BALDUCCI

Maybe Satan should be part of the trinity, so it would be a ??? quadity ?

dog-on

I suppose he is, because without him, what would the point of Christianity be anyway... :devil1:

dog-on

What was the Roman view regarding Demonic possession in the first century and prior?

DeanM

This brings to mind the book "Lunch with God" by Steve Hershey. Though it is a work of fiction, I found that the author's detailed descriptions of the evolution of Satan from his origin to modern times is exceptionally well researched. To answer you question, Satan has many of the powers that we percieve to be god-like, compared to humans, anyway. He is in fact not a god, but an archangel of God's former employ. Beyond that, Satan has continued to evolve and expand in his powers by testing the confines of his improsonment, and can exert more influence on man than ever before.

I would suggest you look into this book if you are seriously interested in knowing more about this.

post tenebras lux

Hi DeanM and welcome to IIDB.

Do archangels (whether fallen or not) have free will?

DeanM

Dunno. Never met one, hehe. Mankind does, though 8)

post tenebras lux

Does your church know, as in: "does your church take a position on whether archangels have free will or not?"

By the way, which flavour, branch or denomination of christian are you?

John Kesler

And the proof that "Yahweh met him" is a locution for the "spirit of God" entering or being poured is... Please provide proof for your assertion, preferably by citing other OT passages that are so used.

That you have to appeal to an intertestamental work to buttress what the book of Job actually says is significant. You are anachronistically reading "possession" into the text.

Even assuming for argument's sake that whatever passage you have in mind (Paul's "thorn in the flesh," 2 Corinthians 12:7?) merits the conclusion that you draw, why should one passage, by one New Testament author be viewed as normative for what "Judaism" believed about Satan? Besides, belief that Satan is Yahweh's enemy is not dependent on believing that Satan is "wholly independent."

What I have said comports with mainstream scholarship. For example, The New Interpreter's Bible, volume IV, page 348, states that, "[i]n later centuries the figure of Satan develops into the dualistic opponent of God. This hostile image of Satan is presumed by the New Testament...In the story of Job, hovever, that later development has not yet taken place."

The Oxford Companion To The Bible, page 679: "Most scholars agree that in the writings of the third/second centuries BCE are the first examples of a character who is the archenemy of Yahweh and humankind."

Cheerful Charlie

The OT speaks of wizards and "familiars".


Deuteronomy 18

10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Leviticus 20
6And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.


CC

Solo

The Jewish god interacts with his creation via agents, and unless one is specified (e.g. the two she-bears in 2 Kings 2) a spiritual agency is a safe bet. You are free to disagree.

Who says I "had to" ? I gave you a reading from Job in which Yahweh says to Satan that Job is in his hands. I'll stick with that.


Check also 1 Cr 15:27-30
"Enemy" sounds a bit loaded. At any rate, the point I was making was that to speak of "dualism" the two entities would have to be independent of each other and roughly of comparable strength (e.g. like Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are in Zoroastrian setup). This kind of scenario indeed appears to exist in sectarian Apocalyptic writings, e.g. in the epic struggles of the Sons of Light against Sons of Darkness at Qumran but I frankly doubt that this has ever reached a level of norm. I don't have Pagels' The Origins of Satan handy but if memory serves rabbinical Judaism e.g. Hillel and Shammai had no big axe to grind with Satan, focusing instead on positive ethical vistas and observant living.
It would be good to see some examples of this. Between the book of Job and NT, only Zechariah mentions Satan by name.

Jiri