Other angels??? Hmmmmm... I think you're coming around, Derek.He is already Satan (contrary; adversary; enemy; accuser) in these verses. Does that in itself not set him apart from the other angels?
Was satan once a holy angel?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hi Derek,
As I posted before, there's nothing to indicate Satan was another type of spiritual being than the angels (unless at Job's time of writing this was known...and we don't have this information, that I know of).
It sets him apart because we know from the text that God had reason to speak with him. But yet once more, we have no indication that the devil or Satan is in another class of spiritual beings than angels.
And, yes, "Satan" shows he has the negative qualities by the time of this interview with God.
And, btw, nothing in the texts says there couldn't have been more evil spirits present, come to think of it (though none are named or acknowledged). Might these presentations have been "accountability meetings" for every spiritual being (or angel), whether good or bad?
Hmmmm......
Agreed, on Isaiah and Ezekiel.You wrote:Well, it looks like it "may" mean that he was one of them, and it "may" not mean anything at all. In other words, the verse doesn't really prove anything. It certainly doesn't connect the devil with the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages (which are the only passages that could really be used to illustrate his "fall").
As I posted before, there's nothing to indicate Satan was another type of spiritual being than the angels (unless at Job's time of writing this was known...and we don't have this information, that I know of).
It equally doesn't say he was not an angel (or never was)....You also wrote:We all agree that the passage says he was there, however, he was already the devil at that point in time. It doesn't show that he's an angel, or that he ever was one. It simply shows that he was there with the angels (as the devil).
Are you sure you meant "other" angels? lol, DerekLastly, to Paidion you wrote:He is already Satan (contrary; adversary; enemy; accuser) in these verses. Does that in itself not set him apart from the other angels?
It sets him apart because we know from the text that God had reason to speak with him. But yet once more, we have no indication that the devil or Satan is in another class of spiritual beings than angels.
And, yes, "Satan" shows he has the negative qualities by the time of this interview with God.
And, btw, nothing in the texts says there couldn't have been more evil spirits present, come to think of it (though none are named or acknowledged). Might these presentations have been "accountability meetings" for every spiritual being (or angel), whether good or bad?
Hmmmm......
Last edited by _Rich on Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion,
"Other....."......let's not give the poor lad a hard time,
jk
I have an aside to the topic but think I'll save it for later (re: how Augustine and Anselm taught that saved people replace the number of the fallen "sons of God" (fallen angels)...I wonder how far back this idea goes, if to (Jewish) NT times? (I ran into this with Augustine by accident yesterday: He and Anselm (in Cur Deus Homo, "Why God Became Man") say the same things). But nevermind, another topic....
"Other....."......let's not give the poor lad a hard time,
jkI have an aside to the topic but think I'll save it for later (re: how Augustine and Anselm taught that saved people replace the number of the fallen "sons of God" (fallen angels)...I wonder how far back this idea goes, if to (Jewish) NT times? (I ran into this with Augustine by accident yesterday: He and Anselm (in Cur Deus Homo, "Why God Became Man") say the same things). But nevermind, another topic....
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For more context, here's an incident of a spirit speaking with the LORD (among the "host of heaven," presumably in the divine council or throne room):
II CHRONICLES 18:18 Then Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and His left. 19 And the LORD said, 'Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?' So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, 'I will persuade him.' The LORD said to him, 'In what way?' 21 "So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the Lord said, 'You shall persuade him and also prevail; go out and do so.' 22 Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you." (NKJV)
The spirit who came forward and spoke up to the LORD is unnamed....
II CHRONICLES 18:18 Then Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and His left. 19 And the LORD said, 'Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?' So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, 'I will persuade him.' The LORD said to him, 'In what way?' 21 "So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the Lord said, 'You shall persuade him and also prevail; go out and do so.' 22 Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you." (NKJV)
The spirit who came forward and spoke up to the LORD is unnamed....
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion wrote:Other angels??? Hmmmmm... I think you're coming around, Derek.He is already Satan (contrary; adversary; enemy; accuser) in these verses. Does that in itself not set him apart from the other angels?
Oops!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
That's all I'm saying. I realize that it doesn't say either way. It just means that it doesn't matter what you're position is, niether side can use those verses as a proof that the devil was, or was not, an angel.It sets him apart because we know from the text that God had reason to speak with him. But yet once more, we have no indication that the devil or Satan is in another class of spiritual beings than angels.
We do not know if the devil was ever an angel or not, becuase the bible is utterly silent as to his orgins. That's my position. I am not trying to take the stance that he never was an angel; only that we can't know one way or the other.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Derek, lol,
Yes, your position is the same as Steve's if I'm not mistaken.
I probably use extra-biblical information more than you (and Steve) do. For example, where the book of Jubilees has "angels of God" in the place of "sons of God" in Genesis. This doesn't doesn't prove that the sons of God were angels. But it does prove some Jews of the NT era believed such to be the case.
I see in (some, not all) extra-biblical writings the "backgrounders" for the beliefs of the Jews in the NT era, which to me is much more important than what Early Fathers taught or believed (they weren't even Jewish). In this sense these books can provide "missing links" on things the Scripture doesn't specifically mention. While non-canonical books cannot prove a belief or doctrine; I see them as valuable tools for getting information not otherwise provided in Scripture, in terms of background, culture, and context, etc..
Recently, I heard a lecture by N.T. Wright where he said a working knowledge of the book of Jubilees is very helpful in understanding Paul in Romans. He added that Jubilees provides a context for Romans: in Paul's Jewish setting. (I'm hoping to follow up on this some time).
I find it strange that people so often appeal to the Early Fathers while essentially neglecting the actual (Jewish) historical setting of Jesus and the Apostles (the information in non-canonicals).
This might make me a theological "liberal?" or "hyper-conservative?"...I can't tell! Or maybe I'm just very serious about seeing the Bible in its real setting??? Anyway...enuf from me.
God bless,
Rick
Yes, your position is the same as Steve's if I'm not mistaken.
I probably use extra-biblical information more than you (and Steve) do. For example, where the book of Jubilees has "angels of God" in the place of "sons of God" in Genesis. This doesn't doesn't prove that the sons of God were angels. But it does prove some Jews of the NT era believed such to be the case.
I see in (some, not all) extra-biblical writings the "backgrounders" for the beliefs of the Jews in the NT era, which to me is much more important than what Early Fathers taught or believed (they weren't even Jewish). In this sense these books can provide "missing links" on things the Scripture doesn't specifically mention. While non-canonical books cannot prove a belief or doctrine; I see them as valuable tools for getting information not otherwise provided in Scripture, in terms of background, culture, and context, etc..
Recently, I heard a lecture by N.T. Wright where he said a working knowledge of the book of Jubilees is very helpful in understanding Paul in Romans. He added that Jubilees provides a context for Romans: in Paul's Jewish setting. (I'm hoping to follow up on this some time).
I find it strange that people so often appeal to the Early Fathers while essentially neglecting the actual (Jewish) historical setting of Jesus and the Apostles (the information in non-canonicals).
This might make me a theological "liberal?" or "hyper-conservative?"...I can't tell! Or maybe I'm just very serious about seeing the Bible in its real setting??? Anyway...enuf from me.
God bless,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
While I find these documents to be interesting, (what little I know of them, something I hope to change), I think that they only show what you say here. Namly, that "some Jews of the NT era believed such to be the case" (same for the fathers). Beyond that, I don't think they prove anything. NT era Jews believed a lot of things which were wrong. Just look at the Sadducees and Pharasees in the NT for evidence of that fact.I probably use extra-biblical information more than you (and Steve) do. For example, where the book of Jubilees has "angels of God" in the place of "sons of God" in Genesis. This doesn't doesn't prove that the sons of God were angels. But it does prove some Jews of the NT era believed such to be the case.
That's interesting. I really like N.T. Wright. I'll have to check that out.Recently, I heard a lecture by N.T. Wright where he said a working knowledge of the book of Jubilees is very helpful in understanding Paul in Romans. He added that Jubilees provides a context for Romans: in Paul's Jewish setting. (I'm hoping to follow up on this some time).
God bless bro,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Derek,
We're drifting off-topic but....
I think N.T. Wright may have said this in his "Romans in a Day" lectures but I'm not for sure (links are on the "N.T. Wright: What did Paul really say?" thread @ Calv/Arm/Open). I've been listening to like 15 of his lectures lately, lol
On extra-biblical/non-canonicals. Books like 1 Enoch show that some Jews believed there would be a divine "Son of Man" who was to come to earth in the last days. Jesus himself believed in something very similar (if not the same?). Whether Jesus "knew" 1 Enoch or not or believed in it to any extent or not; we do not know. We do know his brother Jude quoted from it which wouldn't necessarily mean he saw it as inspired. But it would show that he was familiar with ideas and beliefs that were current (and I assume Jesus was too...as we see him in the Temple debating the high-dollar, uptown theologians)!
I'm just trying to get at the context, the spiritual atmospshere of the times, the beliefs & teachings that were being circled about...and then to compare what Jesus and the Apostles taught to their contemporaries (how they were contrasted and/or opposed to them, etc.).
If I remember exactly which N.T. Wright lecture it was I'll PM you.
I recall one quite interesting thing Wright said:
While reading Josephus in Greek, in Josephus's telling of when he went to other Jews to try to convince them to surrender to the Romans before it was too late; the (literal) Greek read that these should, "Repent and believe in me (Josephus)." Doesn't this give hints as to the real meaning of repenting and believing? (Wright said this came to him as something of a shock)! To "Repent and believe in me" is to be fully convinced that what I say is the absolute truth and that "my way" should be followed to a T. I don't know, it's just these little tidbits of information that I find so intriguing and helpful.....
Someone's got to go to sleep for me, myas well be.....me,
Rick
P.S. Though I like to study these extra-biblical books...The Bible is my number one priority! (and I surely can, and need, to get to know it a lot better)....tc
We're drifting off-topic but....
I think N.T. Wright may have said this in his "Romans in a Day" lectures but I'm not for sure (links are on the "N.T. Wright: What did Paul really say?" thread @ Calv/Arm/Open). I've been listening to like 15 of his lectures lately, lol
On extra-biblical/non-canonicals. Books like 1 Enoch show that some Jews believed there would be a divine "Son of Man" who was to come to earth in the last days. Jesus himself believed in something very similar (if not the same?). Whether Jesus "knew" 1 Enoch or not or believed in it to any extent or not; we do not know. We do know his brother Jude quoted from it which wouldn't necessarily mean he saw it as inspired. But it would show that he was familiar with ideas and beliefs that were current (and I assume Jesus was too...as we see him in the Temple debating the high-dollar, uptown theologians)!
I'm just trying to get at the context, the spiritual atmospshere of the times, the beliefs & teachings that were being circled about...and then to compare what Jesus and the Apostles taught to their contemporaries (how they were contrasted and/or opposed to them, etc.).
If I remember exactly which N.T. Wright lecture it was I'll PM you.
I recall one quite interesting thing Wright said:
While reading Josephus in Greek, in Josephus's telling of when he went to other Jews to try to convince them to surrender to the Romans before it was too late; the (literal) Greek read that these should, "Repent and believe in me (Josephus)." Doesn't this give hints as to the real meaning of repenting and believing? (Wright said this came to him as something of a shock)! To "Repent and believe in me" is to be fully convinced that what I say is the absolute truth and that "my way" should be followed to a T. I don't know, it's just these little tidbits of information that I find so intriguing and helpful.....
Someone's got to go to sleep for me, myas well be.....me,
Rick
P.S. Though I like to study these extra-biblical books...The Bible is my number one priority! (and I surely can, and need, to get to know it a lot better)....tc
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth