Nostr Web Client

Thanks for your thoughtful reply sir!

To be clear:

I think we are in the little time of deception (rev 20, mikros chronos).

1) The early church fathers is where much of the deception starts imo, together with Josephus and the book of Enoch etc...

2) The actual being in Job is a human enemy. And i don't think that's *God's* court.

3) The :AirQuoteLeft: Satan :AirQuoteRight: that Jesus overcomes are his own fleshly desires. How the f** would a Satan character know all that stuff and be able to give him the power over the stuff that God ALREADY gave him. Etc...

Satan, as a character instead of the noun that it is, makes zero sense to me and is waaaaay to useful of a character for the deceivers to not take a deeper critical look at. Christopher Sparkes' KOTK Bible translation is good start.

Jesus makes it very clear to me that evil comes from within.

"For out of the heart come .. " being one of many verses.

4) Adam (with his fleshly desires) was the serpent in the garden

Anhern Sarsalor [IQ: 102] 3mo ago 💬 2

1. if the Church Fathers were part of the deception, we'd basically have no Christianity left. These guys literally learned from the apostles or their direct students. Like, Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John himself. Polycarp too. If they got it wrong from day one, then Jesus failed at establishing his Church, which contradicts his promise that "the gates of hell won't prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

2. Job 1:6 literally says "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." That's definitely God's court, and "sons of God" in Hebrew refers to spiritual beings, not humans. Plus, this adversary has power to afflict Job with supernatural disasters - not really something a human enemy could pull off.

3. Jesus talks about Satan as a separate being constantly - "I saw Satan fall like lightning" (Luke 10:18) wasn't him talking about his own desires falling. And when Peter tries to stop him from going to the cross, Jesus says "Get behind me, Satan" - he's not calling Peter his fleshly desire, he's saying Peter is being used by the adversary.

4. In all honesty, I've never heard this argument. I'll have to think about it, and ask for guidence. But Genesis 3 clearly has Adam, Eve, AND the serpent as three separate characters having a conversation. Hard to have Adam talking to Eve while also being the serpent talking to Eve, you know? Plus, Revelation 12:9 straight up identifies "that ancient serpent" as the devil and Satan.

I'm going sleep now, but the Orthodox position is that if we can't trust the earliest Christians who literally knew the apostles, then we can't trust anything about Christianity at all. These weren't random dudes making stuff up - they were martyred for these beliefs they learned directly from Christ's own disciples.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Niel Liesmons 3mo ago 💬 1

1) Polycarp and Ignatius can only have been taught by John if you place *that* John (it's not clear which one they are even talking about btw) around 90ad, and not around 70ad, as I do (given the timeline that actually makes sense with Jesus imminent return at that time; in that generation).

2) Both the sons of God and this satan are human here. Nothing in the Hebrew makes it spiritual. The same phrasing is used for (god-serving) humans several times.

3) In Luke 10 Jesus is employing a literary device when he says he saw the enemy fall from the sky like lightning. The verb “see” is theoreo which means to perceive, to discern, to view mentally, to see as in a vision. Similarto the imagery John gives us in his vision he “saw”. So Jesus had a vision of the enemies of God falling from their high position, the heavens or sky, and were brought down to earth or made low. “Heavens and Earth” was an idiomatic Greek expression used to describe those in power religiously and politically (the heavens) and the common people they ruled over (the earth). So many of these Hebrew idiomatic expressions have been improperly translated, either in ignorance or intentionally.

4) It does not clearly have three characters. If it would than the serpent it somehow just magically disappearing and shwoing up all the time. Also (angel of) God never adresses that suppsosed third character. Also, how would that character even know what God told Adam? Was he magically there too?

Saying Satan is a real evil entity is giving him powers equal to Gods, while also moving us into victimhood instead of self-responsibility over **our own** sin. There's no Satan/Lucifer/Azazel/... with his army of fallen angels and demons attacking you 24/7, knowing everything about everyone.

5) I believe we have what we need in the Bible.

Anhern Sarsalor [IQ: 102] 3mo ago 💬 1

I guess you can believe what you want to 🙂 I'm not going to have a debate about faith on nostr but I'm glad you have strongly held beliefs

Niel Liesmons 3mo ago 💬 1

I'm building the Nostr Community app(s) that allow me (and fellow researchers) to dive into all this stuff in a more coherent and straightforward way than anywhere else online.

So I do very much want to have these discussions on Nostr lol :book: :thinking:

The Beave 3mo ago 💬 1

As do I, as I think that eventually, it may be the only forum left open to us to do so.

You know, when we are actually in SLS. (Satan's Little Season."

Niel Liesmons 3mo ago

Hehe yup.

The Beave 3mo ago

1. The 70/90 AD thing is not something I am very well read on. I do believe that you are being influenced by those that hold to the notion that we are in "the little season" of deception. Again, I disagree with this as I think the preponderance of evidence goes against this, but I am not an expert on this.

2. Nope. Straight up just no. I would very much like you to expand on where you see the same phrase being used for God-serving humans, as I do not think this is at all correct.

3. I agree that the idiomatic expressions can be improperly translated, but . . . You are ignoring the use of that particular word being related to describing God's sight, which is NOT lie our sight, in other parts of the NT. IIRC. Interpreting this as a metaphor and not a relation of fact also ignores the whole thread of rebellion in the OT. How do you reconcile this "vision as a metaphor" and being told that beings "fell" in the OT? Those are incompatible, and therefore I think that your interpretation is incorrect.

4. It does have three characters. Again, look up the "Serpent seed" postulation. The nkosh, a hebrew word used to mean 'shining one, snake/dragon/winged serpent, deciever' is used. You CANNOT conflate that with a non-entity. Why is magic involved? Spiritual beings can and do move differently than we do. Example: Jesus after his resurrection, as the living proof and pattern of things to come for the faithful.

I do not think that you are correct in your next postulation, as God is clearly addressing the Serpent in His curse. Also, since you do not consider The Satan to be a Spritual Being, then of course you would not think that God is addressing the same being as He was in Genesis 3 (IIRC).

Yes. That being was there, as explicitly stated in The Temptation of Eve. It's just right there, so I really don't know how you can't see that plainly.

5. No. Not powers equal to God's. That is a gnostic duality that is straight up stupid.

You ARE being attacked, lied to, deceived, persecuted, etc, while STILL ALSO dealing with your own propensity to go your own way and walk on the broad path and not the straight any narrow. It is both. Do you not understand that from Job? There IS an army of rebellious spiritual beings, and there are demons (the disembodies spirits of the nephilim), and there are humans who actively worship the little g gods who have chosen to rule improperly. You are missing the enemies without and are only concerned with the enemy within. That blindness is just dumb, and it is certainly going to set you up for a fall.

Look, I am really just an idiot, but I do try to examine all this stuff from many different perspectives, and I do hope that you can poke at these expressed beliefs a bit more. I know for sure that I am not 100% correct about all this, and I do hope that I've expressed clearly where I am not sure, but . . . some of the things that you've expressed are just clearly NOT biblical, not at all contextually accurate, and, quite frankly, dangerous for you to be ignorant of.