Evan...How would you define "rejecting Christ"? Would that mean failing to observe his lordship on a daily basis?...or on an hourly basis? Does rejecting Christ simply mean "sinning"?...or is it a decision to "unbelieve" the word?...Our thoughts come in a linear fashion...some thoughts may be "Christ affirming" while others may be "Christ rejecting", depending on what time of the day it is...is salvation like playing musical chairs?...Whatever your last thought happened to be before the bus ran you over?...I'm not trying to be sarastic or a smarta$$...This is an honest question.
And, incidentally, Satan IS the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4).
George
This was just as much of a surprise to me when stumbling upon this, as it might be to you, but -
No he ISN'T. Satan is NOT the "God of this World" - at least here in 2 Cor.4.
This passage does NOT refer to Satan or "the Devil".
At least the second-century early Christians I've read -namely, Tertullian of Carthage in his work against Marcion (Book V) - did not interpret "the God of this world" (or "Aeon") as "Satan". Tertullian, rather than rebuking Marcion for identifying the "God of this world" as "the Old Testament God (in contrast to the New Testament God) - merely shifted a comma _and actually agreed _ with Marcion, that the "God of this World" was - at least to Tertullian's view - the one and same God of both the Old and New Testaments.
So we've one proto-orthodox dude and one heretic
here who are agreed on one thing - Satan is not the "God of this world" in 2 Cor.4:4.
Danny
I must admit that I'm not up to speed on Marcion or Tertullian. Correct me if I'm wrong, But I seem to recall Marcion equating Jehovah (i.e., the Old Testament God) with Satan, in that he couldn't reconcile teh apparent hardness of the OT God with the love and light of the NT. As described by Bullinger, et al., OT declarations of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, sending plagues, etc., was an eastern expression of permission; i.e., God allowed such things to happen. (While I agree with Garth that the term "free will" doesn't arise in scripture, I find it inconceivable that God would take over Pharaoh and make him evil just so He could punish him with plagues!)
Something else that must be considered is that at least three different Greek words are translated "world": ge, meaning the actual substance of the planet; kosmos, the inhabited world; and aeon, or age. The ge is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. God so loved the kosmos that He gave His son. The god of this aeon has blinded the minds of those who are lost.
I don't have the time now to elaborate (my lunch hour is almost up); but I expect that a working of these words, and especially aeon, will show that the god of this world cannot be Jehovah and must be Satan.
quote: From our flesh point of view" you are correct. But I didn't think we were looking at this from a flesh point of view.
All we have is our flesh point of view. If the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ and nobody is confirmed as having committed it until they die then it doesn't make sense for Jesus to say "neither in this world neither in the world which is to come". No. It has to be possible to do something in THIS world which can't be forgiven in the world which is to come, or verse 32 doesn't make sense.
No, we do NOT "only" have our fleshly point of view. You know better than that.
My view is also that you're mistaken about the nature of the unforgivable sin. As long as one continues to reject Christ, it's unforgiven. Once you have accepted him this sin is no longer being committed, and thus there is no need to forgive it. ALL things become new. ALL, with distinction (that distinction being spiritual, not fleshly). ALL things become new. You don't suddenly lose the fleshly, physical consequences of previous sins (you don't suddenly lose the need to go through detox, for example). But all things become new. Thou SHALT be saved. No condition is set on this.
I must admit that I'm not up to speed on Marcion or Tertullian. Correct me if I'm wrong, But I seem to recall Marcion equating Jehovah (i.e., the Old Testament God) with Satan, in that he couldn't reconcile teh apparent hardness of the OT God with the love and light of the NT.
Hi George -
Good post. Thank you.
You're mostly correct here, with the exception that the "Just" Old Testament God was not actually "equated" with Satan, who still played a role in the Marcionite cosmology, as a prosecuting angel in service of the OT God.
quote:
As described by Bullinger, et al., OT declarations of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, sending plagues, etc., was an eastern expression of permission; i.e., God allowed such things to happen.
That's certainly what we've been taught -but I've always found it curious - and perhaps something we should really be asking ourselves -why were a good many Easterners of that era apparently unaware of such an "idiom", when considering what early Christians came up toward trying to explain the reasons behind good and evil?
Do we have any ancient documentation concerning this idiom? That would be very interesting to see and review.
quote:
I don't have the time now to elaborate (my lunch hour is almost up); but I expect that a working of these words, and especially _aeon_, will show that the god of this world cannot be Jehovah and must be Satan.
George
When considering such titles as "the Everlasting God" or even "the Ancient of Days", it seems that the OT writers had no issue in associating Jehovah with the idea of "age" (or "world") or "time".
Also considering material in the preceding context - 2 Cor.3 - concerning a veil remaining upon the hearts of those from a reading of the Old Testament - are we to ultimately surmise that Satan is the God of the Old Testament? Or that Satan inherited the Old Testament?
Raf so what you saying is what vpw taught as well it is like seed once planted holy or evil it is to stay and can not be removed.
I thought the question was about unforgivable sin.
Your saying a person with spirit can not do the unforgivable sin right? only a person of the "flesh". so do you believe if they do the unforgivabole sin (WHAT IS IT?) they can not have holy spirit ever.
define how to get the unforgivable sin please.
do you think it is accepting satan as lord or what?
There's an old saying: If you're worried about having committed the unforgivable sin, don't: you haven't.
[Correction, in case anyone digs this up. I was trying to remember where I got this saying when it hit me: credit to CKnapp, with apologies for not recognizing it sooner. Raf: 12/23/04].
That said, I truly respect everyone's difference of opinion on this. I continue to hold my own and wish you well. (I'm just not in a verse wrangling mood this week).
Here are some of the verses with devil around your quote I read none saying father my seed but more or less a father like VPW was father of the Way
John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
The word devil here is false accuser,
1228. diabolos, dee-ab'-ol-os; from G1225; a traducer; spec. Satan [comp. H7854]:--false accuser, devil, slanderer.
John 7:20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
The word devil here is false god
1140. daimonion, dahee-mon'-ee-on; neut. of a der. of G1142; a daemonic being; by extens. a deity:--devil, god.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
The word devil here is false accuser who you learn it by the father of false accuser
1228. diabolos, dee-ab'-ol-os; from G1225; a traducer; spec. Satan [comp. H7854]:--false accuser, devil, slanderer.
John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
The word devil here is false god
1140. daimonion, dahee-mon'-ee-on; neut. of a der. of G1142; a daemonic being; by extens. a deity:--devil, god.
I like to see one verse that reads we can have the seeds of the devil in us
unless Adam be the devil but I think not
or at least not the serpent that die long ago but its seed is still try-ing to rule
There are many parents that are truely parents but not my seed
You said "seed" was translated literally "seed" or "progeny". Therefore the devil had actual seed.
If we translate every word in the Bible like that, was the "Tree" of Life a real tree? How about the "Tree" of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
I imagine that "tree" has several figurative usages in the Old Testament. The only figurative usage of "seed" that I can find is progeny. If you believe that the word "seed" in Genesis 3 means something else, you'll have to back it up with more than personal preference.
If one can look at "Tree" differently in the Bible, one can look at "seed" just as differently. It is to be looked at just as figuratively.
I admit I haven't taken out my concordance to look up all the uses of "tree." If it turns out that in every instance that the word refers to a literal tree (or at least part of one, as in "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"), I would have to conclude that the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" were actual trees.
In EVERY instance outside of Gen. 3:15, "seed" refers literally to seed or figuratively to progeny (the result of seed). That's why I say that you need a better reason, to conclude that it means something else in Gen. 3:15, than that you don't want it to mean that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
16
16
18
Popular Days
Oct 26
27
Nov 11
15
Nov 13
13
Oct 30
13
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 23 posts
Raf 16 posts
Eagle 16 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Oct 26 2004
27 posts
Nov 11 2004
15 posts
Nov 13 2004
13 posts
Oct 30 2004
13 posts
GrouchoMarxJr
Evan...How would you define "rejecting Christ"? Would that mean failing to observe his lordship on a daily basis?...or on an hourly basis? Does rejecting Christ simply mean "sinning"?...or is it a decision to "unbelieve" the word?...Our thoughts come in a linear fashion...some thoughts may be "Christ affirming" while others may be "Christ rejecting", depending on what time of the day it is...is salvation like playing musical chairs?...Whatever your last thought happened to be before the bus ran you over?...I'm not trying to be sarastic or a smarta$$...This is an honest question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I must admit that I'm not up to speed on Marcion or Tertullian. Correct me if I'm wrong, But I seem to recall Marcion equating Jehovah (i.e., the Old Testament God) with Satan, in that he couldn't reconcile teh apparent hardness of the OT God with the love and light of the NT. As described by Bullinger, et al., OT declarations of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, sending plagues, etc., was an eastern expression of permission; i.e., God allowed such things to happen. (While I agree with Garth that the term "free will" doesn't arise in scripture, I find it inconceivable that God would take over Pharaoh and make him evil just so He could punish him with plagues!)
Something else that must be considered is that at least three different Greek words are translated "world": ge, meaning the actual substance of the planet; kosmos, the inhabited world; and aeon, or age. The ge is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. God so loved the kosmos that He gave His son. The god of this aeon has blinded the minds of those who are lost.
I don't have the time now to elaborate (my lunch hour is almost up); but I expect that a working of these words, and especially aeon, will show that the god of this world cannot be Jehovah and must be Satan.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, we do NOT "only" have our fleshly point of view. You know better than that.
My view is also that you're mistaken about the nature of the unforgivable sin. As long as one continues to reject Christ, it's unforgiven. Once you have accepted him this sin is no longer being committed, and thus there is no need to forgive it. ALL things become new. ALL, with distinction (that distinction being spiritual, not fleshly). ALL things become new. You don't suddenly lose the fleshly, physical consequences of previous sins (you don't suddenly lose the need to go through detox, for example). But all things become new. Thou SHALT be saved. No condition is set on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hi George -
Good post. Thank you.
You're mostly correct here, with the exception that the "Just" Old Testament God was not actually "equated" with Satan, who still played a role in the Marcionite cosmology, as a prosecuting angel in service of the OT God.
That's certainly what we've been taught -but I've always found it curious - and perhaps something we should really be asking ourselves -why were a good many Easterners of that era apparently unaware of such an "idiom", when considering what early Christians came up toward trying to explain the reasons behind good and evil?
Do we have any ancient documentation concerning this idiom? That would be very interesting to see and review.
When considering such titles as "the Everlasting God" or even "the Ancient of Days", it seems that the OT writers had no issue in associating Jehovah with the idea of "age" (or "world") or "time".
Also considering material in the preceding context - 2 Cor.3 - concerning a veil remaining upon the hearts of those from a reading of the Old Testament - are we to ultimately surmise that Satan is the God of the Old Testament? Or that Satan inherited the Old Testament?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Raf so what you saying is what vpw taught as well it is like seed once planted holy or evil it is to stay and can not be removed.
I thought the question was about unforgivable sin.
Your saying a person with spirit can not do the unforgivable sin right? only a person of the "flesh". so do you believe if they do the unforgivabole sin (WHAT IS IT?) they can not have holy spirit ever.
define how to get the unforgivable sin please.
do you think it is accepting satan as lord or what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
I think Raf was saying that there is no "smoking gun" verse that
says "The unforgivable sin is...." with a straight answer.
What he WAS saying was that vpw's pat answer was patently wrong
on several levels, so we know one thing it is NOT.
The ONLY description we are given is that it is "blaspmemy
against The Holy Ghost."
Beyond that, whole books have speculated wildly on the subject,
but nobody had anything beyond speculation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Thank you Word wolf.
I want to know so I can avoid this unforgivable sin if at all possible ya know? lol
does it seem kind of cruel We do not know what sounds most serious for us? ironic huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There's an old saying: If you're worried about having committed the unforgivable sin, don't: you haven't.
[Correction, in case anyone digs this up. I was trying to remember where I got this saying when it hit me: credit to CKnapp, with apologies for not recognizing it sooner. Raf: 12/23/04].
That said, I truly respect everyone's difference of opinion on this. I continue to hold my own and wish you well. (I'm just not in a verse wrangling mood this week).
Thanks Johniam and George St G.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Since year2027 has started a "seed of the serpent" thread in the Doctrinal forum, I suggest that further discussion on this topic be directed there.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
No.
Let's not go there.
:D-->
Besides, it's kind of nice to let a "doctrinal"
discussion slip into the mainstream once in awhile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Fine. Be that way!
;)-->
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
GSG:
You said "seed" was translated literally "seed" or "progeny". Therefore the devil had actual seed.
If we translate every word in the Bible like that, was the "Tree" of Life a real tree? How about the "Tree" of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Eagle and others
Sure the devil has seed but that seed can not be planted in mankind
Recall Genesis everything after its kind
Angels can only plant angel seed whether evil or good
To many people see devils has more than there are but the true is that they are just animals the greatest of animals - Great Whales
Now not an whale has we know but one that swins in the heavens until some were cast down to earth
Fish kind were the only kind that were not on the ark
So there kind was not started over like all others
with love and an holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
That's deep
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
The only "seed" the devil has are his "children". John Ch 8 and 1 John Ch 3 answer the question as to who the devil's children are.
They are those who follow his lying and murderous ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Whoa! We're going to need some serious Master Baiters!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Goey
Here are some of the verses with devil around your quote I read none saying father my seed but more or less a father like VPW was father of the Way
John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
The word devil here is false accuser,
1228. diabolos, dee-ab'-ol-os; from G1225; a traducer; spec. Satan [comp. H7854]:--false accuser, devil, slanderer.
John 7:20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
The word devil here is false god
1140. daimonion, dahee-mon'-ee-on; neut. of a der. of G1142; a daemonic being; by extens. a deity:--devil, god.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
The word devil here is false accuser who you learn it by the father of false accuser
1228. diabolos, dee-ab'-ol-os; from G1225; a traducer; spec. Satan [comp. H7854]:--false accuser, devil, slanderer.
John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
The word devil here is false god
1140. daimonion, dahee-mon'-ee-on; neut. of a der. of G1142; a daemonic being; by extens. a deity:--devil, god.
I like to see one verse that reads we can have the seeds of the devil in us
unless Adam be the devil but I think not
or at least not the serpent that die long ago but its seed is still try-ing to rule
There are many parents that are truely parents but not my seed
The devil kind is not same as our seed
with love and an holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hm.
That was interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I imagine that "tree" has several figurative usages in the Old Testament. The only figurative usage of "seed" that I can find is progeny. If you believe that the word "seed" in Genesis 3 means something else, you'll have to back it up with more than personal preference.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
George, very simply by the preponderance of the sense of the Bible. In WayRules™ if it cannot be true to fact, it is a figure of speech, right?
But then, I don't subscribe to WayRules™ and we therefore have no consistent basis for conversation. My 'rules for interpretation' take no notice of the Mathematical Exactness© approach. My rule is to read prayerfully & reverently, seeking Who the Lord is and how I should be. Using that breathtaking approach° I determined that Satan cannot "birth" people by his spirit. A ridiculous proposition if ever there was one. Posited on the slimmest biblical evidence against the strongest evidence to the contrary.
So there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
GSG:
If one can look at "Tree" differently in the Bible, one can look at "seed" just as differently. It is to be looked at just as figuratively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
What evidence? Where does it say in the Bible that the Devil can't have children?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I admit I haven't taken out my concordance to look up all the uses of "tree." If it turns out that in every instance that the word refers to a literal tree (or at least part of one, as in "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"), I would have to conclude that the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" were actual trees.
In EVERY instance outside of Gen. 3:15, "seed" refers literally to seed or figuratively to progeny (the result of seed). That's why I say that you need a better reason, to conclude that it means something else in Gen. 3:15, than that you don't want it to mean that.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Now George, you know I can't prove a negative. That's Logic 101.
But you can't prove that he births children in the literal sense you propose. And brings us to a Mexican standoff...
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.