Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:23:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

Naw, that's zoroastrianism. There is no hell in the bible. just a mistranslation and misunderstanding of ancient idiom. No one emulates God, God is beyond emulation.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 5:55:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well without having studied all the 'current' mainstream ideas regarding this topic I can give you my best guess.
1. In relation to eternity Satan's small reign of terror here is basically nothing.
2. Satan was used as part of the punishment for mankind to endure for their original sin. Evil would exist regardless of Satan's existence, but it would be safe to argue that with Satan being around it seems logical that a massive amount of more atrocities would occur.

Again these are off the top of my head so have at it.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 6:38:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 4:23:20 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

Naw, that's zoroastrianism. There is no hell in the bible. just a mistranslation and misunderstanding of ancient idiom. No one emulates God, God is beyond emulation.

No argument.
That does not mean we cannot analyze the myth for just actions.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 6:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 5:55:26 PM, Crede wrote:
Well without having studied all the 'current' mainstream ideas regarding this topic I can give you my best guess.
1. In relation to eternity Satan's small reign of terror here is basically nothing.
2. Satan was used as part of the punishment for mankind to endure for their original sin. Evil would exist regardless of Satan's existence, but it would be safe to argue that with Satan being around it seems logical that a massive amount of more atrocities would occur.

Again these are off the top of my head so have at it.

As good as any.

To your last. Yet most biblical atrocities are directly or indirectly from God and not Satan. Check the deaths attributed to Satan and the greater numbers attributed to God.

Regards
DL
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As good as any.

To your last. Yet most biblical atrocities are directly or indirectly from God and not Satan. Check the deaths attributed to Satan and the greater numbers attributed to God.

Regards
DL

Biblical killings in the name of God, or by God can always be explained by religious judgement even though at surface value can look horrible. Also it can be argued that only God can truely do anything for a greater good because he can know all future consequences of any action where as we can only look at singular events and judge accordingly. Satan in the bible doesn't do many killings but is constantly being warned against. So if the bible is true in regards to every scripture pertaining to him then we can easily conclude that many 'evil' happenings can be attributed to his influence.

But getting back to the question at hand. We can ask why did God not wipe out humans with A & E when they sinned as equally as asking why God didn't finish Satan off when he sinned. Both were cast out of the garden (Lucifer from God's grace at some prior unknown time) and were cursed in their own way. Also in comparison humans can be a continuation of Satan's punishment in that we have continually a way to be reconciled with God and be in his grace where he can never be restored which is a constant reminder of his damnation. One of mans continued punishment is being subject to Satan who has an incredibly strong influence in persuading people from God's kingdom.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 9:40:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 6:38:41 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:23:20 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

Naw, that's zoroastrianism. There is no hell in the bible. just a mistranslation and misunderstanding of ancient idiom. No one emulates God, God is beyond emulation.

No argument.
That does not mean we cannot analyze the myth for just actions.

Regards
DL

As long as you understand you are basing agency on myth, and permit other o do the same. I like Midas myself.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 3:58:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

The book of Job teaches us why.

Satan has made an accusation against God. Specifically against God's character. The whole earth is embroiled in a trail against God and one against Satan.

Satan is proving the type of god he is as he is in charge of what happens on earth. God is in charge of only His poeple on earth.

If you have a problem with the world the way it is, that is entirely Satan's fault.

Have you read the Bible?
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 8:58:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 3:58:17 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

The book of Job teaches us why.

Satan has made an accusation against God. Specifically against God's character. The whole earth is embroiled in a trail against God and one against Satan.

Satan is proving the type of god he is as he is in charge of what happens on earth. God is in charge of only His poeple on earth.

If you have a problem with the world the way it is, that is entirely Satan's fault.

Have you read the Bible?

About 8 of them actually.

As to the problems of the world being from Satan.
Have you read the bible?

Nehemiah 13:18
Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?

Jeremiah 19:15
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it,

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 9:00:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 9:40:55 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/10/2011 6:38:41 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:23:20 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

Naw, that's zoroastrianism. There is no hell in the bible. just a mistranslation and misunderstanding of ancient idiom. No one emulates God, God is beyond emulation.

No argument.
That does not mean we cannot analyze the myth for just actions.

Regards
DL

As long as you understand you are basing agency on myth, and permit other o do the same.

I do and do.

I will also chat with those foolish enough not to take it as a myth.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 9:03:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 7:01:28 PM, Crede wrote:
As good as any.

To your last. Yet most biblical atrocities are directly or indirectly from God and not Satan. Check the deaths attributed to Satan and the greater numbers attributed to God.

Regards
DL

Biblical killings in the name of God, or by God can always be explained by religious judgement even though at surface value can look horrible. Also it can be argued that only God can truely do anything for a greater good because he can know all future consequences of any action where as we can only look at singular events and judge accordingly. Satan in the bible doesn't do many killings but is constantly being warned against. So if the bible is true in regards to every scripture pertaining to him then we can easily conclude that many 'evil' happenings can be attributed to his influence.

But getting back to the question at hand. We can ask why did God not wipe out humans with A & E when they sinned as equally as asking why God didn't finish Satan off when he sinned. Both were cast out of the garden (Lucifer from God's grace at some prior unknown time) and were cursed in their own way. Also in comparison humans can be a continuation of Satan's punishment in that we have continually a way to be reconciled with God and be in his grace where he can never be restored which is a constant reminder of his damnation. One of mans continued punishment is being subject to Satan who has an incredibly strong influence in persuading people from God's kingdom.

His influence or God's kingdom have never been shown to exist.

We could go all over the place as you want but that does not speak to the justice aspect and that is the focus of the O P.

Regards
DL
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:43:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The book of Job teaches us why.

Satan has made an accusation against God. Specifically against God's character:

So God, acting like a petulant child, decided to prove to Satan that Job was the sh*t by sacrificing his entire family in a pissing contest with Satan. Wow, good job God, you really showed him!!!

Satan is proving the type of god he is as he is in charge of what happens on earth. God is in charge of only His poeple on earth.:

Who controls the North Pole again? I get my fairytales mixed up.

If you have a problem with the world the way it is, that is entirely Satan's fault.:

Haha, yeah... All Satans fault, the martyr and scapegoat to explain why bad things happen. You forget that God is entirely complicit in that being that he's the supposed Creator.

Have you read the Bible?:

A better question would be, have you?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:22:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 11:43:53 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The book of Job teaches us why.

Satan has made an accusation against God. Specifically against God's character:

So God, acting like a petulant child, decided to prove to Satan that Job was the sh*t by sacrificing his entire family in a pissing contest with Satan. Wow, good job God, you really showed him!!!

That is equivocating and just making an accusation.
It is like saying to a father, you have no better way to punish your child than to act like another petulant child by taking away your son's ice cream rations for the week!

Poo Poo on the father!

Such a response only shows your lack of maturity in dealing with the obvious.


Satan is proving the type of god he is as he is in charge of what happens on earth. God is in charge of only His poeple on earth.:

Who controls the North Pole again? I get my fairytales mixed up.

Again fallacy of misleading vividness. You have done that three times before that I can remember.
Do you know what this fallacy is? Have you encountered anyone before pointing it out to you?

If you have a problem with the world the way it is, that is entirely Satan's fault.:

Haha, yeah... All Satans fault, the martyr and scapegoat to explain why bad things happen. You forget that God is entirely complicit in that being that he's the supposed Creator.

That is merely denying the claims of Christian theology and also ignoring the free will claims of humanity embedded in that theology.

Your statements are clear that you do not understand those claims or the reality of the framework in which every Christian finds themselves realistically embroiled within.

Every Christian asserts experientially the badness of Satan, the goodness of God, the rational punishment of God and the free will we experience on a daily basis.

Denying these self evident truths experienced by Christians just makes you sort of a
silly like yelling "poopy pants" out loud in a Kindergarten class.


Have you read the Bible?:

A better question would be, have you?

lol. Big man on campus syndrome? Do you realize that possesed all of the wit of a "Jock" going up against a college graduate?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 8:58:14 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/11/2011 3:58:17 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:05:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Satan. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does God wait?

God is to be our standard of justice and we are to emulate his ways.

He has condemned Satan to hell yet gave him dominion on earth instead of imposing his sentence. IOW. A reward.

No judge in their right mind would do so in our justice system.

Is God less responsible than our judges?

Is God denying justice by not imposing his sentence?

Why is God not imposing his sentence and instead, is rewarding Satan?

Regards
DL

The book of Job teaches us why.

Satan has made an accusation against God. Specifically against God's character. The whole earth is embroiled in a trail against God and one against Satan.

Satan is proving the type of god he is as he is in charge of what happens on earth. God is in charge of only His poeple on earth.

If you have a problem with the world the way it is, that is entirely Satan's fault.

Have you read the Bible?

About 8 of them actually.

As to the problems of the world being from Satan.
Have you read the bible?

Nehemiah 13:18
Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?

Jeremiah 19:15
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it,

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Regards
DL

That is taking out of context biblical verses and fallaciously equivocating God's punishment with the problems caused by Satan.

I could also take verses out of context of Moby Dick and claim you are the "Great Dick" spoken of in the book.

What you are doing is fallacious.

There are clear metrics utilized in digesting any framework.

Ignoring those metrics is showing a low level of intellectual honesty.
I do not run around claiming the Bhagavad Gita teaches that I am a worm because I can take a sentence out of context. To do so is obviously against the claims of the rest of the Gita.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:44:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 2:37:25 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Ignoring those metrics is showing a low level of intellectual honesty.


Who helped you to write the words intellectual honesty?

You certainly have no clu as to what it means.

Regards
DL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 4:29:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 2:44:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/12/2011 2:37:25 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Ignoring those metrics is showing a low level of intellectual honesty.


Who helped you to write the words intellectual honesty?

You certainly have no clu as to what it means.

Regards
DL

Do you have proof of my intellectual dishonesty or are you just making another baseless accusation as you did when you accused the Christian God?

I offer the proof that you ingore metrics that are certain and foundational when reading a work of literature. You did so within this very post. You cited punishment verses and credited the problems caused by people as God's fault with those verses.

Please explain yourself if you did use the metrics the entirety of the rest of the academic world uses when interpreting a work of literature.

I am more than willing to admit I missed something if you are indeed use the same metrics as every professional in the field.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 9:07:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The whole theology of "Satan" is contrived from murky waters, at best. In the Jewish canon, Satan is like a prosecuting attorney; who is numbered among the "sons of God" (angels) and stands at God's right hand. It was Satan's job to try people in order to prove their love and devotion to God. Satan was not trying to lead people astray, but as one who sets up a sting, sets out to proves one's dedication to the law.

The lucifer of Isaiah has never been interpreted by Jewish scholarship to mean "Satan". This is an invention of Christianity, influenced by apocryphal writings, such as the Book of Enoch. If you read the passage, it is made clear the writer is referring the King of Babylon, who kept the Jewish people captive and was later defeated.

It is not until the advent of Christianity, Satan is made the enemy of God. The right hand position of God goes from one of prosecutor to that of advocate. Christ the mediator becomes God's right hand man, and Satan the prosecutor is cast down from Heaven and becomes the Christian Devil.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 9:07:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The whole theology of "Satan" is contrived from murky waters, at best. In the Jewish canon, Satan is like a prosecuting attorney; who is numbered among the "sons of God" (angels) and stands at God's right hand. It was Satan's job to try people in order to prove their love and devotion to God. Satan was not trying to lead people astray, but as one who sets up a sting, sets out to proves one's dedication to the law.

The lucifer of Isaiah has never been interpreted by Jewish scholarship to mean "Satan". This is an invention of Christianity, influenced by apocryphal writings, such as the Book of Enoch. If you read the passage, it is made clear the writer is referring the King of Babylon, who kept the Jewish people captive and was later defeated.

It is not until the advent of Christianity, Satan is made the enemy of God. The right hand position of God goes from one of prosecutor to that of advocate. Christ the mediator becomes God's right hand man, and Satan the prosecutor is cast down from Heaven and becomes the Christian Devil.

You would have to read the Jewish works that existed well before the advent of Jesus Christ to realize you are very wrong.

Read the book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees to gain an understanding of Jewish Theology concerning Satan and how he is indeed an enemy of God.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 1:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Read the book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees to gain an understanding of Jewish Theology concerning Satan and how he is indeed an enemy of God.

The Book of Enoch and Jubilees were never considered part of the Jewish canon. Even though these books were written before the time of Christ, traditional Jewish scholarship rejected them as authoritative.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 1:32:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 1:15:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Read the book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees to gain an understanding of Jewish Theology concerning Satan and how he is indeed an enemy of God.

The Book of Enoch and Jubilees were never considered part of the Jewish canon. Even though these books were written before the time of Christ, traditional Jewish scholarship rejected them as authoritative.

The traditional major Jewish (pharasee and saducee)Scholarship at the time of Jesus Christ also executed Jesus Christ and denied all of the disciples interpretations of the time.

The point is not if Jewish mainstream accepted/rejected, but the that we can track that indeed these beliefs were Pre-Christian and very Jewish belief systems.

Jewish authorities like the Saducees denied even the existence of supernatural beings like Angels and demons, the physical ressurection of the dead and such.

Christianity was a sect of Judaism that did hold these scriptures as cannon. Even the book of the New Testament Jude, quotes Enoch.

You have the Old Testament Scriptures that cite books like Jasher and such as scripture but they were destroyed by those same Jews in power.

All of the beliefs of the Angelic conflict are clearly Jewish in belief.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 1:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 1:32:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/13/2011 1:15:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Read the book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees to gain an understanding of Jewish Theology concerning Satan and how he is indeed an enemy of God.

The Book of Enoch and Jubilees were never considered part of the Jewish canon. Even though these books were written before the time of Christ, traditional Jewish scholarship rejected them as authoritative.

The traditional major Jewish (pharasee and saducee)Scholarship at the time of Jesus Christ also executed Jesus Christ and denied all of the disciples interpretations of the time.

The point is not if Jewish mainstream accepted/rejected, but the that we can track that indeed these beliefs were Pre-Christian and very Jewish belief systems.

Jewish authorities like the Saducees denied even the existence of supernatural beings like Angels and demons, the physical ressurection of the dead and such.

Christianity was a sect of Judaism that did hold these scriptures as cannon. Even the book of the New Testament Jude, quotes Enoch.

You have the Old Testament Scriptures that cite books like Jasher and such as scripture but they were destroyed by those same Jews in power.

All of the beliefs of the Angelic conflict are clearly Jewish in belief.

They are now. Originally the Jews borrowed it from the Persians during captivity, Zoroastrianism.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 2:52:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. I do agree, certain Jews did consider these books as authentic. Yet, it cannot be overlooked, that, these books were built mainly in part from Jewish legend and influenced by the customs and traditions inherited from Persia. Yet, to conclude, that, orthodoxy, or the main of Jewish tradition, held to these beliefs is like deducing mainstream Christianity supports the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary because it's supported by apocryphal narratives.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 3:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 1:44:34 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 1:32:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/13/2011 1:15:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Read the book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees to gain an understanding of Jewish Theology concerning Satan and how he is indeed an enemy of God.

The Book of Enoch and Jubilees were never considered part of the Jewish canon. Even though these books were written before the time of Christ, traditional Jewish scholarship rejected them as authoritative.

The traditional major Jewish (pharasee and saducee)Scholarship at the time of Jesus Christ also executed Jesus Christ and denied all of the disciples interpretations of the time.

The point is not if Jewish mainstream accepted/rejected, but the that we can track that indeed these beliefs were Pre-Christian and very Jewish belief systems.

Jewish authorities like the Saducees denied even the existence of supernatural beings like Angels and demons, the physical ressurection of the dead and such.

Christianity was a sect of Judaism that did hold these scriptures as cannon. Even the book of the New Testament Jude, quotes Enoch.

You have the Old Testament Scriptures that cite books like Jasher and such as scripture but they were destroyed by those same Jews in power.

All of the beliefs of the Angelic conflict are clearly Jewish in belief.

They are now. Originally the Jews borrowed it from the Persians during captivity, Zoroastrianism.

Judaism as a Monotheistic religion is indeed much older that the Zoroaster religion in Persia.
Much of any of the similarities could be attributed to the other direction.

During the Diaspora into Babylon of the Jews, the influence of the Judaic religion would have played a significant role in influencing Zoroaster.

You would have to directly cite evidence the influence is the other way around. Given that textual criticism points to clearly the primacy of the Judaic religion you have a tough task ahead of you.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 3:13:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 2:52:34 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yes. I do agree, certain Jews did consider these books as authentic. Yet, it cannot be overlooked, that, these books were built mainly in part from Jewish legend and influenced by the customs and traditions inherited from Persia. Yet, to conclude, that, orthodoxy, or the main of Jewish tradition, held to these beliefs is like deducing mainstream Christianity supports the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary because it's supported by apocryphal narratives.

That would only be viable if you believed in a late date of the writing of the books. If indeed Enoch wrote the book than there would have been no influence outside of the authors claims.

To your second point,
The mainstream of Christianity has always held to the assumption of Mary. All five Partriarchs, in fact hold to this due to Traditional teachings handed down.

And again, If you consider Pharisee or Saducee belief as orthodoxy, they are both very very different.

The agreement among the variable Jewish sects was widely divergent even up until the time of Christ.

The Pharisees happened to be the majority opinion, the saducees the secondary majority opinion.

However, Christianity would not have caught on the way it did if it was so "divergent" from the mainstream.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 3:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Judaism as a Monotheistic religion is indeed much older that the Zoroaster religion in Persia.
Much of any of the similarities could be attributed to the other direction.

During the Diaspora into Babylon of the Jews, the influence of the Judaic religion would have played a significant role in influencing Zoroaster.

You would have to directly cite evidence the influence is the other way around. Given that textual criticism points to clearly the primacy of the Judaic religion you have a tough task ahead of you.

There is no arguing; both cultures may have influenced each other. However, if as you say, these beliefs originated with the Jews, why are they not found in the Jewish canon? Please, do not tell me, they fell out of favour with mainstream Judaic belief; because, they have never been a part of Jewish orthodoxy.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:03:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 3:13:55 PM, Gileandos wrote:
To your second point,
The mainstream of Christianity has always held to the assumption of Mary. All five Partriarchs, in fact hold to this due to Traditional teachings handed down.

Truly, mainline denominations do hold to the Assumption of Mary. Yet, when I speak of mainstream Christianity, I'm not referring to a few particular denominations, but orthodox Christianity as a whole. Go into a Baptist church or Pentecostal church and try and preach the Assumption of Mary and see how far you get, before they throw you out.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 3:48:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/13/2011 11:30:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Judaism as a Monotheistic religion is indeed much older that the Zoroaster religion in Persia.
Much of any of the similarities could be attributed to the other direction.

During the Diaspora into Babylon of the Jews, the influence of the Judaic religion would have played a significant role in influencing Zoroaster.

You would have to directly cite evidence the influence is the other way around. Given that textual criticism points to clearly the primacy of the Judaic religion you have a tough task ahead of you.

There is no arguing; both cultures may have influenced each other. However, if as you say, these beliefs originated with the Jews, why are they not found in the Jewish canon? Please, do not tell me, they fell out of favour with mainstream Judaic belief; because, they have never been a part of Jewish orthodoxy.

Two seperate Jewish "canons" were established both by the sect of the Pharisees. However, the books of Enoch and Jubilees were both held as cannon by other mainstream sects within Judaism.

You will have to define what you mean by:
Mainstream
Orthodoxy
Cannon

To me mainstream - means the denominations (whether Jewish or Christian) are the denominations that trace their teachings and beliefs being handed down from fathers of the church in antiquity to the fathers of the church in antiquity.

(Example: Protestants would be outside of Mainstream Christianity. Their teachings were reinspired from Martin Luther and not handed down from their fathers of the church.
Five Patriarchs, Anglican, Methodists, Episcopalians, would be mainstream as all track beliefs being handed down from their church fathers.)

Orthodoxy would be the general beliefs shared by all denominations:
All Jewish sects had certain set beliefs shared by all.

Example:
Christianity, to be Orthodox Christian is to believe, in Jesus as both equally Divine and Human.
You may call yourself Christian and not believe this but you would not be orthodox. You also would not be defined as mainstream or protestant but mainstream does not define orthodoxy, as belief is the sole concept of orthodoxy and mainstream is defined as handed down teachings.

Cannonicity is agreement by church fathers of scripture being certainly from God. Basically these works judge all others. Another work can be religious but a concept in that apocryphal book cannot contradict one of the cannonical teachings of the cannonical books.

So where the books of Cannon are silent, indeed a work can be true. We see the fall described in the Book of Enoch is asserted as True by the book of Jude.

These beliefs clearly originated in books proposed older than Jewish Cannonical books and even validated by Jewish Cannon.

For example Genesis 1:6 directly references the Watchers within the Book of Enoch.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:36:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 4:03:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/13/2011 3:13:55 PM, Gileandos wrote:
To your second point,
The mainstream of Christianity has always held to the assumption of Mary. All five Partriarchs, in fact hold to this due to Traditional teachings handed down.

Truly, mainline denominations do hold to the Assumption of Mary. Yet, when I speak of mainstream Christianity, I'm not referring to a few particular denominations, but orthodox Christianity as a whole. Go into a Baptist church or Pentecostal church and try and preach the Assumption of Mary and see how far you get, before they throw you out.

As pointed out above mainstream and orthodoxy are not synonymous terms.
You are confusing the issue by attempting to make them synonymous terms.

It is not an orthodox teaching to believe in the Assumption of Mary.

Protestants are missing many teachings that were not handed down as they seperated from their church fathers.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:11:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 3:13:55 PM, Gileandos wrote:
As pointed out above mainstream and orthodoxy are not synonymous terms.
You are confusing the issue by attempting to make them synonymous terms.

"Mainstream" basically means something that is normal or conventional, as in mainstream beliefs' being held common by most sects or denominations within a religion. If a church has opposing or unconventional beliefs, those beliefs are said to be outside of that which is mainstream.

"Orthodoxy" is a more formal term, basically meaning the same thing, yet, with greater weight and tradition. Whereas mainstream beliefs tend to be based on a cultural or political premise, orthodoxy is in line with historical Church dogma, regardless of one's cultural or political affiliation. For example, the disapproval of abortion and homosexuality is a commonly held attitude among mainstream denominations, but one may be orthodox, even if not mainstream. For instance, a gay church even though outside the realm of mainstream Christianity may still fall within the pale of orthodoxy. For, orthodox teachings deal with crucial or essential dogma set forth by a common consensus of Church Fathers, irregardless of time and culture. The nature of Christ, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity historically demarcated whether a sect was construed as orthodox or heretical.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:40:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:11:07 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/13/2011 3:13:55 PM, Gileandos wrote:
As pointed out above mainstream and orthodoxy are not synonymous terms.
You are confusing the issue by attempting to make them synonymous terms.

"Mainstream" basically means something that is normal or conventional, as in mainstream beliefs' being held common by most sects or denominations within a religion. If a church has opposing or unconventional beliefs, those beliefs are said to be outside of that which is mainstream.

"Orthodoxy" is a more formal term, basically meaning the same thing, yet, with greater weight and tradition. Whereas mainstream beliefs tend to be based on a cultural or political premise, orthodoxy is in line with historical Church dogma, regardless of one's cultural or political affiliation. For example, the disapproval of abortion and homosexuality is a commonly held attitude among mainstream denominations, but one may be orthodox, even if not mainstream. For instance, a gay church even though outside the realm of mainstream Christianity may still fall within the pale of orthodoxy. For, orthodox teachings deal with crucial or essential dogma set forth by a common consensus of Church Fathers, irregardless of time and culture. The nature of Christ, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity historically demarcated whether a sect was construed as orthodox or heretical.

Thank you for clarifying your definitions.

I have no problem with how you are using those words in one sense but you are making them synonymous in your previous posts.

So you are in agreement then that Satan and the fallen Angels and the demons was a Jewish belief system and can be traced back to the Cannon of Scripture.

Ezekiel 14, Genesis 1:6 etc.