Wait, blood drinking rituals and playing multiple invented characters on the world stage doesn't appeal to you? :HUHH:
Discussion
The 'blood drinking' you're mocking is the Eucharist, a symbolic or spiritual practice representing Christ's sacrifice, practiced by 3+ billion Christians worldwide. It's not a 'ritual' in the occult sense you're implying.
As for 'invented characters', whether you believe in God or not, these are real historical traditions that shaped Western civilization, philosophy, law, and ethics for 2000 years. You don't have to believe it, but at least understand what you're criticizing.
Look, you can be atheist or of a different faith without being disrespectful. Jumping into a discussion just to mock people's sincere beliefs with edgy misrepresentations is just rude. If you want to critique religion, at least learn what people actually believe first. Otherwise you're just being an ass.
I believe in Jesus and God.
I don't believe in:
- Hell: no such thing in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, always is ether grave or valley of Hinnom
- Satan: again an invented character/concept created by mis-translating "ha satan" and "diabolos" (enemy or slanderer, almost always human)
- Going to Heaven: no such promise, the resurrection in Kingdom is the promise
- Religion: first commandments tell you to not create false gods like that. The Bible is a book of Law, religions brake several of the most importanjtlaws by definition.
- Rapture 2000 years later: when the New testament is all about how imminent Jesus' return is in **that** generation.
But the Catholicism deception goes way deeper and darker than that. It's that aspect of occult ritual abuse and the popes being played by actors that played different roles before, etc... that I am replying to nostr:npub1q6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqhtt3sh about.
You assumed I was talking about something I wasn't.
- Jesus was clearly using it as a metaphor for something eternal and spiritual (check out Matthew 10:28 or Mark 9:43-48). The early Church Fathers who could actually read Greek all agreed hell was real. Like, John Chrysostom was a native Greek speaker and he wrote tons about hell being an actual thing.
- In Job, "the satan" shows up as an actual being in God's court, not just some abstract concept. Jesus himself talks about watching Satan fall (Luke 10:18) and calls him "a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). Sure, "satan" means "adversary," but the Orthodox Church has always understood there's a big difference between human enemies and THE spiritual enemy. Even super early Christians like Ignatius of Antioch were warning people about the devil.
- That's mostly true, but the Bible does say the soul goes straight to be with Christ after death (2 Corinthians 5:8 makes this pretty clear).
- God set up extremely detailed religious practices in the Old Testament (just read Leviticus or Deuteronomy), Jesus founded the Church (Matthew 16:18), gave it real authority (Matthew 18:18), and specifically told people to worship together and do sacraments (Luke 22:19, Matthew 28:19). The apostles immediately started organizing communities with bishops, priests, and deacons (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5-7).
- 2 Peter 3:8-9
- i agree about the pope
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
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
I do not agree that we are in "Satan's Little Season." I can dig up some podcast references on this, and I think that one in particularly put the complete kibosh on that notion for me.
1. What is your issue with the Book of Enoch? I have very little issues with the first of the four parts, since that is directly quoted by Jude and Jesus direction in cannon scripture. I do have quite a lot of issues with the gnostic BS in Enoch 3/4. I am still poking at 2.
2. I very much disagree, as my understanding of the Hebrew words used do not refer to a Human, though, as you have correctly stated that "Ahshatan" is a job title, and NOT specifically a particular being, much like the very misunderstood title "angel" (which simply means messenger, with a few caveats and addendums). However, I have never once in all my reading ever come across the notion that this was a Human. I am curious as to how you have come to this conclusion.
3. Nope. 100% disagree. It seems that you have completely missed out on the parts of the OT that explicitly state that God gave authority to various other beings (little g gods is my best understanding) who then failed to govern rightly. This is explicitly stated in the OT. (I will find the exact reference later, if you don't know it already.) There is, consistently and throughout the OT and into the NT, one specific being who has been trying to usurp God and throw wrenches into his His plan. You really should look up the "Serpent Seed" framing of the entire Biblical narrative. This one idea/thread brings so much focus to many of the lesser understood parts of the Biblical narrative, and it is a shame that it has some rather unsavory adherents that twisted it into things like racism and eugenics, as when taken in a proper Biblical context it explains a heck of a lot about evil in this world.
But to answer your specific question: God had given authority to other gods, and one of them, specifically, was referred to, by Jesus, if I am not mistaken, as "The god of this world." So . . . Why in the world would that being NOT have the authority to give to Jesus everything in his authority? Granted, I think that is a bit silly to do, but, hey . . . I do not take the Adversary entirely seriously all the time, even if he is serious business.
Also, Jesus had not entered his position of Ultimate Authority at that time, though I am sure that this could be debated. And, your position also ignores the temptations' purpose. If this was NOT another being tempting Jesus, then it completely undermines Jesus' purpose. If that is the case, then there is no point in believing in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
I will have to percolate on your final sub-bullet of that point. The first thing that pops into my head is relating to "the flesh" which is definitely "within" as you say, but, that does not mean that there is no external evil, as 1 Peter 5:8 says "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." So, you, specifically, Niel, have an adversary looking to devour you. Unless you want to argue with Peter, which, even an idiot like me might not exactly want to do . . .
4. Absolutely not. Point blank, this is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read from you and is not at all justifiable in any context within the Biblical narrative and is only possible if you ignore, well, everything else in the Bible. Since you were so short with this one, I don't even know where to contextually begin with this, other than that is not actually even possible if you dig into the Hebrew, even a tiny bit.
It's not of Satan, and its not a Season. So I agree :winkwithtongue:
Well, I can concede that Satan is not the best title to use, but, SLS is a fun acronym.
And Season is actually an appropriate understanding of the contextual translation of that word.
Chill, bro. Niel is only mocking Catholicism's views on transubstantiation, and poking fun at the modern evangelical (and thinking about it... Cstholic, but for different and more nefsrious reasons) ignorance of more than the common view of God, the devil, angels, demons, and us. Which is, patently, idiotically false, and has pissed me off to no end recently, since that view is responsible for much of what ails "the church" today.
I was only a bit pissed at first because it sounded like he was ridiculing Christianity in general. After talking with him, it's not the case, I still disagree with a lot of what he says but at least I think he has done his research and isn't basing his beliefs on lack of knowledge
Yeah, I can see how that would come across as that without context, but, the comment was directed at me, specifically, and I understood it as it was meant.
He's studied, yes, but also is incorrect, as I don't hold to the notion that we are in "the short time of deception" or some of the other common notions that go along with that.
The ritual part doesn't bother me all that much, as a sacrifice is a meal with a god, preferably only with The Most High. Jesus was showing his disciples this with "The Last Supper," which is a name a utterly detest since it is not, in fact, our last supper with Jesus. 🙄
I would also disagree with the "invented characters" perspective. The characters mentioned in the Bible are just not well understood by most modern Christians, with notable exceptions of The Orthodox churches, though the "rank and file" may not be able to aptly articulate what is definitely present in the trained clergy's education.
When I say: invented characters on the worldstage
I mean these ones:
Not the people in the Gospel.
Sure. They are part of what I call the SPDC: The Satanic Pedo Death Cult.
And the largest reason why I refuse to take The Roman Catholic Church seriously. I do not worship the church of Rome. I direct my faith to Jesus.