Featured Spiritual Warfare

so you believe in losing salvation after being saved ??

 

there has no scripture been given to prove that the actual event of a angel named satan sinned and fell--all scriptures that are given has the word Satan in them.


The first exposure of God's people to the concept of a supernatural being, who was responsible for entire body of the world's evil, came during their Babylonian captivity. During this period there was a man named Zoroaster, who is believed to have been of Hebrew origin, as he was well


The Origin of Satan?


acquainted with the concepts of the Law of Moses and the God of Israel. During the reign of Darius Hystaspis, this individual recognized an opportunity for personal gain, and declared himself a prophet of an ancient sect known as the "Magians," which was the ancient religion of the Medes and the Persians. While the Greeks knew him as Zoroaster, the Persians knew him as Zerdusht or Zaratush. (He is regarded as the second greatest religious imposter in the history of mankind - the greatest being the Islamic prophet Mohamet.) The Magian religion embraced two deities: the light (the good god), and darkness (the evil god). They held that these two gods were locked in an eternal struggle for domination. Zoroaster applied his knowledge of Judaism and modified their religion to conform to the God recognized by Isaiah - one supreme god, who created both light and darkness.

 

Ben,

Did I post that???

I need to go back and look at what I posted.

I agree that Satan is no mere adversary.

If I wrote such, I certainly am thankful that you called it to my attention!!!!



OK, I have checked my posts on this thread and didn't find any that I even indicated it.

Again, let it be known that If I did post such it is NOT what I hold as the truth!!!!!!

 

further more jesus didn't say if you believe on me and the fallen angel named Satan that you would never perish---did he ???

I believe God is the ONLY God with all power--everything that is done or given or taken away comes either directly or indirectly from his hand.

I do NOT hold to an angelic being named Satan who sinned and fell from God.

Satan is only a word---its meaning is Adversary

there is NO record of that event in scriptures taking place at all

all men have done is speculate that that is what it means---and that's all you can do without a clear record of the event even happening.

 

I believe that the saints of God will persevere in the truth of God...not in a denial of it. All of us are learning and correcting some things we did not have as correct as it should be.
That being said...If God is going to send to hell those who believe a lie, deny truth, lie, etc.....there can come a point in which a believer can be "cut-off" if straying into error that could infect others.
Those who take the Lord's supper but are not right are in danger of this...
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

 

:love2:

that's your right brother to disagree with me--I once held that view until I was shown the horror of it--maybe brother your eyes are still closed to it ?

I don't condemn anyone here for not believing it--I know it is not the norm and hard to swallow according to man-made tradition---ill pray that God may enlighten those whom he will :love2::love2:

 

I know you are on to me---how so is that lol

ask me any question you will and I will give you a straight answer brother :love2::love2:

 

Do you have a clear record from Scriptures that God is?

Why can you not apply that same proof to Satan?

You have been shown Scriptures throughout the thread, and have disputed the application.

Can you not do the same with any Scripture about God?

I just am looking for some sort of consistency in the foundation of your view.

Scriptures state, 2“I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.3You must not have any other god but me."(new living translation)

​

Scriptures state, "One day the members of the heavenly courta came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Accuser, Satan,b came with them. 7“Where have you come from?” the Lord asked Satan.
Satan answered the Lord, “I have been patrolling the earth, watching everything that’s going on.” (new living translation)
​

So, if the Word of God is your source, than either you must reform your view of no Satan, or show how you can hold to the first quote as fact and not the second just as factual.

 

Isaiah 45:1, 5-7

45 Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His anointed,

Whom I have taken by the right hand,

To subdue nations before him,

And to loose the loins of kings;

To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:

5 "I am the Lord, and there is no other;

Besides Me there is no God.

I will gird you, though you have not known Me;

6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun

That there is no one besides Me.

I am the Lord, and there is no other,

7 The One forming light and creating darkness,

Causing well-being and creating calamity;

I am the Lord who does all these.


It is to be noted that the above text from Isaiah was given to Cyrus, king of Persia. Hence the references to light and darkness were couched in the religious concepts of the Magian religion - the religion of Cyrus.


Zoroaster, not wanting to make an indictment against God, taught that He had only created light, which represented good, and that evil followed as a natural consequence, just as a shadow is the natural result of a reality. Zoroaster made further modification by teaching that God commissioned two angels, one to rule over light and the other to rule over darkness, and cast them in the eternal struggle for dominion. Zoroaster did not invent a new religion, but, as Dr. Humphrey Prideaux stated, "He grafted all his new scions on this old stock and it grew." Zoroaster's teaching became immensely popular among the eastern peoples and was the national religion of the Persians until the 7th century AD.


Through the efforts of Zoroaster, God's people had their first exposure to a supernatural being that ruled over darkness. It is unreasonable to conclude that Zoroaster's teaching had no impact on the children of Israel during their stay in Babylon. Those who were adults were already fertile soil, as God sent them into captivity because they had gone after other gods. Once in Babylon, the children of Israel did not exist as a society governed by the Law of Moses. Therefore, those who were children and those born in captivity had no firm religious structure to insure that they remained faithful to the God of Israel. This made them susceptible to the influences of the Babylonians. The fact that the children of Israel had intermarried with those outside the covenant of circumcision is further evidence that they were influenced by the culture of the Babylonians.


Ezra 10:2, 3

2 And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said to Ezra, "We have been unfaithful to our God, and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this.

3 So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.


The ancient writings of the Hebrews that were produced after the Babylonian captivity (some of which we call the Apocrypha) indicate that there was an increased awareness of precepts regarding the "spiritual realm," that had not been previously recorded. It is in these writings that we find the references to devils, demons and evil spirits, as well as many of the concepts introduced by Zoroaster that are not found in the writings of Moses and the prophets.


Did Zoroaster create the doctrine of "Satan?" What can be said with certainty is that there are several aspects of the "Satan" myth that are mirror images of the teaching of Zoroaster. "Satan" is held to be an "angel of darkness." Zoroaster's "angel of darkness" was locked in a struggle for domination with the forces of light, which is also said of "Satan." The doctrine of "Satan" echoes the words of Zoroaster, who taught that where the angel of light (the good god) prevails, there is the most good, and where the angel of darkness (the devil) prevails, there is the most evil. Does not the doctrine of "Satan" suggest the concept of two Gods, as did the teaching of Zoroaster? While modern day believers recoil at the suggestion that their "Satan" is a god, what is in a name, for they attribute to him all the attributes of deity?


The doctrine of Zoroaster also taught of a great "resurrection day," a "day of judgment" and the "eternal punishment" of the wicked, none of which were addressed in the ancient writings of the children of Israel. Either Zoroaster could see into the future, or he possessed a vivid imagination. As with the concept of the "angel of darkness," the aforementioned concepts became a part of modern "Christianity," and have no foundation in the scriptures. If we hold that Jesus and His apostles taught these concepts, then we must acknowledge that they were not the first to do so, as they were indebted to the teachings of Zoroaster. All falsely held concepts are of one common thread: theology precedes authority. As we have found in our study of "Satan" and "the Devil," when the language is properly translated and the context is considered, all "proof" vanishes, which leaves the concept of a supernatural evil being with no scriptural support. Therefore, we can only conclude that the concept of "Satan" was accepted though tradition, then the scriptures were manipulated and/or read in a manner that would support the existing view.

 

It is not that I desire to disagree with...you. It is that you are departing from the safety and comfort of the scriptures in moving away from clear verses.
The truth belongs to God.WE cannot take it where it was not meant to go.

What you post has some truth....but much error.The illustration is a pure gallon of milk gets a teaspoon of deadly poison in it, it becomes a fatal mixture. Everyone is trying to tell you that you are in danger of this very thing.

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

Satan in that verse is a member of Cain's family who were cursed and walked the earth just as it said there--they were not the people of God--but they like the people of God came into god's presence and in their anger and hatred wanted Job to be cast down--they thought he would curse God because he lost everything--they were wrong.

 

And you really believe that?????

What credible study have you done that the author you embrace is correct?

 

whats the teaspoon of deadly poison then if I may ask ???

 

Please tell me you have Scripture to back your view of this statement!!!!!!

I have read no such account in the Bible I have studied for years.

Of course, if you take the Preterest writing over what the Scriptures teach without really knowing how factual the authors are that you quote, that could be greatly problematic.

 

you have no proof that it isn't--all you do is speculate on who you think it is talking about friend---it was MEN all along---jealous of the blessing of God upon Job and all his riches he had gotten from God--they were cursed.

they devised a plan to get God to take it all away and thought then God would see what kind a man he was by cursing him--but they were wrong. he or them were the Satan there9Adversary)

and beside that even if you were correct about it--Satan in the new testament was defeated and crushed under the feet of the saints at that time according to scripture--sooooo

 

All the others are trying to explain it to you.If you notice....most of us posting rarely agree on anything biblically on most of the other threads,however each one is telling you about the doctrinal poison to warn you.
You think you are helping us see it your way, but somehow God has not revealed it to His church the way you post it.

 

maybe there are still some of the church that is blinded by it---???
Do you think that the Church has 100% truth and 0% error in it--??
there is error still there and in all of us as we speak---some have been enlightened in areas others haven't been--we will be enlightened for the rest of our earthly days and even in eternity---

could it also be that many false doctrines are in the church that the apostles said would enter in after their time and through the generations---here we are ???could it be that some of what we call truth is really a man made tradition held for generations ???

 

and again everytime Satan is used in the new testament---you say it is the angelic being that sinned and fell from God......

theres 1 scripture that will purely refute that thinking---when jesus said Satan get thee behind me????? was it the fallen angelic being ???

NO--it was peter a MAN--you say Satan possessed Peter and spoke through him ??? can Satan possess saints and take control of them ????

it is very evident that not only peter but all the disciples and jews of that day believed that Christ would come and set up an earthly kingdom when he came---when he told peter he would be taken and KILLED--that was in conflict with Peter's and the jews way of thinking---A fallen angelic being named Satan did not enter peter and take control of him---Peter was the ADVERSARY his self (Satan)because his thinking was in conflict with truth and he was determined as Satan(ADVERSARY)because of it :jesus:

 

You have taken what someone wrote about the mystic Zoroaster and placed that above the clear teaching of Scriptures.

Neither the books of Moses nor the prophets were modified by the scribes because some stayed in a foreign land. That is PURE speculation that seeks to sell you a line of reasoning to discredit the Scriptures.

The Scriptures state that all writing of the Scriptures were done under the direct and purposed work of God. Man only copied down what God said to write, not what they wanted to write.

Neither is the New Testament some blending of eastern religion and mystic practices. That kind of thinking is a pure lie.

Further, the author of your quote by propagating such falsehoods totally discredits the Word of God and in doing so makes it totally unreliable for faith and practice.

Oh, he puts out that he desires to have folks think that they gain the real truth through his "work" but he offers nothing that was not offered to Eve when she was deceived into eating the forbidden. Ultimately, the author attempts to discredit the factual authority the God of the Scriptures.

Sad is you have taken it all in.

Let me be real clear for any folks who might be drawn into this writing even out of curiosity.


Of all the views about Scripture, I hold the Preterest view as heretical as the Pelagian - both views are deceitful, distorting the truth of the Word of God, and do not hold to foundational truths of Scripture.