Bible Questions?

Are all non believers in Christianity fools of Satan?

 

I wouldn't phrase it that way but the Bible does point out that there are only two sides to this issue and there are no neutral parties. (Matthew 12:30)

 

Yeah, I've thought this for a while, but there are only a few points of faith in which we disagree (namely the Real Presence, authority in the Church, and the nature of Jesus and his relationship to the Godhead). Other than that we seem to generally agree on matters of faith and morals.







Runenoodle: In my mind, Satan is not a fallen angel lucifer (yadda yadda yadda) as some very conservative Christians will tell you. The origin of the word Satan is really "adversary". When Christ tells Peter "Get behind me Satan" he is saying that Peter's worry about worldly affairs is opposing Jesus' mission for the Passion.

With that in mind, it is our own will, not that of a demon or Satan, that chooses to do evil. So if someone doesn't believe, it is not that some outside force is making them this way, it is their own choice.

The Bible does use the term "fool", but really it does not mean intellectually, it means spiritually. They are spiritually fools, sometimes using their own intellect to fool themselves.

 

then what causes temptation? yeah its human nature to sin well I cant really say but what puts temptation in front of us Ukr-cdn?

 

Before arriving at the foot of Mount Cyanide according to the bible were the wondering Jews ignorant to the fact that you should not kill your fellow man or rampantly steal from one another?

If so how did they make it so far without self destructing and what significance would any rules delegating a pseudo morality have on them if it was already self evident?

 

I agree with Ukr-cdn on this. "Satan", meaning adversary, was once an overzealous prosecutor in God's Court--resorting to entrapment to expose human failings. He was authorized by God to test humans: David (1 Chronicles 21:1) and of course Job. Or to inflict punishment: e.g., Balaam (Numbers 22 & 23); or to serve, appropriately, as "Devil's Advocate" in the appointment and promotion process: e.g., objecting to the selection of Joshua (Zecharia 3:1-7). But the Old Testament made clear that God was in charge of all things. After the 5th century BCE, the conceptualization of good and evil became more dualistic, and Satan underwent a transformation to became a free lance agent of evil. Possibly, this, like the immortality of the soul, was a result of Zoroastrian influence, as the Jews became involved with the Persians, and Judea became a client state of Persia. Satan absorbed characteristics of Angra Manyu (aka, Ahriman), the Persian Lord of Darkness. Also, the figure of Satan became conflated with Lucifer, the Fallen Angel; the serpent in the Garden of Evil; and possibly the demon Belial and the goat-like desert demon Azazel. Some sects of Judaism were more influenced than others by these Persian and Mesopotamian beliefs, the Essenes apparently being the most deeply influenced by this dualistic struggle. This concept of Satan was taken over by the Christians, and especially the Gnostics. Today, he's become the personification of evil.

 

Interesting and knowledgeable as always, brother.

 

If we read the Life of St Anthony by Athanatius, it is claimed by the Desert ascetic that satan tempts the brothers (monks) when their minds start to wander from the task at hand (being an ascetic and being close to God). When they begin to feel pressure of being celibate, or poor, or whatever, that is the form in which demons enter into our life and enter into our hearts.

To remove a literal demon and satan from this picture, it is like you said our own sinful nature, our seemingly constant desire to break our relationship with God and do , and our own disregard for God wanting to be in our lives and filling his void with temporal pleasures. We attempt to fill the "God-shaped hole" in our hearts/soul with anything but God. The sin of Lust attempts to fill it with sexual pleasure. The sin of greed attempts to fill it with monetary value. While these pleasures can be good in one sense (God gave us the pleasure of sex to be enjoyed for procreation [this is the Catholic speaking] and as an expression of love between spouses), if they consume us, no matter how much we can accumulate, the void will never be filled.

In that sense, it is our longing for God, but our unwillingness to accept the dermands of a personal relationship and all that is demanded from that that leads us into temptation and ultimately sin. We, by our sinful nature, try to take the easy way, God's way is difficult.

 

In the year AD 45, what was considered canon for the new Christian community? Please explain your answer...

When was the Jewish canon finalized?

What language did the NT writers read what we call the OT in?

 

Where are the multiple choice questions?

 

Let me see if I have this right Jesus is God and was not tempted by Satan because Satan is just the personification of evil and so God was tempted by his own will to do evil? Or is the temptation of the Christ some how symbolic and if so, symbolic of what? Or this another example of the Bible being written men who got it wrong?

 

You answered your own question home slice.

 

The apostles were still alive up to that point so maybe their letters and other writings?

Sometime between 200BC-200AD. The council of Jamnia (70AD) is hypothetical.

Koine Greek. They read the Septuagint.

 

Actually to have answered my own question I would have have to make a statement which I did not. They were all questions and so for the question to be answered, a statement should be returned to me, thank you very much.

 

I think I may not have been very clear. I didn't mean to say that it is our will that it is our will to do evil that solely tempts us, but our sinful nature that leads us to choose evil.

Christ's nature as we know was both divine and human (fully, completely) His human nature was bound to everything we are bound to--hunger, thirst, sadness, joy...even temptation, pain, and death. Temptation can come from many places. If we choose a vow of poverty, seeing adds on television for something we see as desirable can lead us to turn away from our vow. If we take the vow of chastity, then just having pretty girls walk by isn't the doing of Satan, but it is just something that happened.

Christ's Temptation in the desert I think may have come to him in this way. When he is tempted by Satan to make bread, he was hungry as a human. He knew he could feed himself (being God and all IMO), but as St Paul wrote he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited. Jesus had the same fears as we have. He was afraid before his crucifixion, but submitted to the Father. He was hungry in the desert, but submitted to the Father.

God allows us to be tempted (he doesn't always remove us from temptation) but no more than we can overcome.

(PS- You will notice I didn't say that demons do not exist, I just removed them from my initial explanation of an example from St Anthony's Life. I am tricky like that.)

 

You've never heard of answering a question with a question?

 

Now, I'm not posting this image to argue the validity of the bible. Over the last few years I've encountered many people that followed this type of circular reasoning. My question is, do you believe this chart accurately portrays arguments for the bible? Or is it lacking?

 

An arguement that explains everything rarely explains anything.

 

Well, I meant not new writings, but older ones that make up what we call the Old Testament today.

I think the fact that the Sadducees and Pharisees couldn't even agree on what was canon on matters of faith and morals shows that the finalized canon didn't come until at least after Christianity and Judaism had split.

Wouldn't that mean that the two canons could be different?

 

That chart is a valid representation of the attitude of many, if not most, Christians.

When they don't actually read the bible, how are they gonna answer anything with any other answer than that. Then they look like robots. Not the most appealing way to bring new folks to God.

It's not valid. It's a crutch, and I agree with you 100%.

This is what we're up against. Folks pigeonhole us because of stupid, ignorant play Christians who don't have the ammo to carry on a theistic conversation with with even a modicum of intelligence.

Arm yourselves and read the Bible folks. THIS IS A WAR.


-