The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Lucifer Myth

Theology Biblical Theology
#107

Okay that’s clear then (as to your view). A spirit living inside of a person making them ill and going by the name of “spirit of infirmity” is just another free moral person having (mostly?) evil thoughts and maybe some good thoughts too. To help me understand - if they have good thoughts does the inflicted person feel better for a while during that time, that is, does the spirit of infirmity feel guilty and back off the symptoms a bit?

I mean, I really am having a hard time grasping how this works under your scenario here.

#108

You don’t believe that there are people so evil that they go for some time without ever having a good thought?

I doubt Hitler ( as an adult ) ever had a good thought, and I’m certain he had none in the last days ( in the bunker, when he was implementing the scorched earth policy, dictating his last notes, marrying Eva Braun, and planing to kill her before he killed himself. )

He was a busy little bee that last week, and not a good thought crossed his mind ( and if it did, it didn’t move him to back off of exterminating the Jews–or destroying himself, his country, and his bride. )

Does that mean he could never have a good thought?

If so, we’re all wrong about UR here.

And btw: I just heard about a man who hired someone on Craig’s list to rape his wife ( while his kids were home ) so he could watch.

How long do you think it’s been since that man had a good thought?

#109

P.S. William Peter Blatty used a historical study of Demonic possession as the main source for his novel “The Exorcist.” The original work goes back to 1921, and was done by a Dr. Traugott Oesterreich.

You might find this quote interesting.

Oesterreich, T. Possession and Exorcism among primitive races: in antiquity, the middle ages, and modern times. Causeway Books: New York. 1974. ( pgs. 62-63 )

#110

What do you think about the guy who leads the demons to Christ before he casts them out? Did you see my post about that? He claims a very high success rate when evangelizing demons.

I wish I could remember who it was - I think someone at tentmaker, I’ll see if I can find the posts.

Also curious to know what we are to do in being Christlike and casting these demons out. Or is God just ‘letting them be’ for now? If so, why? If not, why aren’t most Christians doing anything about them?

#111

I didn’t see this before my last post. Have you ever led a demon to repentance?

#112

Hi Byron,

Please sometime during your conversation with Michael, could you please reply to my last reply to you?
[Only a few find it.)

#113

Unless you have the gift of discerning spirits, I doubt you’d be able to recognize true demonic possession from an environmentally or bio-chemically based disorder–and if you do have the gift ( and can cast out demons ), and know someone who’s demoniacally possessed ( all of which I doubt ), I’d concentrate on relieving the human suffering.

My advice is to leave the demons, their correction, and their reconciliation to God ( and His time plan. )

No.

I’d rather roam the border of Pakistan trying to convert the Taliban fighters.

God Bless.

#114

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

#115

Not necessarily. I don’t think they make decisions which contradict their main purpose or assignment though. Every biblical account of a Godly spiritual agent has them fulfilling their task and every account of an evil spirit, the same. (Unlike Taliban fighters - who are occasionally known to retire).

You mentioned cunning trickery (or something to that effect) and of course the serpent planned the attack carefully and still does (as in eph. 6:11 “stand against the ‘wiles’ (schemes/cunning trickery) of the devil”).

#116

So you don’t take the admonition literally “These signs shall follow them which believe; In my name shall they cast out devils” etc. ?

Also - it appears the infirmities and deafness etc attributed to demons don’t necessarily involve the full possession of those afflicted, correct? And you’re saying “Leave them alone except in special circumstances” (ie if you have the gift and can discern etc). This sounds like possibly more church tradition and seems to directly contradict Jesus’ admonition for believers.

#117

Byron, thanks for getting back to me.:slight_smile:

I assume this means that you believe that God assigned the devil to do nothing but sin such as murdering and lying. Is that correct?

And I assume that you believe that good heavenly angels, sometimes called “sons of God”, cannot decide to sin. Is that correct?

And I assume that you believe that humans can make decisions that contradict their main purpose or assignment while good heavenly angels and demons cannot. Is that correct?

#118

Remember, we are talking about scripture - not my beliefs. We have ‘messengers that sinned’ as a reference so my ideas on this could be wrong. However it doesn’t say God’s heavenly spiritual agents ever missed the mark. And we have every example of God’s messengers (Gabriel, Michael, “the angel of the Lord” etc etc) always completing their task and Satan and his demons always about their dark deeds. It’s not up to me to decide why they do this - these are the biblical examples. We have the earliest references to satan and the serpent doing what their names imply.

There are scholars who address the ‘angels that sinned’ as those ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came, but that seems like a bit of a stretch and I hate to reference material that is over my head. I can look it up for you if you are interested.

Also there are explanations about Adam the “Son of God” and the godly linage of Seth (sons of God) and the ‘sons of men’ referring to the ungodly linage of Cain, but that gets into more controversial waters as well. And it doesn’t address why the kids were so large. (I’m not sure that being the physical offspring of God’s fallen messengers explains their size either!)

PS “sons of God” is another can of worms but obviously if the traditional interpretation of “God’s heavenly angels” is invoked then my theory is shot down. Since you believe in this, do you think there is a prohibition on God’s horny agents mating with pretty chicks now? (Just to put it in modern vernacular) :wink:

#119

“Those who believe in my name” as a group ( corporately, i.e. The Church. )

There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. Unity and Diversity in One Body. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. ( 1 Cor. 12:5-25. )

If you think that every ( individual ) believer has the gifts “of healings” and “the working of miracles,” you have an argument with scripture.

I knew a kid who was shot in the ear with a Bee-Bee gun, and he was deaf in that ear–do you think he was possesed with a spirit of deafness?

What I said was that there may be environmentally and bio-chemically based disorders, and that without the gift of discerning spirits ( which Paul said only some believers had, even in the Apostolic age ) it would be difficult for you to distinguish this kind of disorder from genuine demonic possession.

Does Pentecoustalist “Church Tradition” count?

Only ignorance of scripture ( and the influence of that tradition ) could cause you to think that what I said contradicted “Jesus’ admonition for believers.”

#120

I was asking about those brought to Jesus, not possessed (apparently) but bound by spirits of infirmity, deafness etc.

#121

I understand your point here. The problem is that in the real world churches don’t function like the verse you quoted. Unless you see it as applying to the body of Chris as a whole?

As a general rule (‘casting out’ aside) I’m sure you would agree that all of us need to be fighting against the unseen forces of darkness. Do you see it as just spreading the light around or any specific focused warfare? Jason mentioned guardian angels assigned to each culture but they are (by and large) outmatched by the ‘turncoat’ angels and are losing ground.

BTW, I don’t think your philosophy of staying out of God’s plan for ‘them’ (the evil spirits) is on target because we are (supposed to be) representing the Kingdom of God. Everything’s our business.

#122

I disagree.

Those with particular gifts should serve in the areas they’re suited to serve in, and some of these areas have been institutionalized by the Body of Christ.

The gift of serving ( Romans 12:7 ) in the office of deacon ( Acts 6:1-6 ), the gifts of teaching, encouraging, and governing ( Romans 12:7-8 ) in the office ( or offices ) of Pastor and Bishop ( 1 Tim. 3:2; 4:11; 2 Tim. 3:2. )

The gifts of Prophecy, healing, and miracles were never institutionalized into specific offices ( and could presumably be given to Pastor, Bishop, or layman ), but Paul clearly said that they’re not given to every individual believer.

How about witnessing to a world that isn’t ready to listen?

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. ( Matt. 24:14. )

Even the Apostle’s were told ( by Christ ) that certain things were none of their business.

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. ( Acts 1:6-11. )

As to God’s time plan for the restitution of fallen angels, Andrew Jukes had these thoughts.

auburn.edu/~allenkc/jukes2.html

#123

Thanks, Byron. I finally understand enough about your theory to accept it or reject it. And I reject the theory.

From now on, I’ll refer to your theory as “The Lucifer Myth Myth” (TLMM). TLMM proposes that the Bible teaches that all good heavenly agents have never had the capability to disobey God while all demons never had the capability to do good. And TLMM is based on the assumption that the Bible teaches that no good heavenly agent and no demon ever failed to carry out its divine assignment. It appears that TLMM teaches that God predestined good heavenly agents to always do good and enjoy everlasting bliss in heaven while God predestined demons to always do evil and face eternal judgment and eventual annihilation. Likewise, TLMM rejects various basics of angelology and demonology of all Universalist Church Fathers. Also, TLMM begins by criticizing teachings about “Lucifer” from the Vulgate translation, which had nothing to do with Apostolic Church teachings about fallen heavenly angels.

Two of the biggest obstacles for TLMM is that it must interpret that both 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 are not talking about heavenly angels despite the implications of original context. Perhaps some modern scholars would argue that the original context of these verses never taught about fallen heavenly angels, but I strongly doubt that I would ever see a credible argument about it. Granted that there never was a known unanimity about the class of fallen angels described in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, but there has been unanimity that these verses teach about some class of heavenly angels.

Other points include:

  1. Satan sinning from the beginning doesn’t logically imply that he had no choice but to sin. And the respective Greek word for “sin” refers to “missing the mark”, which appears to suggest that sinning wasn’t the devil’s ultimate divine purpose. And the term “beginning” can refer to various periods of time (or lack of time) such as before creation of the universe (John 1:1) or since the origin of humanity. And only Zoroastrians would apply it to before the creation of the universe.

  2. The term “the sons of God” refers to heavenly agents in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 while the term “the sons of God” suggests that the heavenly agents have moral capabilities similar to humans. (There is no dispute that the term “sons of God” in these verses refer to heavenly agents.) And the book of Job quotes Eliphaz who taught his belief in fallen angels such as Job 4:17-21:

[17] ‘Can a mortal be more righteous than God?
Can a man be more pure than his Maker?
[18] If God places no trust in his servants,
if he charges his angels with error,
[19] how much more those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundations are in the dust,
who are crushed more readily than a moth!
[20] Between dawn and dusk they are broken to pieces;
unnoticed, they perish forever.
[21] Are not the cords of their tent pulled up,
so that they die without wisdom?’
(Job 4:17-21 NIV)

We know that the context of the Eliphaz’s speeches is that they mixed divine truth with a merciless view of suffering, but nonetheless we see the belief in wayward heavenly angels existed during the writing of Job.

  1. A common interpretation of Genesis 3:22 is that God spoke to his heavenly court:

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22 NIV)

The sentence “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” describes the Lord talking to his heavenly court who had an intimate knowledge of good and evil. I know various interpretors say that “us” refers to the Trinity, but the Trinity is taught elsewhere.

  1. And then there’s the controversy about angel sex, which doesn’t need to resolved to decide if angels can fall from grace while it’s a linchpin if it happened. Genesis 6:2 says “the sons of God” married the daughters of men. The historical context strongly implies that this teaches that heavenly angels fell from grace and had sex with human women while many Jews and Christians reject this interpretation because they say it isn’t physically possible or that it’s too revolting to consider that God would give a soul to such creatures. I would agree with the critics accept that the Bible also teaches about human angelophanies such as Genesis 18:1-19:29, Mark 16:4-7, Acts 1:10-11, and Hebrews 13:2. And I have no trouble believing that some human angelophanies fell and seduced human women. I can believe that some heavenly angels appeared with human bodies and blush. And yes, Byron, I believe that it’s a permanent prohibition.

I could write a lot more about the pros and cons of these points and other points. And you might successfully pick on some of my points or sub-points. Regardless, there’s strong evidence in the Bible that some heavenly angels fell from grace, which opposes the foundation of TLMM.

#124

Thanks for the acronym. The “myth is a myth”. Good line James. :slight_smile:

Most Christians believe the devil was the music director in heaven and was formerly a giant pipe organ/tambourine or something similar who aspired to take over God’s kingdom (brilliant idea) and was kicked out. Now (it is taught) his main goal is to afflict us because we look like God or we have the Word and so he is mad about that or we remind him of Jesus - yada-yada-yada.

It is also taught (and is a prominent belief) that He also convinced 1/3 of Gods ‘angels’ that it was a cool idea to join him and that’s where demons came from.

Some here claim that fallen angels were stripped of their bodies and sentenced to tartaroo (earth) and were transformed into spirits of infirmity, deafness etc to afflict mankind.

May I point out that the basic idea here was exposing the Lucifer passage and I understand that it led to all these other issues and I understand why. Yet is never stated that a mighty archangel was transformed into the prince of devils unless you read that into the Lucifer passage. There is no mention of the devil ever being anything else and it is stated that there is ‘no truth in him’. Yet we do have ‘angellos’ falling and sinning in scripture - no doubt about that.

The other rabbit trail was “are demons fallen angels?”. Again, no scripture stating that they are.

Some very interesting ideas came up though - (such as tataroo being earth and humans). I learned a lot in this discussion, please tell me you learned something as well? :slight_smile: There’s still a ton of unaswered questions. I think it is unwise for people to just tow the party line on doctrine when things don’t add up (of course I’m preaching to the choir here since this is a CU site!).

Are there old testament references to demons vexing folks (personally as opposed to Daniel’s epic ‘war in the heavenlies’ account) besides the ‘evil spirits’ from God?

‘Evil’ here is ‘Ra’ - same as "But the men of Sodom were wicked (Ra) and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. "

Jud 9:23 -
Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

1Sa 16:14 -
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

1Sa 16:15 -
And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

1Sa 16:16 -
Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

1Sa 16:23 -
And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

1Sa 18:10 -
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.

1Sa 19:9 -
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.

I do know the classic explanation - that these were just spirits sent to ‘trouble’ or agitate Saul (can’t have God sending out ‘real’ evil spirits :wink: ).

Also, curious as to how you guys view David’s being moved to number the people being attributed to Satan in one account and God in another account of (apparently) the same incident.

#125

Byron, my first paragraph in my last reply talked about the relevance of the Lucifer passage in the Vulgate. And earlier, I mentioned that various Evangelical scholars put no stock in Isaiah teaching about the devil, perhaps the beast, but not the devil. And if your only challenging that Isaiah never taught about about the devil, then I won’t call it TLMM. But you go way beyond that.

And basic Christian teaching include that the Bible twice clearly refers to the devil as a leader of angels. And the devil misses his purpose. And the Bible clearly teaches that God is ultimately sovereign and uses evil people such as the devil.

#126

I call it TLM™ because it’s the only actual reference to Lucifer and is at the basis of the ‘worship leader in heaven’ myth. This was and is at the basis of the satanic music revolution which was CREATED by the myth propagated by the church. The biggest part of the tragedy (and what REALLY put a burr in my saddle) is the people who went to prison (at least one died there) because of the satanist scare Mike Warnke and others put out there.

religioustolerance.org/ra_case.htm

Mike was proven a fraud many years ago. His predecessor Laurel Rose Wilson laid the groundwork with her book “Satan’s Underground”, purporting to tell a true story of her upbringing as a baby breeder (for sacrifices) in a Satanic cult. Ultimately she was proven to be schizophrenic and it was determined she made the whole thing up. She followed that up by posing as a holocaust survivor (busted for that too).

I’m glad James that you eventually saw through it but some did not survive the ensuing witch hunt and some are still rotting in prison.These cases are 100% connected to the Lucifer myth, and to the ignorance of some Christians. Not good.

I went way beyond that because of things I’ve learned, some extra biblical - some not. I purposely painted myself into a corner by agreeing to Bible inerrancy for this discussion. Without that I could suggest that the few biblical references we do have to ‘fallen angels’ show a BELIEF of the writers (as you pointed out in Job). Since I’m discussing mainly with inerrantists here I thought it would be interesting to confine my comments to those parameters and see what the outcome was.

Actually the devil misses the target of God’s perfect law (Love God and neighbor with all) but he certainly is successful at doing what his name describes - opposing and accusing/slandering.

More possibly interesting reading on all the nonsense:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse