In the 6th and closing round, Burke argues from reason, scripture, and history.
From reason: The Trinity doctrine, argues Burke, is inconsistent with itself. The “Athanasian” creed presents us with three, each of whom is a Lord, and yet insists that there is only one Lord. As some philosophers have pointed out, it is self-evident that if every F is a G, then there can’t be fewer Gs than Fs. So if every divine person is a god, then there can’t be fewer gods than divine persons. (Burke leaves out this: Why say that this creed presents us with three? Because each one differs from the others, having at least one feature the others lack.)
Since the Trinitarian Jesus is believed to be God, everything in Scripture which applies to God must necessarily apply to him.
Right. If the “two” are really one and the same, whatever is true of one must be true of “the other”. That is, nothing can differ from itself at any given time. Bowman does seem to identify Jesus and God, even while he thinks some things are true of one but not of the other. Point, Burke.
But note that many trinitarians to not identify Jesus and God. Almost no evangelical philosophers do, for instance, and arguably none to almost none of the ancient catholics do. Sharing a nature with isn’t the same as being numerically the same as, nor does the first obviously imply the second (unless the “nature” is a haecceity).
Unfortunately, this section features repeated distractions concerning words. Burke complains that “Trinitarianism requires unique definitions of words.” So what. Theories often require us to coin new definitions. Similarly, Burke demands evidence from the Bible that the word “person” should be used as trinitarians use it. But the Bible doesn’t have rules about word definitions – at least not this one! Burke is trying to press the point that trinitarianism makes arbitrary and maybe inconsistent claims, and ones which ill fit the Bible, but these are not the ways to press points like that.
A more substantial point:
[Bowman] accepts the Trinity as “three persons”, when it suits him, but at other times he wants to count the three persons as one (ie. one Yahweh, or one Lord). He does this by effectively treating the three separate persons as a single unipersonal being, which is logically inconsistent…
I agree – it seems to me that like the rest of us, Bowman normally thinks of God as a magnificent self. But he doesn’t want four divine persons, so he sometimes thinks of God as… well, not a self, but some sort of thing which in some sense has three divine selves within it. But, Bowman finally addresses this in a comment in this last round… stay tuned.
From scripture: Mostly, Burke gives a good recap of his overall scriptural case. At one point, I think he goes too far:
Jesus and his apostles were adamant that everything people needed to know about him could be sourced directly from the OT. There was no “progressive revelation” about the Messiah; there was no new doctrine concerning his nature and identity; there was no change from OT to NT. (emphasis added)
I don’t think this is true. An important counterexample is Christ’s second coming, or the distinction between the first and second comings. I think it is a mistake to be hostile to any doctrine of progressive revelation. Why can’t something which is obscure later be made clear? e.g. what happens after death, how many times the messiah will come, how God will bring in people from all nations to his family. I think Burke rejects progressive revelation because he thinks it requires the later revelation to contradict the earlier. But the later might instead be correcting not what the earlier says or implies, but rather mistaken conclusions people are liable to draw from what it says and implies. e.g. that when one is all the way dead, one has ceased to exist
He effectively presses his point about Acts, which arguably conspicuously lacks any teaching of the “fully divinity” of Jesus or of any tripersonal God.
But where is the uproar [in Acts] against the notion of a Messiah who is also a God-man? Where is the backlash against a triune God? There is no such uproar; there is no such backlash; there is no outcry against Trinitarian concepts. On the Trinity and the deity of Christ, the preaching record and the Jewish response are both silent. In light of the Jews’ response to the Gospel message, this is inexplicable unless proto-Trinitarian doctrines were not preached at all. And if they were not preached, why weren’t they preached?
Irritatingly, this section has some scattershot charges – that trinitarians commit a lot of fallacies, that their readings of the Bible are convoluted, that their readings are marred by their love for their theory, which they always presuppose. This is just a fancy way of saying “look how ridiculous they are” – and it is about as effective as that charge. Best to stay on the subject at hand – the substance of Bowman’s case, not the alleged shortcomings of trinitarians in general.
In reiterating his case, I a few times noticed that he overstates it. Thus,
We saw that throughout the OT, God’s Holy Spirit is described as something that belongs to Him, like a property or a power. We saw that the NT follows this model exactly, without deviating in any way from OT teaching. There is no new revelation about the identity of the Holy Spirit.
This point can be argued, but it is too much to say that the “NT follows this model [of the Holy Spirit as an attribute] exactly”.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4, NIV, emphases added)
As I explained before, this usage of “the Holy Spirit” (as a singular referring term, referring to the Father) needn’t bother a unitarian. Overstating the case makes it easy for one’s opponent to reject it out of hand.
Moving on, Burke asks some pertinent questions:
Why did God allow His chosen people to believe He is only one divine person instead of three, right up until the Christian era? Why did He conceal His triune identity? What was the rationale behind this divine deception? When and where was the new revelation first made clear? Rob claims it is “implicit”, but why only “implicit”? All the other key apostolic doctrines are explicitly preached. How can divinely inspired church leaders fail to provide an explicit teaching of the triune God if that is what they genuinely believe? Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:13); why didn’t it lead them to Trinitarianism?
I believe that Bowman stonewalls on all these through the whole debate. (Have I missed any answers?) I assume his view is just that we can’t understand God’s ways. But if so, better he should say and defend that answer. He loses points by refusing to answer. The audience he’s used to may not think much of them, but this is a more mixed audience.
On to history: Burke argues that the earliest material is “biblical unitarian”, while much (most) 1st century catholic theologians are subordinationist unitarians. He holds that:
Historically, doctrine always develops from the minimal to the complex, evolving as it is exposed to new influences and adapting in response to perceived heresies. Thus, the simplest doctrinal statements are more likely to be the earliest and most authentic. It is therefore significant that the earliest Christian creedal statements are Unitarian.
Is trinitarian theology, or subordinationist unitarianism more complex than humanitarian unitarianism? Maybe (it may depend on which Trinity theory we have in mind – some professed trinitarians simply hold that there’s one god with three ways of living, and that at least as simple as biblical unitarianism, isn’t it?). Are the early statements unitarian? One might not want to say they are explicitly so – as they are not written in reaction to any Trinity theory – but rather that they are compatible with, and a good fit with unitarianism, as they seem to assume that God and the Father are numerically the same. But if Bowman is right, we would not expect them to be this way.
In his summation, Burke urges us to lay aside the docetic thinking which dogs trinitarianism and embrace a Jesus who really shared our lot. Further,
…Christianity began as a Jewish religion. …Biblical Unitarianism calls for a return to those Jewish roots. I urge you to rediscover Israel’s God; the God Whom Jesus himself worshipped; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — not the God of Justin Martyr, Arius, or Basil the Great.
Some will wonder what is so important about “getting back to our Jewish roots”? I mean, Judaism is a different religion, is it not?
More importantly, don’t these last three (or at least the last two – see below) also worship the god of Abe and Jesus? I think Burke oversells his theory, suggesting that unless you buy this, you may be worshiping another god. How likely is this, I wonder, for current day Christians?
Suppose I have a friend who thinks I (1) have huge muscles, (2) speak Chinese in addition to English, (3) love the New England Patriots, and (4) am half space alien. (He’s kind of a weird guy.) This friend is mistaken on all four counts – but he’s still my friend. These false beliefs about me may throw up somewhat of a barrier to our friendship, in certain situations. I’ll wish that he was better informed, but I’m not going to reject him for his false beliefs about me, even if he’s culpable for them. There are limits to this – it’s hard to see how I could be friends with someone who thought I was a wallaby, a donut, or a pair of socks.
Justin Martyr and Arius think, like Burke, that the one true god is the Father. So… they believed in Israel’s God, no? Even if they think he created the world by means of a newly formed, divine helper or two. (Basil is another case… if I understand him, he identifies God with an ineffable, simple divine nature.)
Again, consider Bowman, if Burke is right. Bowman worships the Father, considering him to be the one true god. That he, if Burke is right, is confused about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, doesn’t take this fact away. Doesn’t Bowman love the things God loves, in particular, Jesus? Are Bowman’s beliefs inconsistent? If so, this isn’t a good thing, but it won’t prevent his worshiping God and serving him.
In sum, Burke recaps what has been a pretty strong case. But he makes some points which, though they delight the choir (other unitarians), either beg the question (assume what needs proving), or are not very relevant when debating a non-unitarian. These too aggressive reaches are a debating mistake; one thinks one is going in for the kill, but in reality, hostile and some neutral listeners tune out.
Next time: Bowman’s closing statement.
I agree, Disciple, that Yahweh is the ONLY power. All other gods are just idols – inanimate, powerless. And Paul assures us that idols are NOTHING. They have no value at all. They are not “lesser” gods. They are “no” gods.
But whatever you worship is your god, no matter how “nothing” it may be. When Israel forsook Yahweh, their God, and made Baal-berith their god, they did an obnoxious (and silly) thing. They forsook the only true God for an idol – a “nothing” – a “no god”.
But it would be incorrect to say that the idol did not exist. The god Dagon, for instance, had his head and his hands broken off. Something that can have its head and hands broken off exists. It isn’t just a figment of the imagination.
However, if you choose to believe that the idols were one thing and the gods another thing, that is your choice. It just doesn’t make sense, in my view.
What interests me more, though, is the definition of the word “demon”. Near the beginning of these comments we were given this definition:
That makes it simple, doesn’t it? Demons = false gods. False gods do not exist. Therefore, demons do not exist.
That, by itself, wouldn’t be so bad; but the extension of that conclusion is that anyone who believes demons exist believes that false gods exist. That makes him a polytheist and therefore (if I understand the argument correctly) he cannot be a Christian.
Then came a different definition:
So the conclusion arrived at in quotation 1 is not valid. The word “demons” can mean (and usually DOES mean) evil spirits, and not “gods”.
By the way, those aren’t the only definitions offered for the word “demons,” but they are enough to establish that the word does not always (or even usually) mean “false gods.” Its USUAL meaning is “evil” or “unclean” spirits.
Marg,
I think we agree on this. The idols represented ancient gods, and the gods were believed to inhabit them. This is what people believed at the time, but it has no relation to truth.
That is why the scripture mocks idol makers, idol worship & says idols are nothing but the work of men’s hands. The reality stops at the physical idol, no matter what people may have believed.
Re: Demons – Part 1.
We are faced with similar challenges to the idols/gods issue when we consider demons. ie; what the majority of people believed in NT times compared to what the truth of the matter is. This is the part that needs careful examination.
As you point out, the word demons & spirits are used in a number of ways in the NT.
Acts.17:18 “He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus…” KJV (Here the Gk for gods = demons, or lessor gods in the local belief system)
Acts.17:22 “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious” KJV (Gk deisis daimon = litterally ‘fear of demons’)
It was believed by ancient people that the gods from above came down to the earth and meddled in the affairs of men, manifested themselves in men and as men. Acts.14:11-12, Jupiter & Mercury were major gods to the locals, not lessor gods. Paul says in V15 he preached to gentiles “that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God”
I believe that the spirit of Python has already been discussed at some length. The issue to remember is that the scripture, when describing events, often records what the local’s believed & claimed, not necessarily what the theological truth of the matter was.
From the above references, it is clear that in parts of the scriptures, demons were associated with the gods of the ancient world. We already know and agree that they were vanities and nothing. Idols were part of this ancient belief system, but they were nothing but the works of mens hands.
The only power ancient gods & demons had was from people believing in their existance, but this had no connection to truth. One of Paul’s objectives was to turn people from such vanities of superstition.
Demons – Part 2.
This is where it gets more complicated.
As we have seen & as the scriptures amply testifies, the culture & belief system among both Jews & Gentiles current in the NT times was highly colored by a belief in demons, gods & evil spirits.
It was believed that a whole host of gods, demons & spirits regularly meddled in the affairs of men. Under titles such as Beelzebub, Jupiter, Mercury, Python & etc, they interacted & interfered in peoples lives.
Now we know already that these foreign ‘gods’, and the idols that represented them, were actually nothing, but the imaginations of men superstition. Their only power was with those who believed they were real.
All power was of Yahweh, and he alone is God, there is no other God in heaven besides him. Isaiah.41:21-24, 45:5-6 etc.
So whence came all those who mysteriously appear in the gospel records, afflicted with evil spirits and demons. I say mysteriously appear, because they are not mentioned anywhere in the old testament record, covering thousands of years of divine revelation.
Now we have already seen that the contempory Jews (& Gentiles) were seriously affected by a false belief in ‘gods’, and their power. And we have already seen that in normal scriptural parlance, the word records what such people said & claimed. But we know that such claims were based upon missunderstanding & false belief, and not truth.
When we come to the gospel records of stated evil spirit & demon possession, what we are reading is the common understanding of their contemporaries. This is what the common people believed, a belief system based not upon OT or scriptural teaching, but upon adopted superstitions.
You will note that the types of sicknesses attributed to demon/spirit influence fall into a handful of categories; namely types of insanity & madness, epilepsy and vaious illnesses that involved a blockage of the senses (dumb, deaf etc).
This was the common belief of the people, and was by them attributed to the ‘gods/demons’ of their imagination. See Matt.9:34, 10:25 & 12:22-32 referenced earlier, “He casteth out demons through the prince of the demons”, where this type of thinking is clearly demonstrated.
Do demons & evil spirits really exist, other than in the imaginations of men & in the vain idols they made to represent them. Show me the foundations for such belief in the OT, and its teachings. That’s how Christ & the Apostles established their testimony, as mentioned earlier, Acts.17:11 – “They seached the scriptures daily” (OT writings).
Demons – Part 3.
Read Matt.4:23-25 and note the words carefully, as it confirms the point that the gospel writers used the common terminology of the day to describe various illnesses…
Matt.4:24 KJV “…and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with -
1) divers diseases & torments
2) those which were possessed with demons
3) those which were lunatick
4) those that had the palsy
… and he healed them all”
As has been pointed out, it we believe that this says that some were actually possessed by supernatural demons, then we must actually also agree that some were ‘moonstruck’.
Not only that, but that in common with all physical illnesses, the demon possessed & moonstruck were described as sick, and subequently healed. Terms in modern parlance used to describe all categories of illness, treated by therapy & medicine.
Thank you, Disciple. Your posts are worth reading with care.
Frankly, I don’t believe the gods INHABITED the idols. I believe the gods WERE the idols. The words are used synonymously in the OT.
However, we can afford to let that pass. The real issue is – Does belief that demons exist disqualify me from being a Christian? That is a serious issue.
Forgive me for quoting the following paragraph again, but we need to be clear that it is NOT a valid conclusion:
I hope we can agree that the following statement is closer to the truth:
If we take the latter statement as our starting point, we will have some common ground to work with. And yes, I hear what you are saying about the different ways those spirits are described. Okay?
As you say, “Demons – Part 2” gets more complicated.
Since we have already agreed that “gods” are nothing, I am going to concentrate on the “evil spirits”.
That’s exactly what I do NOT know. Not yet, anyway.
I am going to refer to one example only, because I think it harmonizes with what the gospels tell us.
When Moses threw down his rod and it became a serpent, the Egyptian magicians did the same thing. Their rods became serpents, too. But Moses’ rod/serpent swallowed up their rods/serpents.
You may not see anything supernatural about that, but I do. Magicians as we know them cannot turn rods into snakes. And the snakes were not just illusions. They were real, because Moses’ serpent swallowed them.
But the lesson was clear: whatever gave the magicians that power was powerless against the agent of Yahweh. The same lesson is seen in the New Testament.
I have just gone through the first three gospels again, writing down every mention of demons and/or spirits. Anyone reading those accounts without any preconceptions would surely believe that those spirits existed, and that Jesus had total control over them.
But two questions need to be addressed.
First question: Do these spirits simply refer to natural conditions? Or are there instances that cannot be explained that way?
Second question: Is there any clue, anywhere, that the belief of those people in the existence of demons was wrong?
Marg,
There was no change in definition. The first statement you quote isn’t a definition of the Greek word DAIMWNION, it’s a statement explaining a specific Scriptural application of the word.
Correct. We find this in the Old Testament, and we find it in the New Testament, as the inspired understanding of DAIMWNION. The uninspired pagan understanding of DAIMWNION, is that they are unclean/evil spirits. That is not what God says in the Old Testament, and it is not what Paul says in the New Testament.
They wouldn’t be a polytheist unless they worshipped the demons. In reality people like you and Robert are henotheists, as I’ve pointed out, because you don’t believe Yahweh is the only god who exists, you just believe He’s the ‘top god’, who deserves worship while the others can be basically ignored (even though you believe they exist).
That is not a ‘different definition’.
It is valid. That’s how Scripture uses the word DAIMWNION when informing us under inspiration as to what it means.
Marg,
We obviously differ on how we interpret the Exodus record. I see the Magicians as using lying wonders to deceive. The 3 signs they duplicated/imitated were of a type that most stage magicians could perform today. There was nothing supernatural in the magician’s actions, but the application of a practiced art.
When the Divine signs became more complex, they recognized that this was no trick, but actually the work of God (as they told Pharaoh). If they were truly empowered by some supernatural force, why didn’t they just go on duplicating the signs.
Paul says in 2.Tim.3:8 that they ‘withstood Moses’, and sets them as an example of those who resist & corrupt the truth.
On your comment –
“I have just gone through the first three gospels again, writing down every mention of demons and/or spirits. Anyone reading those accounts without any preconceptions would surely believe that those spirits existed, and that Jesus had total control over them.”
I disagree with your conclusion on this, as I think you misunderstand why the NT was written. The gospel accounts, along with the writings of the rest of the New Testament, were written to & for believers of the 1st Century, who had already been taught the truth of the word of God. (Gal.1:6-9 & 1.Thes.2:13) As I have already mentioned earlier, these same disciples were taught from the old testament The Apostles teachings were always established & justified by what was previously written (= the scriptures mentioned throughout the NT). That is the true meaning of 2.Tim.3:15-18.
Does this mean that the scriptures aren’t as applicable for us today. No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that our job is to try and understand the meaning of the word as it was originally taught, taking into account intent, context, and background.
The proper place to start is to begin by establishing our beliefs upon what the word actually says or teaches, by way of solid evidence, from start to finish.
As for a belief that demons/gods/spirits existed in any form that was supernatural, where is the comprehensive evidence, the developed theme & teaching that explains such a belief. It does not exist in the Bible, but quite remarkably it exists in well documented Greek & Pagan belief systems.
The closest Bible evidence is circumstantial, & often from affected individuals (the sick & insane). Every scriptural instance of such a supposed manifestation of a supernatural power can be explained as a natural phenomena (illness, deceiver, idol), and quite in line with a 1st century world deeply affected by the dominant influence of Greek superstition.
Does it matter what we believe on this & other matters?
I believe so. The scriptures offer plenty of warning about false teachers & teachings, and their devastating affects 2.Tim.4:3-4 & I.Cor.8:4-7.
Marg,
Thanks for your clarification and apologies if I have accused you of anything you do not believe. I’m glad to hear that you do not believe in lesser deities – my misunderstanding has only come from not being able to understand what you are saying..
The problem as I stated before must be one of language because I find some of the things you say to be as difficult to understand as my tax return forms.
What led me to my conclusion that you believed in pagan gods and that you believed demons were gods was your statement in post #372:
“IF demons existed, then gods existed. Demons = gods.”
After my post you went on to clarify your position in post #395 by saying that:
“I do NOT believe that gods = supernatural demons”
Now I do not mean to sound at all rude, but I have no idea what you mean when you say what appear to me to be completely contradictory things.
I understand that you use the words “god” and “idol” interchangably so that when you say you believe gods existed you are simply stating that idols existed.
I would not use that language. I would say that idols exist and gods do not exist. While the word “god” can often actually be referring to an idol it often refers just to the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity. For example, I would say that I believe that the idol of Dagon existed, I do not believe Dagon existed. This is a difference in our language that has created confusion.
There are obviously other differences because I do not understand your post #372 which predicates the existence of gods (idols) on the existence of demons, and I do not understand how you can say that demons are gods but gods aren’t demons.
Please explain. Many thanks.
You’re right, Abel. Those statements ARE contradictory, and I freely admit it. The first statement was based on the first definition provided by Fortigurn, a definition which turned out to be totally inadequate.
It took some studying to determine [as the later definition confirms] that the demons cast out by Jesus were NOT gods. They were evil spirits.
So now, because the words “god” and “idol” are used synonymously in the Old Testament, and because I am no longer compelled to believe that demons are necessarily false gods, I am free to accept the fact that the idols WERE the gods.
I am grateful for the opportunity to learn all that.
I’m also glad we now agree that a polytheist is one who WORSHIPS multiple gods. That was a contentious issue for awhile. Remember?
However, henotheists apparently are not allowed to be Christians, either; so it really doesn’t matter.
I have now finished going through the writings of John, as well as the synoptic gospels. By tonight, I should be able to address the first question suggested in a previous post:
Do these spirits simply refer to natural conditions? Or are there instances that cannot be explained that way?
Marg,
The definition I supplied was from the standard lexicons. It is not inadequate, it is a fact. You reject it only because it disturbs your henotheism.
That was never a contentious issue. That was never even in dispute. What had to be cleared up was whether or not you believed in multiple gods, and how many of them you worship. After many attempts to avoid the question, and many attempts to mislead us, you finally acknowledged you do believe in many gods, but you only worship one. Which makes you a henotheist. At least Robert acknowledged his henotheism freely, and didn’t try to mislead people.
Question 1: Do the evil spirits cast out by Jesus and his apostles refer simply to conditions that can be explained naturally?
There are some, I think, that can’t be explained that way. Two have already been discussed at length – the man in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37), and the man (or men) whose demons asked permission to enter a herd of pigs (Mt 8:28-32; Mk 5:2-15; Lk 8:26-35).
What struck me this time, though, was the fear expressed by these evil spirits. For example:
“Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24)
“And they begged him not to order them to go away into the abyss.” (Luke 8:31)
“Have you come to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:29)
James was right: “Even the demons believe there is one God, and tremble.”
Acts 19:13-16 gives us an insight into the knowledge of Jesus that demons seemed to exhibit. Some exorcists had seen the power of the name of Jesus used by Paul, and tried to exploit that power over a man who was possessed by an evil spirit. They said, “We command you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches.”
The evil spirit said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I comprehend; but who are you?” And the man in whom the spirit was attacked the seven men, overpowered them, and sent them from the house naked and bleeding. And “the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.”
Was Luke encouraging his readers to believe that demons exist, even though he knew that such a belief would prevent them from becoming Christians?
The story that bothers me most is the one told by Jesus in Matthew 12:43-45 and Luke 11:24-26. He had already cast out a demon. He had answered the accusation that his power came from the prince of the demons. But now he was issuing a warning to those whose “empty house” is not filled with God:
Jesus, too, seems to be encouraging the idea that living demons exist, and that their wickedness differs only in degree.
If such a belief is so wrong that it will prevent a person from being a Christian, this behavior on the part of Jesus is inexplicable.
Question 2: Is there a passage in the New Testament which suggests that belief in the existence of evil spirits is wrong?
None that I can find.
Marg,
It is not a question of whether demons/spirits existed in the circumstances recorded. It is rather a question of whether the situations described are proof positive that supernatural powers/agents were at work, or do these situations describe natural agents (types of illnesses in our parlance), that were commonly called spirits, demons, lunacy etc in that age, as Matt.4:24 shows.
These issues are often mistakenly blended.
Your reference to Matt.12:43-45 is an interesting case to consider. Just what is this “unclean spirit”. Is it supernatural, or is it natural (ie. of this natural order of things).
Are Jesus words to be taken literally, or is he using a commonly accepted belief or exaggeration to teach some point. (Certainly not unknown in his teaching method cf. Matt.12:24-29 & Lk.16:19-31 & in other parts of Scripture cf. Ezek.29:2-5, Isaiah.14:4)
Notice from the larger context, the use of the word ‘generation’ in Matt.12:34, 39, 41, 42 & 45. The surrounding theme is all about that ‘evil & adulterous generation’, who had corrupted the truth of God and therefore could not recognize Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.
They had repented at the preaching of John.3:5-6, and their ‘unclean’ spirit was replaced by the spirit of truth for a time. But they did not stay the course, but in the end rejected Jesus & his teaching, and so the later end of that ‘generation’ was worse than the first. They rejected Jesus, and had him put to death. They also rejected his apostles & put them to death.
In the end that generation were judged & rejected by God in the deluge of judgements that came in AD70 (Matt.23:32-36).
Marg,
I see you have quoted James.2:19 a few times –
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble” KJV
So we agree that the demons were believers in the truth, that there is only one God.
Rather a strange thing for a foreign god or a supernatural power in rebellion against God to do, and even stranger for such to be advanced by James as an example of believing the truth.
Another way of looking at this is to recognize that the demons referred to the individuals who were so affected. That is, they were possessed/affected by a mental illness/disorder, called a demon in their parlance.
James’ point is that while these poor sick folk could believe in one God, and often state such a belief in dogmatic assertions, there was not much substance behind their words as they could not practice the works of discipleship, that he identifies. Anyone who has had dealings with the mentally limited & handicapped with recognize this sad trait.
I hear what you are saying, Disciple, and in SOME cases, it would be possible to equate demons with types of disease. But in some cases, that explanation just doesn’t ring true.
Your explanation of Matthew 12:43-45 has some merit, although the story doesn’t say anything about their ‘unclean’ spirit being “replaced by the spirit of truth for a time.” There is no indication that it was “replaced” by anything. That’s the problem.
More importantly, I cannot believe that Jesus would use such a graphic description of the unclean spirit’s actions, knowing that it would leave a completely false impression. Things that were clearly wrong were spoken AGAINST, not encouraged.
I would like to add one more passage to the list already given, this time from John’s writings. In Revelation 16:13-14, John says, “I saw three unclean spirits like frogs …”
Yes, I know. The language is figurative.
But in the NEXT verse, John explains what those unclean spirits are: “They are the spirits of demons, working miracles, which go forth to the kings of the whole world … to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.”
By the way, I am not trying to provide “proof positive that supernatural powers/agents were at work.” But the evidence DOES give good reason to believe so. And nothing tells me that such a belief is wrong.
The remarkable thing about the statement James makes is that it harmonizes so perfectly with the fear expressed by some of the demons that Jesus cast out. Those demons certainly were not subject to “the truth,” but they could recognize facts. They could recognize, for instance, that they had to obey Jesus, whether they wanted to or not.
But James doesn’t say the demons CAN believe that there is one God. He says they DO believe it, and they tremble.
So they should, if the fears already quoted from the gospels are valid.
That doesn’t sound like mental illness to me.
Marg,
Thanks for your thoughts & efforts.
1) Re: Matt.12:43-45
Concerning Jesus’ words in the story (parable like) that he told on the unclean spirit.
Perhaps a review of Matt.13:10-17 might help.
Common opinion is that Jesus used stories to make things simpler, whereas Jesus tells us here that his words had a twofold design, both to reveal & to conceal. The OT precident for this is well established.
2) Re: Rev.16:13-14 ‘unclean spirits’ & ‘spirits of demons’
Why keep defaulting to a view that such terms MUST ALWAYS refer to supernatural powers. As you have said, the terminology in Revelation is highly symbolic by design. Rev.1:1.
Again, where are your OT foundations for this default thinking? Where is such a belief clearly expounded anywhere is the scriptures?
3) Evil Spirits.
Strangely enough, here are two OT examples of ‘evil spirits’ sent from God to punish men. Judges.9:23; 1.Sam.16:14-16,23; 18:10
Does this pre-suppose that such spirits were supernatural, and that the word ‘spirit’ always means something supernatural? See end note on the useage of spirit.
4) Lying spirit – 1.Kg.22:19-23.
Here is a mocking parable from Micaiah to the evil king Ahab. A lying spirit sent from God, to persuade Ahab to fight a battle in which he would be slain, for his evil works.
5) The word ‘spirit’ has as broard a meaning in the scriptures as it does in english. I will use the book of proverbs because it has a wide range of examples.
Prov.1:23; 14:29; 15:13; 16:18,19,32; 18:14; 20:27
A spirit is said to be – hasty, broken, haughty, humble, wounded etc. These are certainly not supernatural manifestations.
Why therefore should I believe that such terms as ‘spirit’, ‘spirits’, ‘evil spirits’, ‘unclean spirit’, ‘unclearn spirit like frogs’ etc refer to real supernatural powers/agents, with their own agendas, that meddle in the affairs of men.
Someting not taught in the OT scriptures, not expounded upon in the New, and is perfectly in line with Greek & Pagan mytholody/superstition, the dominant culture of the NT times, as I have stated in earlier posts.
……………………….
Proverbs.24:2
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter”
The challenge for all of us, if we wish to be part of the redeemed, kings & priests of the age to come. Rev.5:10.
One argument used during the Trinity debate goes something like this:
If belief in a Tri-une God is necessary in order for me to be a Christian, why is there no mention of it in the New Testament?
On the same principle:
If believing that demons exist disqualifies me from being a Christian, why is there nothing in the New Testament to warn me of that?
Why, instead, are there many instances where the words and the actions of Jesus encourage me to believe that evil spirits DO exist, and that they are not just inanimate diseases?
We have agreed, more than once, that the word “spirit” can mean several different things, depending on the context. That is not the issue.
But the New Testament is where I find the gospel of Christ. Therefore, it can be trusted to give me the knowledge I need in order to be a Christian. Dogmas that are not found there should not be added,/strong> to the gospel message as conditions to salvation.
That applies to the doctrine of Tri-unity. But it also applies to the teaching that what Jesus was saying and doing with regard to demons was not really true, and I must not believe he meant it, or I cannot be a Christian.
After all, if he was just accommodating himself to what people believed; and if, instead of correcting them, he was actually encouraging them, then why can’t his followers be just as accommodating?
I guess that’s my default position.
Marg,
Part A.
Actually the ‘gospel’ pre-dates Christ, as Gal.3:8 and other places show. The gospel preached by Christ and his apostles during his ministry did not include his own coming sacrifice/death, as seen by a comparison between Luke.9:2,6,11 and Luke.10:44-45. That was added to the message later, after his resurection & ascention to heaven.
However, getting back the main issue. Let’s consider this example –
Matt.17:15 “Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is a lunatic, and sore vexed…..”
A comparison with Luke.9:37-43, shows that this same illness is also called “a spirit” by the boys father, then later “the demon”, and then “the unclean spirit” by the writer of Luke.
Then we are told that Jesus “rebuked” the unclean spirit (Luke.9:42), just as he had earlier “rebuked” the wind (Luke.8:24), and “healed the child”.
A good example of the point made in Matt.4:23-25, where at least two of these types of illnesses (lunatic & demons) are grouped as part of Jesus’ “healing” work.
If we believe that the comments of the people, or the commentary of the gospel writers, provides rock solid, unquestionable support for the a belief in supernatural demons/spirits etc, then we must also accept that they believed in folks being ‘moonstruck’, as the term lunatic litterally means.
Part B.
As to the greater question, what must Christians believe, and what must they not believe.
The evidently simply answer is that they must believe the ‘gospel’ (Mk.16:15-16). Which then raises the larger question, just what is the gospel. This is another question altogether that would require some space to address, as the answer is more complex than is generally believed.
As to what disciples must not deny / believe, we have a few hints that relate to doctrinal issues that arose in NT times.
The following are examples.
1) 1.Cor.15:12-19
2) 2.Tim.2:17-18
3) 2.Jn.6-11
Do they comprise the whole list, or just to problems that faced disciples in the 1st C.
I believe the correct answer is the former, and the issues listed above are examples for us. See also Acts.20:29-30; Jude 3-4 & the letters in Rev.2:2,14,15,20 etc for warnings and examples of more problems.
So I am not sure that I can agree with the validity of your earlier question, as below.
“Question 2: Is there a passage in the New Testament which suggests that belief in the existence of evil spirits is wrong?”
That is probably why it has been ignored by myself and by others till now.
Furthermore -
Reading Hebrews.5:11-6:3, the writer speaks about the need to grow in understanding, from what he terms first principles (milk) to more complicated & as important concepts (meat). He chastises the Hebrew disciples for their lack of growth & maturity.
The Greek words in Heb.5:14 are facinating(kalou=good & kakou=evil), and would no doubt have confused a young child learning the language. However, the ideas behind them are diametrically opposed, and therefore vital to grasp for an adult. That’s his point I believe.
Appologies if I have written too much……
Just wondering if anyone here had read the works of Michael S. Heiser. I bring this up because this discussion deals with whether other gods beside YHWH exists and Heiser’s deal with the issue of the Divine Council in the scripture and about the gods of the nations.
If any one is interested you can read some of His works here.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/
What you write is helpful, Disciple. But please remember that I do NOT think the word “spirit” always refers to a supernatural being. Nor do I think it NEVER does.
Today I have been reading the last 6 chapters of Daniel as a kind of supplement to Revelation 16:14. And now I will be the one who writes too much, because the story is fascinating.
Chapter 7 records Daniel’s first vision (vv 1-15), as well as its interpretation (15-28). Chapter 8 records his second vision (1-14); and the explanation (19-26) is given by someone identified as Gabriel.
Chapter 9 records Daniel’s prayer of confession (13-15) and supplication (16-19) to God on behalf of Israel. While he is praying, Gabriel comes again, this time to comfort Daniel and to give him understanding on how his prayer will ultimately be answered (21-17).
Chapter 10 tells us that something awful has been revealed to Daniel in a vision, something to do with a great conflict (v 1). As a result, Daniel spends the next 21 days grieving (3). Then comes a vision of a magnificent creature (5-9), who strengthens him and speaks to him. We aren’t told who the speaker is, but it seems reasonable to assume it is Gabriel again.
Then Gabriel says this: “From the first day you set your heart to understand and to humble yourself before God, your words were heard, and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me 21 days. But lo, Michael, one of the princes, came to help me.”
Michael is identified in ch. 12:1 as “the prince who stands for the sons of your people.” So we have the prince of the kingdom of the Persians withstanding Gabriel, who is finally helped by Michael, the prince of the sons of Israel.
Gabriel is a supernatural being. He is the angel who spoke to Zechariah (Luke 1:19) and Mary (26).
The “prince of the kingdom of the Persians” is not named; but if he could prevent Gabriel from carrying out his mission for 21 days, I conclude that he, too, is a supernatural being.
Michael is called the “archangel” in Jude 9. And John records something remarkable about him in Revelation 12:7-9:
Do I believe there are supernatural beings that have an interest in the affairs of men?
I do.
Marg,
I was with you (mostly) till this paragraph.
“The “prince of the kingdom of the Persians” is not named; but if he could prevent Gabriel from carrying out his mission for 21 days, I conclude that he, too, is a supernatural being.”
There are no doubts that Gabriel & Michael mentioned in the OT are God’s angels. We are plainly told so.
In fact Michael is most probably the one mentioned in Exod.23:20-23, who bare God’s name, the same one that Moses saw & heard in the burning bush Exod.3:2-4 & Acts.7:30-35.
The meaning of ‘Michael’ = ‘one like God’. He is called an archangel in the NT, and a ‘chief prince’ in Daniel, and from the record it appears that he is highest in the hierarchy of angels.
Also from the record, it is evident that angels have regularly played the part of God’s messengers (which is what the word literally means), in being God’s ambassadors to men (Luke.1:26-37).
This is not their only function. The word ‘angel’ in both Hebrew & Greek is also commonly used of men, who take on the role of messengers (Mal.3:1 & Matt.11:10 etc). The word ‘angel’ only describes one of their functions, not the totality.
Other relevant scriptures are Ps.34:7 & Heb.1:7,14, which clearly show that part of their ministry is to care for the people of God. They are called ‘ministering spirits’ etc.
On top of that, in this age, they are charged with moving the nations in accord with the will and purpose of God, as Daniel shows. (Dan.10:13,0 & also see Dan.2:21-22 with Dan.4:13-14, 17 etc). Angels in this capacity are called ‘Watchers’ & ‘Holy Ones’.
They perform God’s will and direct nations according the great master plan ordained by Yahweh (Dan.4:17 & Acts.17:6).
Angels were present at creation, Job.38:4-7, and were part of the heavenly counsel mentioned in Gen.1:6 & 3:23. In Job they are called the ‘sons of God’, and make up the heavenly portion of the family of God (Eph.3:15)
In the age to come, responsibility for governing the nations will move to the immortalized/glorified saints Heb.2:5 (Rev.5:10), who will be made like unto the heavenly angels (in nature) Luke.20:34-37.
Divine nature is free from the law of sin & death, which is the natural inheritance of all Adam’s decendants (Rom.5:12 & I.Cor.15:22). All the limiting features of mortal existence will then be eradicated, as I.Cor.15:39-55 states, and as Rev.20:6,14 shows.
The saints will then be ‘partakers of the ‘divine nature’ (2.Pet.1-4); with a nature like the angels now possess. One of the principle reasons why many Bible students believe that heavenly angels (being now possessing Divine nature) do not, and cannot sin.
Dan.10
Now the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” mentioned in Dan.10 is exactly that. He is the ruler of the Persians. What Daniel is being told is that Gabriel was having difficulties moving him in the direction of God’s purpose. He needed assistance from Michael, which he duly received.
There is nothing to suggest that the ‘prince of the kingdom of Persia’ is a supernatural spirit.
Gabriel may have taken some time to move him because God (and his angels), limit what means they utilize to move men (James.1:13), leaving room for men to exercise free will to choose good or evil. (Matt.4:1, Gen.22:1 & etc)
As for Rev.12, I’ll leave that for another time, except to say that the connection between the dragon (Rev.12), the beast out of the sea (Rev.13), the scarlet colored beast (Rev.17), are clearly linked to the 4th beast in the vision of Dan.7. This is one of the keys to understanding the Apocalypse.
I agree with much of what you say about angels. But your explanation re “the prince of the kingdom of the Persians” doesn’t seem to fit the context in Daniel 10.
The command for Gabriel to go to Daniel came at a precise moment. What kept him from obeying it immediately?
You are imagining that he had a prior command to say/do something to the king of Persia. The king wouldn’t listen, and he (a mere man) was able to prevent Gabriel from carrying out his mission to Daniel for three weeks. That is certainly not explicit in the narrative.
It doesn’t fit the language, either. The word for “prince” is the Hebrew word sar. It means the head, or chief, of a particular class.
Granted, the word can be used in a variety of ways; but in the context of Daniel 10, there is a clear distinction between “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” and “the kings of Persia” (v. 13). The Hebrew word for “king” is melech. And the word here is plural, not singular. So the distinction between “prince” and “kings” is too obvious to ignore.
Michael was “one of the princes”. He was Daniel’s prince (v. 21), the prince of the sons of Daniel’s people, prince of the nation of Israel (ch. 12:1).
The same word is used to describe “the prince of the kingdom of Persia”. He was (apparently) “one of the princes,” not one of the kings of Persia.
I am in no position to differentiate between one “prince” and another. Nor can I comment on their duties apart from what is clearly revealed in the context. I think we can safely leave to God the right to have purposes and plans that we do not know anything about.
However, the passage certainly seems to imply that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” is not to be confused with “the kings of Persia.”
Wouldn’t you agree?
Marg
I believe Revelation 12:7-9: sums up this whole discussion.
In it we find the angel Michael given more authority than that of an average angel. His title is exalted above of just being a messenger.
Then we also find another being whos authority gives him command of angels.
And this war takes place in heaven.
This being a war we have an opposing force of God and this force is lead by satan and we also find other angels oppossing God making the fact that they are angels who sinned against God which totally shoots down the CD view by itself.
They cant use their normal defense that this is speaking of humans because they couldnt explain how humans were in heaven.
This would just have to be completely ignored to continue in the CD view on this subject and it also shows that all other explaintions that CD’s use of other verses on this subject have a great possibilty of being false.
This has been a great discussion but i wish it was in a place where more people could acesss it.
I completely agree with Robert and I have to say that I just love Revelation Chapter 12!
Not only does this chapter prove categorically that Satan and evil angels exist but it also proves the existence of my favourite scriptural character – the pregnant woman who is 865 thousand miles tall!
Verse 1 describes her “clothed with the sun” so she must be at least that tall (probably bigger I reckon) and able to stand temperatures in excess of 5,500 degrees celsius.
Some people say that the book of Revelation is symbolic and that Satan, evil angels and the pregnant 865 thousand mile tall woman don’t exist but that’s just ridiculous.
Abel
There is figurative,literal,past, present and future all through out Rev..
You cant apply just one to everything, you have to use common sense.
The first part you believe would come from common sense but the second would just come from nonsense.this is the method i see a lot of trinitarians using.
Thank you for showing your only defense on these verses.
Robert,
The only reason that you believe it is “common sense” to believe in evil angels and not in 865 thousand mile tall women is that you only approach Revelation chapter 12 with the preconception that these evil angels exist.
There is of course precisely the same amount of proof in the Bible to support both the belief in evil angels and pregnant women roughly the size of our sun.
It just depends what your preconceptions are.
This is the method I see a lot of believers in satan using. They say it is common sense to see literal evil angels in this chapter, but then when you ask them how they know evil angels exist, they smile and point to this chapter.
The argument is circular and obviously nonsense.
“The only reason that you believe it is “common sense” to believe in evil angels and not in 865 thousand mile tall women is that you only approach Revelation chapter 12 with the preconception that these evil angels exist.”
Abel
Actually i spent 46 years believing they didnt exist till i read the bible with a completely open mind that the bible was full of literal and figurative that could be determined with the use of a little common sense. You can not provide a truthful defense of these verses without trying to attack my intellect which wasnt even effective to the least part.
Your explanation of other verses that state LITERALLY the existence of satan and sinful angels is weak beyond common sense and is truly nonsense in it self.
I do not need for satan to exist within my belief, I just cant ignore the fact he does.
On the other hand you MUST believe they dont exist to have a clear conscience that your are not a polytheist .
All I have to do is believe there is only one supreme GOD and He can delegate his power to any being he wants
I’d like to get back to something that is NOT figurative.
I believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
I believe he knew the Old Testament better than we do. If anybody knew what would bar someone from entry into his kingdom, he did.
Therefore, if it is true that believing in the existence of demons bars someone from entering the kingdom of God, then surely Jesus must have known that. And surely he would have been zealous about making people aware that their belief would bar them from his kingdom.
But his words and his actions show nothing of the kind. In fact, what he did and said would make people think that he agreed with their belief. Never a hint did he give that there was anything wrong with it.
That is the issue here. I do not challenge anyone’s right to believe that demons do not exist, if that is what they have been taught.
But I DO challenge the right to bar people from the kingdom of God because they believe what Jesus appeared to believe.
Robert,
If I have said anything to insult or offend you I apologise. I certainly don’t remember writing anything that could be taken as an attack on your intellect, but if I did you have my apologies.
I did write that you approach Revelation 12 with preconceptions about the existence of evil angels and I stand by that, but it wasn’t an attack on your intelligence. Lots of clever people have preconceptions.
My post #428 was simply a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that there is no evidence in Revelation 12 to suggest that the war in heaven should be taken any more literally than the 865 thousand mile tall pregnant woman.
The only way you can arrive at a belief in one and not the other is to approach the chapter with already developed and preconceived notions of which one exists and which doesn’t.
That is essentially what your “common sense” is – the application of what you already believe to the new information you receive.
The problem is that even if Satan the evil angel does exist there is still no basis to believe that the war in heaven is any more real than the 865 thousand mile tall pregnant woman.
You have differentiated between the two based entirely on presupposition, conjecture and what you term “common sense”.
If you have spent 46 years of your life investigating the matter you will know that there is only one angel in the whole of scripture referred to as Satan (or “a” Satan) and he was a good, obedient angel of God:
Number 22:22 “the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary” (the word “adversary” a translation of satan) – (mal’ak Yehovah yatsab derek satan)
As for the rest of your post, you state that my “explanation of other verses” is “weak beyond common sense and is truly nonsense”.
I hadn’t explained any other verses, so I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to. I’d be pleased to offer my explanation of any verse you have in mind and I would do it in a polite and non-adversarial manner in the hope of winning you round.
You also say that I “MUST” believe evil angels don’t exist to preclude polytheism. I would disagree.
If the Bible taught that evil angels exist and that we should not be polytheistic then I would presume that a belief in evil angels could not be defined as polytheistic.
However what I find is that the Bible teaches that evil angels do not exist and that is the sole reason why I “MUST” not believe in them.
“That is essentially what your “common sense” is – the application of what you already believe to the new information you receive.”
Abel
as I said i spent 46 years as a christian not believing in satan or demons in the literal sense but after thorough reading and research i removed my misconception and replaced it with the truth.
You dont need to try to explain any other verses that you have gone over in this thread because I read them already.
I will stand by my statement that”On the other hand you MUST believe they dont exist to have a clear conscience that your are not a polytheist .” because it is your driving factor to keep your misconception and thats ok Because you will be judged on matters of the heart(what type of person you are) not doctrine. There is nobody with 100% true doctrine because the deception has grown beyond recognition. God grace will save you and me both as it does others who have been deceived. It doesnt matter to what degree the deception was because there is no difference btween being slightly deceived or completely deceived because none the less you are deceived.
Now if you want to discuss what promise that was made to Abraham that has requirements set to be able to partake of that particular promise then lets discuss that. Just dont think the other promise(Grace) has doctrine requirements and CD’s have an exclusive because there will be atheist that will enter the same gate as you and me, as long as they dont have crimes against mankind.
Thanks folks for that little display of exuberance, it was facinating.
After considering the different views, it is quite apparent that to believe or not to believe in the existance of evil supernatural gods/demons/angels will have a huge impact on how you read the many books of the Bible, both OT & NT.
It will also significantly effect how you read parts of Revelation, which is a book writing specifically to the ‘servants’ of Jesus.
Is this important, should it worry those who strive to be ‘disciples’ in these latter days?
It should, as the different ‘world views’ produce quite fundamentally different perspectives, & will either help or hinder in our quest to understand the truth of God.
For myself, I grew up believing in the existance of supernatural evil powers. Some 30 years ago, after studying the scriptures from front to back (& not visa-versa as is so often done) & seeking to find the faith that was once & for all time delivered to the saints, I came to understand this & many other subjects in what I believe is a more scripturally sound way.
The Jewish contemporaries of Jesus claimed their beliefs & practices were founded on Moses, and that God was their father. Yet Jesus says of them that they were (children) of their father ‘the devil’ (John.8).
The challenge for us is to get to the essence of the truth of these and other matters. I discovered a long time ago that people so often do not listen or understand full extend of what is being said. (for eg: Consider Jesus words in Matt.22:31-32, to prove the resurection)
Finally, let me say this again for I think the point is often missed. As a careful Bible studend, I do believe in the existance of demons, gods, satan & the devil.
What I don’t believe is that these words, or the circumstances in which they are used, refer to any supernatural agency at work.
“What I don’t believe is that these words, or the circumstances in which they are used, refer to any supernatural agency at work.”
Disciple
I agree because all power is delegated by The One Supreme Being that created all things and whether it be for good or evil it was ordained by God to fit his overall plan.
Power was giving to satan and he was giving a delusion that he would believe a lie that he could be greater than his creator.
This all fits the plan of God and is stated very clearly in the bible.
Robert,
You make an interesting point when you say -
“Power was giving to satan and he was giving a delusion that he would believe a lie that he could be greater than his creator”.
OK, now show me from the OT where the foundations ‘clearly’ show this. No reading backwards from the NT. No assuming the theory first.
For starters, just the OT, in clear language where this theory exists and is a taught in clear language.
As said earlier, this is the method used by Christ & his apostles.
Genesis 3 states he was in the garden and
Ezekiel 28 14 “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire” he was giving power as an ANOINTED cherub.
as i have said Ezekiel 28 :11-19 can only be addressing a being that is over 3000 years old and we find only spiritual beings can do this.
this also shows satans(lucifer) fall and cause.
Btw
I never use the NT to set the context of a subject unless its sheding light on a prophesy in the OT.
Marg,
You said and asked the following -
“However, the passage certainly seems to imply that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” is not to be confused with “the kings of Persia.”
Wouldn’t you agree?”
Not sure on that point, as the word ‘prince’ is also used of kings (Ezek.21:25, Is.9:6, Dan.8:25). I didn’t say it refered to the king of Persia, although it may have.
We just don’t have enough information to state that it was the current king of Persia, or one of his princes who was being moved. If you look at the history of Persia shortly after this period, you will note that it was a period of many usurpers (princes) claiming the crown.
You will also note from the ‘context’, that the word is used again in Dan.10:20 as follows -
“..and now I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come”
So their is a prince of Greecia as well as a prince of Persia.
I believe that the angel revelator then goes on to expand on this, when he shows what is noted in the ‘scripture of truth’ (Dan.11:2-3).
In this, he gives some explaination to his comments (Dan.10:20) as he speaks about the events to follow in the kingdom of Persia & Greece, expanding upon the things revealed in Dan.8:20-22.
Neither does (Ezek.21:25, Is.9:6, Dan.8:25). support your claim that a king and prince are the same.
Now a King can be spoke of as a prince when the point is the power that they rule by is not theirs but belongs to a being greater than they.
Daniel 8 shows these clearly
Daniel 8
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy [7] people. 25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace [8] shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
and Ezekiel 28 :1-10 also shows this when God speaks of the king of Tyrus as just being a prince because we find in verses 11-19 just who actually is in power and where all the power of the human king comes from.
The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst [1] of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: 3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: 4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: 5 By thy great [2] wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: 6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; 7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. 8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. 9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth [3] thee. 10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD
Robert,
Thanks for the comments on Ezek.28.
I recommend that you read the whole chapter, and the surrounding sections and get a better handle of the prophetic style of revelation.
This is a really good example of how we can all be deceived by presuppositions & beliefs.
The Immediate Context -
Ezek.28:2
“Son of man say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the LORD God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God” etc.
The section is addressed to the ruler of Tyre, a nation that had a long history with Israel stretching back to the days of David & Solomon.
The Tyrians were allies of Israel for a long time, and involved in trading ventures with Solomon.
They made themselves & Israel rich by their trading, and by the alliance they had with Israel whereby between them they could control the flow of trade from East to West, on land and sea.
Tyres wealth had made both king & kingdom the envy of the ancient world, and unfortunately had lifted them up ‘as the heart of God’ V5-6. God goes on to say that he would humble them, and bring them down V7-10.
They had turned against Israel, and stood with her enemies (Ezek.26:2), and for this she would be judged.
But what of the language of V.13-14. You will note that V12 says it is a lamentation, which is a song or poem of mourning. It is for the ‘king of Tyre’, and laments his fall from a priveleged, enriched, wise & honourable position.
Like all songs & poetry, the lamentation uses exagerated terms -
Eden the garden of God –
V.13 says “Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God”. Does this relate to the geographical area of Eden (which even at that time was a very fertile & productive place Gen.13:10 etc), or to the time mentioned in Genesis.
Let’s look at the surrounding context, to see who else was in Eden.
Ezek.31:8-9, 16-18 speaks of Pharaoh & Egypt and the surrouding nations as all having been in Eden. The term undoubtedly refers to the geographical area, and the nations are likened to great trees in Eden.
Thou wast created -
As were other nations & kings (Dan.4:17). See also -
Ezek.21:30 = Ammon
Isaiah.43:1,15 = Israel
Thou art the annointed cherub the covereth -
Here it will get sticky, for many mistakenly believe that the cheribum were a class of angels. I believe that the scriptures present them as representative beings, representing the ideal of (& future of) God’s people. See Rev.5:6-10.
Their human & animal-like features represent characteristics of God’s people & areas of their service.
That is why cheribum were placed at the entrance of the garden when Adam & Eve were cast out, to preserve the way to the tree of life (Gen.3:24)
That is also why they were made out of one piece of gold, with the “mercy seat” which represented Christ. They are one with him.
They were located in the most holy, a place that saints currently have access to through Christ (our mercy seat = place of propitiation), and a place that represent heaven itself (Rom.3:25, Heb.9:23; 10:19-24, Eph.1:3 etc)
Now back to the lamentation. Ezekiel speaks of the king of Tyres previous position as the ‘annointed cherub that covereth’. He was in league with Israel, called a brother of Solomon (1.Kg.5 etc), and a possessor of part of the promised land.
He & his kingdom played the part of the covering cherub. The brotherly covenant involved Tyre acting as an outstretched (wings of) northern empire covering Israel, and protecting & enriching her people.
The language is no doubt poetic, and utilizes poetic licence. This is a common feature of the prophetic style.
Conclusion.
The subject & message of Ezel.28 is quite clear. The language colourful & poetic. The outcome tragic. But no where is there any support here for a belief in the existance of some supernatural devil.
I wonder if we could get back to the one point nobody has denied. Jesus, the Messiah, spoke to people AS IF demons really do exist.
We have been told that he was just accommodating what people believed, even though he knew that such a belief constituted polytheism and would prevent them from being Christians.
That makes no sense. Jesus would not deliberately encourage his hearers to retain a belief that would bar them from his kingdom.
Please remember: he is the Messiah. Nobody knew the Old Testament better than he did.
So if he was willing to “accommodate” people’s belief in demons, why can’t his followers do the same?
“Conclusion.
The subject & message of Ezel.28 is quite clear. The language colourful & poetic. The outcome tragic. But no where is there any support here for a belief in the existance of some supernatural devil.”
Disciple
I expected no less from reading the rest of your responses. I know that there is no way anyone could ever change your mind on a belief that could change your whole life if it was found you no longer believed it.
as for me I will stick to the truth whether or not i find another who sees it. I have nothing to lose like you do.
Like i said this would be great if it was somewhere other people looking into this subject could find it.
They would be very impressed with Marg’s honest way of bringing forth the truth and be very disappointed in just how some twist the truth to lead people away from the true context of a subject.
If Marg wants to continue i will still support her effort but thats all i will do.
i find it a lost cause if no one other than CDs see it.
Have a great night
Robert, you wrote -
“Neither does (Ezek.21:25, Is.9:6, Dan.8:25). support your claim that a king and prince are the same.”
Robert, you really need to read & think more carefully before you respond. Please look up the references and understand the contexts and think about what is being said before you comment.
This is what I wrote -
“Not sure on that point, as the word ‘prince’ is also used of kings (Ezek.21:25, Is.9:6, Dan.8:25). I didn’t say it refered to the king of Persia, although it may have.”
The first reference is to Zedekiah, called a prince but who is also a king of Judah. The next two are about Jesus, who is called both a prince and a king.
Robert, you then go onto to quote the very point and reference that I was making -
“Now a King can be spoke of as a prince when the point is the power that they rule by is not theirs but belongs to a being greater than they. Daniel 8 shows these clearly”
For the sake of eticquitte & efficiency it would be a whole lot more productive and respectful if you took a little more time to think carefully before you respond.
Thanks in anticipation.
Robert,
Thanks … you just confirmed what I was saying. No reviewing the scriptures, no context, no reasoned response – just bold assertions.
Yes, and thank you, I will have a great night. God has certainly blessed me in numerous ways, of which I am very thankful.
Robert,
Thanks … you just confirmed what I was saying. No reviewing the scriptures, no context, no reasoned response – just bold assertions.
Disciple
And you just confirmed my statement that you twist the truth of of context to promote yourself and your belief.
Yep your are certainly blessed but by who it up in the air. and your blessing has nothing to do with the truth.
this discussion has gone nowhere , I am so blessed that i never fell into the CDs trap when looking for a unitarian group a year and half ago. Thank God for giving me the common sense to walk away.
My convictions regarding Old Testament passages may be wrong, Disciple, but my opinion is really not very important. With all due respect, neither is Robert’s and neither is yours.
The one person who was NOT likely to make a mistake is the Messiah. Nobody knows the Old Testament as well as he did. And no one has denied that he spoke and acted, time after time, as if demons DO exist.
Why would he talk as if he believed something that would disqualify his hearers from becoming Christians?
Or, looking at it from a different angle, if Jesus was willing to accommodate their belief that demons exist, why can’t we follow his example?
Robert,
You said earlier – “I never use the NT to set the context of a subject unless its sheding light on a prophesy in the OT.”
This was in the same post that you advanced Ezek.28.
I took me some considerable effort to explain & show from the surrounding context in Ezekiel, from the history of the nations, and from the very spirit of the way the prophets use language, how I believe the section is to be correctly understood.
You gave no reasoned response to what I advanced. When I pointed this out, you took the next steps in accusing me of twisting words.
Sorry, but I don’t acknowledge that type of behaviour as either helpful, or in the spirit of Christ.
The problem goes much deeper unfortunately, because if you cannot get the fundamentals right on how to interpret even these moderately difficult passages you will end up thoroughly confused when the writings and symbology gets complex.
I’m more than happy to leave it there with you. You have already judged me unworthy of your time.
I am more than willing to discuss at greater depth any or all of these matters with anyone really willing to courageously explore the word.
Marg,
I am sorry, but you seem to have not heard me.
I have not suggested that ‘demons’ do not exist.
I have rather stated that I believe that the word demons is used in 2 principle ways in the NT scriptures -
1) demons are the false gods of the nations
2) demons are types of mental dissorders in people, that seemed to take on a life of their own.
I do not believe that in either situations they are supernatural agents or powers.
I asked for OT evidence, to act as foundations for belief. So far, no one has advanced anything of substance.