|
Post by Josh on Jun 28, 2009 18:31:09 GMT -8
Just curious if anyone here is of the opinion I have sometimes heard expressed that satan should not be considered a personal agent? My perspective is that satan is a personal agent- that is, an individual and not merely a "force" or "representative idea".
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 2, 2009 12:55:16 GMT -8
Hasatan is an angelic being, with an angelic body and such.
however, there is a view prominant in judaism that states that Hasatan is NOT rebellious towrds god, but does the nasty job of xecuting holy death penalties, or proving a man by trials. this is in many christian theologies too, saying that God has EVERYTHING under his control.
there are mayn problems with this view however, one being an explanation of the wars of revelation adn such.
anyway, thought that it might be interesting to bring it up.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 17, 2009 21:31:51 GMT -8
I can see how that view might be easier to hold if one had merely the Hebrew scriptures. It's really in the New Testament (and intertestimental literature) that more specific details are incidentally brought up regarding satan. BTW, yeshuafreak, I'd be curious your thoughts on this related thread: The good, the bad, and the fallenwhich questions how much we really can know from Scripture about satan's origins.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 21, 2009 18:30:57 GMT -8
does it really matter about Hasatans origins? the fact that he is here gives us enough trouble, lol. but i will post, i find the origins interesting as well.
but another view is that the Yetzer hara (evil inclination; similar to sin nature, but not quite) is what satan really is. HaSatan is really just the personification of this nature of ours, that tempts us to sin.
either way, we know that God cannot be tempted and does not tempt any man (James 1 or 2) so we know that whatever tempts us is not God, (though God can prove, and put us through situations, as long as theyt dont cause us to sin.) So satan is the personification of this attribute.
so the only other choice is 3fold:
1. it is a thing similar to the Yetzer hara, basically an inclination that is brought up in us that tempts us to sin. we are really tempting ourselves to sin, not some invisible force.
2. satan is an angel that is under Gods command, like in Job. where Satan basically testifies against every man and finds every reason for him NOT to recieve the rewards of heaven.
3. satan is a rebellious angel that goes against what God says and tries to divert men away from righteousness, eventally to be destroyed by Michael. (althoughwe must remembber that revelation is symbolic, and the destruction of satan may be interpretaed as a future fall, wehre he rebels, or the destruction of sin itself, of which stan is the personicication of)
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 21, 2009 18:39:37 GMT -8
I see temptation as arising from three distinct, though often interwoven sources:
1) our own sin nature 2) satan/ fallen angels 3) "the world"- that is, the corrupt social/spritual system of humanity
In my experience, Satan (and the other demons) seems much more like a personal agent than merely a force, and it seems to me that they often take a temptation presented by our own sin nature or the world and attempt to capitalize on it.
So, I have a satan-related question about Jewish belief.
What are the earliest Jewish theories on the origin of satan, and did any Jewish commentators ever hold the view, like many Christians, that passages like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are really, or at least secondarily about satan?
BTW, I'm curious who the earliest Christian commentators were who took this view of these passages as well....
Have to check my ACCS Isaiah volume....
|
|