from memory?
I am severely disappointed. It’s so, so
juvenilely formulaiac.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Uh huh. Or, could it be from the great mystery revealed session in PFAL? I guess I could ask a grad but most have either forgotten or weren't paying attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
OMG! That is hilarious…I looked that up and found out from Wikipedia:
Kirby's main method of attack is to inhale enemies and objects into his mouth, after which the player can choose to swallow or spit them out as a star-shaped projectile attack. In addition to running and jumping, Kirby can fly by inflating himself with a mouthful of air and flapping his arms. Flying can be done indefinitely; however, while flying, Kirby's only method of attack is to release the air puff held in his mouth which cancels his flight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
F’ing hilarious!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
bloviate wouldve been more appropriate...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I took that class in 1974 or '75.
My collateral study was 1998-2018.
Lots of new projects going on in the past 5 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Hi, I'm Larry. This is my brother Darrel... and this is my other brother Darrel."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I usually cite (1) forgotten or (2) not ready to fully absorb, but leave out (3) weren't paying attention. Dale Carnegie inspired me to omit (3).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Why did they not fully absorb? Could it have been because they weren't paying attention?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Possibly, but I like better the possibility that God was supplying the information early, knowing it would help later in life, even though we weren't mature enough for it at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.