zico530:
Contact me

menesheh:
Jesus was breed together with satan when Jewish God was tired of handling the bulk affairs of humanity 2000yrs ago.

MizMyColi:

MizMyColi:


Abraham never mentioned the name of Satan.
Isaac never mentioned the name of Satan.
Jacob never mentioned the name of Satan.
Moses never mentioned the name of Satan.
David never mentioned the name of Satan.


These Old Testament saints never rebuked the demonic, never cast out devils and never engaged in spiritual warfare against dark powers and principalities. When they prayed to God, their approach was to ask God to do or not to do something. "God, please don't destroy us" or "God, please destroy our earthly enemy" or "God, please be merciful and stop afflicting us." It was all in God's hands, in other words. They frequently prayed for the Lord to relent and change His mind about things. They actually asked the Lord to "repent" of His destructions toward them.
The New Testament was vastly different in their view of prayer and Satan.


[b]Listen to some amazing statistics. The Old Testament is 1,109 pages compared to the New Testament’s 334 pages. The Old Testament is over three times larger than the New. Yet, the New Testament references to Satan dwarf the Old Testament references. Satan basically just appears in three Old Testament passages - - Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2 and 1 Chr. 21:1. Yet, in the New Testament every writer mentions Satan. “Devil” is mentioned 60 times, “Devils” 51 times, “Satan” 31 times, as well as a plethora of other verses mentioning Satan by other names, such as the wicked one (1 Jn. 5:18), the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5:8 ), your adversary (1 Pet. 5:8 ), the tempter (Matt. 4:3), a murderer from the beginning (Jn. 8:44), prince of this world (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), accuser of our brethren (Rev. 12:10), thief (Jn. 10:10), a liar and the father of it (Jn. 8:44), angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14), the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2), and the great dragon (Rev. 12:9).[/b]


The bottom line is that Satan is rarely mentioned in the Old Testament, and is never identified either as the source of evil or as an enemy of God. When Satan is mentioned, he is seen as a servant of God, merely obeying the directives of God. In fact, according to modern day Jewish encyclopedias, Satan is considered by the Jews to be the angel of death described in the Old Testament who carries out the judgments and punishments of God.
Jesus, by contrast, continually exposed and rebuked both Satan and his devils. He made clear that Satan was a cosmic rebel opposed to God's kingdom on every level. Satan was not working for God but against Him.


Moreover, with regard to prayer, Jesus never prayed to change God's will but rather to release it. Jesus didn't change God's mind, He revealed it. We are the ones who need to repent and relent, not God. His mercy and grace is light years ahead of us of every level.
The is why the New Testament must be our more evolved source for the truth about Satan and our proper posture of prayer.

Source: Facebook @RichardMurray

Scholar8200:

1. As at the time of the OT, he was not the adversary (meaning of satan); he was the usurper wielding the dominion that was Adam's. But in the NT, he is a defeated foe who now accuses the brethren and atTempts to deceive! If he appeared as a servant in the OT it is because he was, "sitting in Adam's seat" and God still rules among the armies of Heaven (and the heavenlies) and among the inhabitants of the earth!

2. As at the time of the OT, he was not a defeated foe (Christ defeated him) meaning the OT saints did not have the authority over him hence there was no issue of warfare/subduing of creeping things etc. If the OT saints would cast out devils, in whose name would they have done that? Remember it has to be a Man.

3. Indeed, to attempt to change God's perfect will is to opt for His permissive will with the dire consequences (of course such will be warned beforehand). God's will was, is and shall ever be the best for us!!!

4. The book of Job quite debunks the higlighted!

5. If you read Daniel 2 & 7 you will understand the fact that the dominion thus usurped from Adam was only executable through man hence the Prince of Persia (that was in charge when Medes& Persians ruled the World could successfully oppose Daniel's prayer for a time ( Daniel 10:19-21). Besides the reference to the Prince of Grecia was perfectly keeping with the fact that that was to be the next world power and the Prince thus mentioned dominated the world through Alexander the Great (ruler of the Greeks/Grecians).
Why have I said all these? These Princes were under the authority of their master the devil (Ephesians 6:10-12 speaks of Principalities and Powers) and since God's justice would not be compromised, their usurped dominion was un-challenged by God but He still worked out His purposes.

6. Note the difference: In Daniel 10:19-21, a Prince under satan's dominion withstood an Angel for 21 days and the only respite was the coming of Michael. And when Moses died, the best Michael could say to the devil was, "The LORD rebuke thee"! That was the OT. But under the NT, a single Angel , in Revelations 20:1-4, drags satan into the bottomless pit and binds him for 1000years! Why? The usurped dominion has been recovered through Christ hence satan is just like a common rebel leader.

Is this clear?

LarrySun:

[b]I was reading the Bible and came upon Mark 11:12-14. Jesus was returning from a journey, he was hungry. He saw a fig tree from a distance and went to it, hoping to find some figs that he could eat on it, but he was disappointed when he came to it and saw that the tree only had leaves, there was no fig on it. That was because IT WAS NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR FIGS. But Jesus was angry and cursed the tree,

saying: 'No one shall ever eat figs from you again!'

Why would Jesus do that? Was it the fault of the tree that it did not produce figs? Was it its fault that it was not yet the season for figs? Wasn't it written in the book of Ecclesiastes that 'There is a time for everything under the sun'? Why would the poor tree be cursed with barrenness because it wasn't yet the time for conception? Those verses confuse me a lot. I hope that there would be a better reason for Jesus's action towards the fig tree; a reason far greater than mere hunger. I hope someone would explain.[/b]

LarrySun:
Beautiful thread. There are so many questions about the Bible though. And I think Scholar8200 answered this question near-perfectly. That guy is loaded with Biblical wisdom. As much as I would like to answer the question, I have no plausible explanation to give. Instead, I have a somewhat disturbing question to ask.

I was reading the Bible and came upon Mark 11:12-14. Jesus was returning from a journey, he was hungry. He saw a fig tree from a distance and went to it, hoping to find some figs that he could eat on it, but he was disappointed when he came to it and saw that the tree only had leaves, there was no fig on it. That was because IT WAS NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR FIGS. But Jesus was angry and cursed the tree, saying: 'No one shall ever eat figs from you again!'

Why would Jesus do that? Was it the fault of the tree that it did not produce figs? Was it its fault that it was not yet the season for figs? Wasn't it written in the book of Ecclesiastes that 'There is a time for everything under the sun'? Why would the poor tree be cursed with barrenness because it wasn't yet the time for conception? Those verses confuse me a lot. I hope that there would be a better reason for Jesus's action towards the fig tree; a reason far greater than mere hunger. I hope someone would explain.

Scholar8200:

1. As at the time of the OT, he was not the adversary (meaning of satan); he was the usurper wielding the dominion that was Adam's. But in the NT, he is a defeated foe who now accuses the brethren and atTempts to deceive! If he appeared as a servant in the OT it is because he was, "sitting in Adam's seat" and God still rules among the armies of Heaven (and the heavenlies) and among the inhabitants of the earth!

2. As at the time of the OT, he was not a defeated foe (Christ defeated him) meaning the OT saints did not have the authority over him hence there was no issue of warfare/subduing of creeping things etc. If the OT saints would cast out devils, in whose name would they have done that? Remember it has to be a Man.

3. Indeed, to attempt to change God's perfect will is to opt for His permissive will with the dire consequences (of course such will be warned beforehand). God's will was, is and shall ever be the best for us!!!

4. The book of Job quite debunks the higlighted!

5. If you read Daniel 2 & 7 you will understand the fact that the dominion thus usurped from Adam was only executable through man hence the Prince of Persia (that was in charge when Medes& Persians ruled the World could successfully oppose Daniel's prayer for a time ( Daniel 10:19-21). Besides the reference to the Prince of Grecia was perfectly keeping with the fact that that was to be the next world power and the Prince thus mentioned dominated the world through Alexander the Great (ruler of the Greeks/Grecians).
Why have I said all these? These Princes were under the authority of their master the devil (Ephesians 6:10-12 speaks of Principalities and Powers) and since God's justice would not be compromised, their usurped dominion was un-challenged by God but He still worked out His purposes.

6. Note the difference: In Daniel 10:19-21, a Prince under satan's dominion withstood an Angel for 21 days and the only respite was the coming of Michael. And when Moses died, the best Michael could say to the devil was, "The LORD rebuke thee"! That was the OT. But under the NT, a single Angel , in Revelations 20:1-4, drags satan into the bottomless pit and binds him for 1000years! Why? The usurped dominion has been recovered through Christ hence satan is just like a common rebel leader.

Is this clear?

Scholar8200:
i am yet to find a version that shows that that action was done in anger! I believe it was His way of illustrating Matthew 17:20. Why would One Who went on a forty day fast and refused food from His disciples because of the joy of doing the Father's will and multiplied food(and even rebuked His disciples when they thought He was speaking of bread at a time), suddenly loose His temper on a tree?! That wont be plausible!
Another example of such illuatrative practical was when He washed the disciples' feet.
That the Bible clearly states that it wasnt the time of figs (a fact which the average Israelite should know) shows that Jesus ,as He was wont being the Teacher He is, was about to illustrate a lesson to His disciples (learners).

LarrySun:
I think Jesus had a personal hatred for fig trees (Luke 13:6).

In Matthew 21:19, He did it to show to the disciples that they could do anything (even if it is not logically right?) if they had Faith.

malvisguy212:
hey bro, I love this answer.

Scholar8200:

1. As at the time of the OT, he was not the adversary (meaning of satan); he was the usurper wielding the dominion that was Adam's. But in the NT, he is a defeated foe who now accuses the brethren and atTempts to deceive! If he appeared as a servant in the OT it is because he was, "sitting in Adam's seat" and God still rules among the armies of Heaven (and the heavenlies) and among the inhabitants of the earth and the dominion usurped cannot hinder Him!

2. As at the time of the OT, he was not a defeated foe (Christ defeated him) meaning the OT saints did not have the authority over him hence there was no issue of warfare/subduing of creeping things etc. If the OT saints would cast out devils, in whose name would they have done that? Remember it has to be a Man.

3. Indeed, to attempt to change God's perfect will is to opt for His permissive will with the dire consequences (of course such will be warned beforehand). God's will was, is and shall ever be the best for us!!!

4. The book of Job quite debunks the higlighted!

5. If you read Daniel 2 & 7 you will understand the fact that the dominion thus usurped from Adam was only executable through man hence the Prince of Persia ,that was in charge when Medes& Persians ruled the World, could successfully oppose Daniel's prayer for a time ( Daniel 10:19-21) because it was his time. Besides the reference to the Prince of Grecia (in Daniel 10:20) was perfectly keeping with the fact that that was to be the next world power (as Daniel 7:5 shows) and the Prince (of Grecia) thus mentioned dominated the world through Alexander the Great (ruler of the Greeks/Grecians).
Why have I said all these? These Princes were under the authority of their master the devil (Ephesians 6:10-12 speaks of Principalities and Powers) and since God's justice would not be compromised, their usurped dominion was un-challenged by God but He still worked out His purposes.

6. Note the difference: In Daniel 10:19-21, a Prince under satan's dominion withstood an Angel for 21 days and the only respite was the coming of Michael. And when Moses died, the best Michael could say to the devil was, "The LORD rebuke thee"! That was the OT.

But under the NT, a single Angel , in Revelations 20:1-4, drags satan into the bottomless pit and binds him for 1000years! Why? The usurped dominion has been recovered through Christ hence satan is just like a common rebel leader on the run!

Is this clear?

Tallesty1:
Wait make I ask am.

*call his line*

*Call connects*

Satan: Who be this?

Here: Na Me.

Satan: Who you be?

Here: That one no matter, nah one girl here dey wonder where you dey during the old testament.

Satan: Tell her that I was there all the time, few people referred to me as the adversary, I was there the whole dam time, doing my thing jejely until I had a fight with bros J's army. The guy provoke and threw me down earth.

Here: So nah as u fall na im people see you come know say you be Satan?

Satan: You dey read bible so? The old guy still follow me come here come fight me again. He win me again. And having destroyed all my powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Colossians 2:15) walahi, that guy sabi expose person.

Here: Ah! I get, The exposure gave the bible writers a clearer concept of a fallen angel who leads a rebellion against God’s reign and works to disrupt the work of the church. That's why they come put am plenty for new testament. Shey?

Satan: Yea

Here: But you fall hand sha, why you dey attack God? *one minute remaining* go jaree, your line dey double charge.*hangs call*

Samunique:
Thumbs up for you sir !

May God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ continue to preserve and use u to enlighten His people and increase your knowledge in Him to continue the good works you and some other folks are doing on this forum .

Continue the good works, God is with u and we also!!!

Scholar8200:

1. As at the time of the OT, he was not the adversary (meaning of satan); he was the usurper wielding the dominion that was Adam's. But in the NT, he is a defeated foe who now accuses the brethren and atTempts to deceive! If he appeared as a servant in the OT it is because he was, "sitting in Adam's seat" and God still rules among the armies of Heaven (and the heavenlies) and among the inhabitants of the earth and the dominion usurped cannot hinder Him!
2. As at the time of the OT, he was not a defeated foe (Christ defeated him) meaning the OT saints did not have the authority over him hence there was no issue of warfare/subduing of creeping things etc. If the OT saints would cast out devils, in whose name would they have done that? Remember it has to be a Man.
3. Indeed, to attempt to change God's perfect will is to opt for His permissive will with the dire consequences (of course such will be warned beforehand). God's will was, is and shall ever be the best for us!!!
4. The book of Job quite debunks the higlighted!
5. If you read Daniel 2 & 7 you will understand the fact that the dominion thus usurped from Adam was only executable through man hence the Prince of Persia ,that was in charge when Medes& Persians ruled the World, could successfully oppose Daniel's prayer for a time ( Daniel 10:19-21) because it was his time. Besides the reference to the Prince of Grecia (in Daniel 10:20) was perfectly keeping with the fact that that was to be the next world power (as Daniel 7:5 shows) and the Prince (of Grecia) thus mentioned dominated the world through Alexander the Great (ruler of the Greeks/Grecians).
Why have I said all these? These Princes were under the authority of their master the devil (Ephesians 6:10-12 speaks of Principalities and Powers) and since God's justice would not be compromised, their usurped dominion was un-challenged by God but He still worked out His purposes.
6. Note the difference: In Daniel 10:19-21, a Prince under satan's dominion withstood an Angel for 21 days and the only respite was the coming of Michael. And when Moses died, the best Michael could say to the devil was, "The LORD rebuke thee"! That was the OT.
But under the NT, a single Angel , in Revelations 20:1-4, drags satan into the bottomless pit and binds him for 1000years! Why? The usurped dominion has been recovered through Christ hence satan is just like a common rebel leader on the run!
Is this clear?

Am sorry but some of your points are foreign...more like 'what you think' and not what they are.

You said,
"As at the time of the OT, he was not the adversary (meaning of satan); he was the usurper wielding the dominion that was Adam's.

Firstly, am surprised to read that the 'father of lies from the beginning' was not an adversary of man until the new testament! I believe you were referring to the two dispensations: old and new?

The bible revealed that Satan in the form of serpent deceived man into disobedience in his first home. Do tell, is that not the highest form of opposition and evil to mankind from the devil?

Secondly, which dominion is he wielding that belonged to Adam? Albeit Satan wanted to benefit from the fall, it was his greatest undoing because no dominion power was given except that he was cursed


GENESIS 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly
you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall
bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." ( NKJV)


And again you said something i hear all the time but i never see it in the bible: God's perfect will and His permissive will that comes with dire consequences.
You have bible references and how do you know which is the perfect and which is permissive? Curiously waiting for your answer

Sarassin:


Interesting polemic against Satan by Scholar8200 it is a triumph of style over substance. It does not deal with the query of the OP which is, why is there a lack of the appearances of Satan in the OT as opposed to the NT where Satan is found virtually at every turn?


The answer lies in the different approaches taken by the Hebraic and Aramaic writers of the OT and that taken by the mostly Hellenized Greek speaking Jews who composed the NT. The common denominator are the Books of Enoch from where we learn that Satan is brethren to Michael, Uriel, Gabriel and Raphael, he rejected the dominion of God, declined to serve, formented rebellion and for this, was thrust into the great empyrean.

The NT concept of Satan is very heavily influenced by the nightmarish apocalyptic visions in the book of Daniel, as well as the equally harrowing Book of Revelations (which at one time was considered so bad as to be un-Christian) both books reflect Enochian visions of Satan or, if you prefer, the devil.


In Judaism however, Satan is a term used since its earliest biblical contexts to refer to a human opponent. Occasionally, the term has been used to suggest evil influence opposing human beings.

What is clear is that the Rabbis rejected Enochian literary works in their scriptures (the OT or Tanakh as well as the Talmud)and made every attempt to root them out rejecting any belief in rebel or fallen angels, demons and such-like, they chose to view evil as an abstract, a very sophisticated outlook. The Hellenized NT writers on the other hand did not share this view. Quite simply if Satan were not around the corner to lure one into temptation, and there were no binding of demons, what would be the need for salvation?