The Lucifer Myth

[firstborn888]

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.

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.”

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.

[Michael]

I understand your point here. The problem is that in the real world churches don’t function like the verse you quoted.

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.

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?

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. )

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.

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.

This at least is certain, that the seven nations of Canaan, whom Israel was called to judge, that they might possess the land beyond the Jordan, are the appointed figure in Scripture of those “wicked spirits in heavenly places,” (Eph. vi. 12.) with whom the Church’s conflict is throughout this present age. Yet in a later age they shared a common mercy, and one at least of this cursed race displayed a faith not to be found in Israel. (S. Matt. xv. 22-28.) If they, so cursed, and to be judged without pity, could yet find mercy in a later age, shall not our enemies also, with whom we fight with the sword of the Spirit, in due time through judgment find mercy? (See Appendix, Note C.) And though the Church of this age, which, brought up like Jonah out of the belly of hell, may like Jonah be angry, because the judgment threatened has not fallen as expected, God will justify His mercy to that vast assembly, where there are, as He says, so many who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, not to speak of those who are as beasts before Him. (Jonah iv. 11.)

auburn.edu/~allenkc/jukes2.html

[james.goetz]

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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[firstborn888]

Regardless, there’s strong evidence in the Bible that some heavenly angels fell from grace, which opposes the foundation of TLMM.

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

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? 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 ).

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.

[james.goetz]

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.

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.

[firstborn888]

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.

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.

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.

But you go way beyond that.

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.

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.

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

[james.goetz]

Byron, I’ll get to your last reply at another time, but I at least wanted to acknowledge that I never found anything remotely close in the Bible that teaches that the devil was a worship leader. A passage in Job refers to the sons of God/angels singing when God created the earth, but nothing close to suggesting that the devil was the singing leader, not even if Isaiah and Ezekiel taught about the devil. I see the Bible teaching that some heavenly angels sinned. And I see that the Bible teaches that the devil is the leader of a third of the angels. But I see nothing close in the Bible that suggests that the devil ever lead a Hallelujah chorus, certainly not in Revelation.

[firstborn888]

Byron, I’ll get to your last reply at another time, but I at least wanted to acknowledge that I never found anything remotely close in the Bible that teaches that the devil was a worship leader. A passage in Job refers to the sons of God/angels singing when God created the earth, but nothing close to suggesting that the devil was the singing leader, not even if Isaiah and Ezekiel taught about the devil. I see the Bible teaching that some heavenly angels sinned. And I see that the Bible teaches that the devil is the leader of a third of the angels. But I see nothing close in the Bible that suggests that the devil ever lead a Hallelujah chorus, certainly not in Revelation.

Thanks James - from my last post hopefully you can now fully understand my purpose for posting all this. I deal with mentally ill people and they are by and large FULL of these ideas which church tradition has taught about demons and satan and hell from Dante’ to Warnke and so on.

As far as the third of the angels comment - I wish you would look closely at the passage as even if the stars which were cast down by the dragon’s tail were God’s messengers it still doesn’t say or even imply that they joined the dragon. The devil and HIS messengers fought, not the devil and God’s messengers fighting alongside. I see how someone predisposed could connect those dots but really it’s not an automatic unless every time someone sees the word ‘angel’ only one thing comes to mind. In either case do you see this as a future event?

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.

And remember: Heaven/heavens (in the bible) = High place, rulers, mountain, sky, kingdom, authority.

[Michael]

Byron, I’ll get to your last reply at another time, but I at least wanted to acknowledge that I never found anything remotely close in the Bible that teaches that the devil was a worship leader. A passage in Job refers to the sons of God/angels singing when God created the earth, but nothing close to suggesting that the devil was the singing leader, not even if Isaiah and Ezekiel taught about the devil. I see the Bible teaching that some heavenly angels sinned. And I see that the Bible teaches that the devil is the leader of a third of the angels. But I see nothing close in the Bible that suggests that the devil ever lead a Hallelujah chorus, certainly not in Revelation.

Thanks James - from my last post hopefully you can now fully understand my purpose for posting all this. I deal with mentally ill people and they are by and large FULL of these ideas which church tradition has taught about demons and satan and hell from Dante’ to Warnke and so on.

And do you really think your own fatalistic ideas about pre-programed devils ( with no wills of their own ), created for the sole purpose of being exactly what they are, will improve their mental health?

Do you tell these mentally ill people that they have no will of their own?

I have a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science, and I can tell you that such ideas are unlikely to be therapeutic.

…is never stated that a mighty archangel was transformed into the prince of devils unless you read that into the Lucifer passage.

I believe “the Lucifer passage” is in Isaiah 14, but you seem to forget the 28th chapter of Ezekiel.

What that chapter says about a created cherub who had been in Eden, and who was perfect in his outward ways until iniquity was found in him ( when compared with what is revealed in the book of Daniel about the unseen spiritual rulers behind the human rulers of empires and city-states ), makes it reasonable to infer that Satan ( who Jesus identified as Beelzebub, the prince of demons ) was once an angel ( who fell from a place of authority. )

And remember: Heaven/heavens (in the bible) = High place, rulers, mountain, sky, kingdom, authority.

Yes, let’s not forget that.

And let’s remember what Paul said about an individual who’s placed in a position of authority in the Church.

He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ( 1 Tim. 3:6. )

[firstborn888]

Byron, I’ll get to your last reply at another time, but I at least wanted to acknowledge that I never found anything remotely close in the Bible that teaches that the devil was a worship leader. A passage in Job refers to the sons of God/angels singing when God created the earth, but nothing close to suggesting that the devil was the singing leader, not even if Isaiah and Ezekiel taught about the devil. I see the Bible teaching that some heavenly angels sinned. And I see that the Bible teaches that the devil is the leader of a third of the angels. But I see nothing close in the Bible that suggests that the devil ever lead a Hallelujah chorus, certainly not in Revelation.

Thanks James - from my last post hopefully you can now fully understand my purpose for posting all this. I deal with mentally ill people and they are by and large FULL of these ideas which church tradition has taught about demons and satan and hell from Dante’ to Warnke and so on.
And do you really think your own fatalistic ideas about pre-programed devils ( with no wills of their own ), created for the sole purpose of being exactly what they are, will improve their mental health?

Do you tell these mentally ill people that they have no will of their own?

I have a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science, and I can tell you that such ideas are unlikely to be therapeutic.

I get their focus OFF the devil, especially since their heads are full of fantastic science fiction - half human half demon/alien (angel) people running around and (self edit - used a possibly offensive word) garbage like that. You know, stuff they learned at church.

Do you tell these mentally ill people that they have no will of their own?

What? Tell the people they have no will of their own? Or tell them the demons have no will of their own? What are you talking about?

I believe “the Lucifer passage” is in Isaiah 14, but you seem to forget the 28th chapter of Ezekiel.

Nope - I addressed it in the OP.

And let’s remember what Paul said about an individual who’s placed in a position of authority in the Church.

He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ( 1 Tim. 3:6. )

I believe I was the first to bring up this passage as well. I’m not avoiding or forgetting these at all.

[Michael]

Do you tell these mentally ill people that they have no will of their own?

What? Tell the people they have no will of their own? Or tell them the demons have no will of their own?

Don’t you deny both ( or are you saying that humans have free will )???

I believe “the Lucifer passage” is in Isaiah 14, but you seem to forget the 28th chapter of Ezekiel.

Nope - I addressed it in the OP.

Ah, but you keep forgetting it ( and the fact that Daniel provides a context that would suggest that that chapter is speaking of more than a human “king.” )

And let’s remember what Paul said about an individual who’s placed in a position of authority in the Church.

He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

( 1 Tim. 3:6. )

I believe I was the first to bring up this passage as well. I’m not avoiding or forgetting these at all.

Nope, I was.

…crap like that. You know, stuff they learned at church.

Your bias is showing ( and I believe you’re violating forum rules here. )

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

I’ll start with your last reply and then go back to this reply. I suppose that you can argue that Revelation 12 teaches that the devil defeats a third of the holy angels before Michael and his angels defeats the devil and his angels. Regardless, we still have New Testament precedence that describes the devil as the leader of various angels presumably called spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. And we have New Testament precedence that teaches that some good heavenly angels fell from grace, even if those particular angels fell from grace after humans fell from grace. And the devil either defeats a third of the good heavenly angels or more traditionally a third of all angels are the devil’s angels. Either way, the Early Church view of the devil and fallen angels was firmly established before the Vulgate.

And I also want to clarify that despite seeing no clear or possibly allegorical teaching that says the devil was a singing worship leader among the angels, the Bible does teach that singing worship is important for angels. And if there was any time between the the creation of who we call “the devil” and his first sin, then I assume that this creature had sung praises to God before this creature started to sin.

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.

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.

Those excesses needed to be and in some cases still need to be addressed, but those excesses don’t need to addressed with additional excesses.

I also had some experiences with devil worship . During 1983-84, I struggled with hospitalizations for substance abuse and psychotic delusions with audio and visual hallucinations. I had also experimented with witchcraft for many years. And my second major psychotic breakdown in the time period initiated with me compulsively listening to “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Stones. At one point, I felt an invisible creature lock my body and force me to worship.

I always thought that the Stones had genuine talent and I’ll still listen to some of their neutral songs that I like, but I think “Sympathy for the Devil” can be a dangerous song, even if it’s dangerous only for the unstable.

But you go way beyond that.

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.

I hold to doctrinal inerrancy and interpret that some Bible writers are referring to ancient beliefs that aren’t historical. We already mentioned Job and everybody agrees that one of the purposes of Job is to show that the speeches of his friends had flaws. I also believe in the teachings in Jude without believing that the references to Enoch are historical, which many if not all people in the first century AD also believed that it was pseudepigrapha. But the teaching about the return of the Lord [is] valid and attested to elsewhere in the Bible. But stretching this hermaneutical principle to the point to say that the unanimous belief in the Apostolic Church about fallen angels is wrong and harmful, then I see no limits in what you discount from the Bible. And we still see the devil portrayed as a leader of spiritual angels. This is pushing things way too much to make a doctrine based on it.

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.

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

As stated in a similar situation above, none of these problems deserve the excesses you propose.

[firstborn888]

I believe I was the first to bring up this passage as well. I’m not avoiding or forgetting these at all.

Nope, I was.

1st page - 10th post or so:

One verse I’ve seen used as well is “being lifted up with pride they fall into the condemnation of the devil” and I agree that it is a universal principle (pride comes before a fall) so the idea is that pride causes us to be in opposition (satan meaning adversary/opposer) to God’s way (which is meekness and lowliness of heart) and pride really causes us to oppose our own selves.

[firstborn888]

Those excesses needed to be and in some cases still need to be addressed, but those excesses don’t need to addressed with additional excesses.

I also had some experiences with devil worship . During 1983-84, I struggled with hospitalizations for substance abuse and psychotic delusions with audio and visual hallucinations. I had also experimented with witchcraft for many years. And my second major psychotic breakdown in the time period initiated with me compulsively listening to “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Stones. At one point, I felt an invisible creature lock my body and force me to worship.

I always thought that the Stones had genuine talent and I’ll still listen to some of their neutral songs that I like, but I think “Sympathy for the Devil” can be a dangerous song, even if it’s dangerous only for the unstable.

I read about your struggle in a different post and since I was dealing with folks experiencing some of the same things (after a bunch of church tradition was pumped into their unstable minds) that’s what set me off to start this thread. And the fact that I watched a documentary about the 80’s California witch hunts on TV.

I know a guy who had demons reaching up from the fires of hell and trying to pull him in (and he wasn’t dying) which (of course) is impossible but Dante’ and whoever else writes this garbage is very dramatic/scary/convincing.

I hold to doctrinal inerrancy and interpret that some Bible writers are referring to ancient beliefs that aren’t historical. We already mentioned Job and everybody agrees that one of the purposes of Job is to show that the speeches of his friends had flaws. I also believe in the teachings in Jude without believing that the references to Enoch are historical, which many if not all people in the first century AD also believed that it was pseudepigrapha. But the teaching about the return of the Lord in valid and attested to elsewhere in the Bible. But stretching this hermaneutical principle to the point to say that the unanimous belief in the Apostolic Church about fallen angels is wrong and harmful, then I see no limits in what you discount from the Bible. And we still see the devil portrayed as a leader of spiritual angels. This is pushing things way too much to make a doctrine based on it.

I think with the statement “the unanimous belief in the Apostolic Church” you are being a little over optimistic about what was agreed upon. But with Jude (James?) and Peter chiming in I see your point and agree that there is basis for speculation about all these things but I’ve seen the speculation taught as fact many times. It preys upon a natural tendency for humans to obsess on the occult and ‘demons’ and darkness. When I was a teen I noticed that “Chick Tracts” were instrumental in stirring up interest in the occult among the churched teens. My whole point here is to discover what the bible actually says and at least a lot of the add-ons can be seen for what they are.

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.

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

As stated in a similar situation above, none of these problems deserve the excesses you propose.

Fair enough James. Thanks for your insight and comments.

[firstborn888]

…“garbage” like that. You know, stuff they learned at church.

Your bias is showing ( and I believe you’re violating forum rules here. )

Bias against church tradition??? You bet!!!

Sorry if the ‘C’ word is offensive. Around here (South Texas) it means “junk/garbage” so I just should have just used the J or G word instead. My apologies Michael (and administration). I edited my post (and your quoted post above)to fix that.

[Michael]

I believe I was the first to bring up this passage as well. I’m not avoiding or forgetting these at all.

Nope, I was.

1st page - 10th post or so:

One verse I’ve seen used as well is “being lifted up with pride they fall into the condemnation of the devil” and I agree that it is a universal principle (pride comes before a fall) so the idea is that pride causes us to be in opposition (satan meaning adversary/opposer) to God’s way (which is meekness and lowliness of heart) and pride really causes us to oppose our own selves.

I looked at that Byron.

It wasn’t a direct quote, you mentioned no chapter and verse, and you entirely left out the context ( which would seem relevant to the topic. )

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer…must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ( 1 Tim. 3:1-2,6. )

You see, the context has to do with letting a position of authority go to your head ( not just pride going before a fall. )

[firstborn888]

It wasn’t a direct quote, you mentioned no chapter and verse, and you entirely left out the context ( which would seem relevant to the topic. )

I believe I was the first to bring up this passage as well.

Right, I just brought up the passage

[Michael]

It wasn’t a direct quote, you mentioned no chapter and verse, and you entirely left out the context ( which would seem relevant to the topic. )

I believe I was the first to bring up

this passage as well.
Right, I just brought up the passage

In a vague, off-hand way that entirely ignored the context.

Sorry I missed it.

Once again, here is the quote in it’s proper context:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer…must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ( 1 Tim. 3:1-2,6. )

You see, the context has to do with the danger of a new convert letting a position of authority go to his head, and thereby falling under the same judgment as the devil ( not just pride going before a fall. )

Bias against church tradition??? You bet!!!

So your relationship to the Church is one of accuser and adversary ?

[firstborn888]

Bias against church tradition??? You bet!!!

So your relationship to the Church is one of accuser and adversary ?

You have PERFECTLY described my relationship to church tradition.

Matt. 15:6 Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition

[Michael]

Bias against church tradition??? You bet!!!

So your relationship to the Church is one of accuser and adversary ?

You have PERFECTLY described my relationship to church tradition.

Matt. 15:6 Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition

Christ said that to the Pharisees, but what did He say to the people?

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. ( Matt. 23:1-3. )

And what did Jude say about those who set themselves up as authorities ( against Apostolic teaching )?

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. ( Jude 8-9. )

And, finally, what did Paul say about tradition?

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. ( 2 Thes. 2:15. )

You see Byron, that one passage you quoted has to be seen in a larger New Testament context that includes these passages ( which suggest we should exercise some caution in judging the Church. )

…with Jude (James?) and Peter chiming in I see your point and agree that there is basis for speculation about all these things…

I thank you for conceeding that much.