Is Satan really as bad as everyone makes him out to be?

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by whirlwind

 

Yes, they are misguided. Christianity came into being with Christ, 2,000 years ago but His story was told long before. It was told in the beginning and the story has remained unchanged throughout.

Please give examples of the story of Jesus that appear in "pagan" religions,as i have come across no such thing.

Either you misunderstood what I said or I wasn't very clear with how I said it... I don't believe He was in pagan religions.

As you quoted the above paragraph you may mean "His story was told long before." If that's what you are referencing what I mean is that the story of His birth was told in the first chapters of Genesis. (3:15)


........Whirlwind

reply to post by whirlwind

Chapter 26 of Leviticus is crammed full of all kinds of suffering God will inflict on people who do not believe in him and do not follow his laws.I guess you would call that free will.

Yes. It is a warning for all of us. God isn't playing.

Imagine a father were to tell his son that by the time he is twelve, he must decide whether or not to love his dad. The father says the child is free to choose whatever he wants, but if he chooses to not love his father, then the father will put his son in the oven and cook him. What sort of freedom of choice is this? I don’t think it is any choice. Surely a man who did this would be considered one of the most insane, sick, twisted, and evil person you could meet. He would be thrown in prison for child abuse, neglect, and infanticide.How ironic is it then that when God does this, we worship him, say “God is Love”, and build churches in his honor.

Yet this is the choice God gives us in the bible. Either love him, and choose him, or we will face the fires of hell. In fact, I think the God of the bible to be a much more sadistic, unjust, malevolent, and cruel than the man who puts his son in an oven. This is because the God of the bible punishes us eternally. The young boy will burn and die. Mankind will suffer the pains of hell for eternity just for not believing.... “Let the sum total represent centuries and only then would eternity have begun. Only then would the sinner in hell have a small part of the suffering of that awful place.” This site states, “You’ll exist in a terrible place God calls hell, separated from him and all that is good.” Well isn’t that kind.

reply to post by whirlwind


My mistake.Apologies.

reply to post by queenannie38

Originally posted by whirlwind
That is the reason for the flood of Noah.


No, whirlwind…the reason for the flood was VIOLENCE.



And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
~Genesis 6:12-13

I disagree. We have discussed this topic before. The reason for the violence, wickedness, lewdness, etc. was The Fallen Angels! We are warned that they will return in the end of days.


Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7.Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8.Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities


They are going to be kicked out of heaven along with their leader - Satan:


Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8.And prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9...(snip)...he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

After enough war, eventually man will get his fill of violence and turn away from it on his own - which seems, to me, to be a far more effective way to rid the Earth of violence.

There will be turmoil into the false peace of the end times. There will be a millennium of peace but Satan will again be released for a short period at it's end. That will be the final battle, the final war.


.............Whirlwind

WOW this is a long thread. I will openly admit that I have only skimmed an not yet read all 12 pages, I am sorry if this has already been covered.

This is a subject has been a facination with me for a long time, and I have been studying up on it quite a bit. This is what I have learned so far. The book of enoch was removed from the christian bible in the 14th century. At that time, there was a major war, if you will, between the catholics and the gnostics. The reason the book of enoch was removed by the catholic church was because Enoch's story tells of a man who had a relationship with God outside of/without the church. That alone goes against catholic teachings, and was seen as an achelies heal in a way during this war between the two denominations. The catholics kept a lot of the beliefs that are found in the book of Enoch as far as angels are concerned, but are strictly oral, and have been tweaked in the churches favor.

Satan, was the first angel created. He was given one comandment only which was to bow/answer, to God and only God. He was the top dog of all the angels. No one and nothing was between the two. God was #1 and Satan was #2.....until God created mankind. Then all angels including Satan was ordered to make us a priority. We were created in God's image, now we were thought to be higher in rank than Satan. This comand went against Satans first and only commandment. Then Satan fell. Now if it was because he disobeyed God by not following the second comandment becasue of the first, or because of pride, is unknown.

Now, when the the angels fell, Azazel, is the one who brought sin to man. He gave the knowledge of everything we needed to sin.

1 Enoch 2:8
And Azazel taught men to make swords and knives and shields and breastplates; and made known to them the metals [of the earth] and the art of working them; and bracelets and ornaments; and the use of antimony and the beautifying of the eyelids; and all kinds of costly stones and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray and became corrupt in all their ways.

He is the actual "beast", horned goat man. As opposed to Satan.

NOW, is he a bad fella?...let me say it this way.... He and the other fallen likely have a major grudge against us. Beings that we, could spend eternity in their previous home - heaven - that they will never get to return to. He does not think we deserve the right to spend eternity in paradise, and will do what ever he can to prove that you dont deserve it. I really dont even want to think what he/they would do to us if we get sent to their domain.

Now, another question to ask yourself is, is he/Satan is still following Gods first and only commandment?

Originally posted by whirlwind
The Moabites were enemies of the Israelites but, as you stated, they were offspring of Lot and his daughters........they were Hebrew. Their lineage was pure Hebrew not Gentile. Ruth, therefore, was Hebrew.

It’s not about being Hebrew; it is about being descended from Israel.

In fact, you won’t find the word ‘Hebrew’ anywhere in the Old Testament. They didn’t think of things in those terms as we do in modern times; but rather in terms of patriarchal bloodlines. And, since Israel had not yet been born when Moab and Amon were born, their descendants were never considered to be of the Israelite tribes.

Ruth was a descendant of Moab, not Jacob/Israel.

It is with Jacob/Israel that GOD made a covenant – and with his father, Isaac, before him – and with Abraham before that.

The Moabites were as equally off-limits, as far as marriage prospects, as were the Canaanites: Ezra 9:1

Instead, Tamar "played the harlot" and had a child by Judah himself and that was the PURE line from which Christ came.

Sounds good; except for the simple fact that we are NOT told whether Tamar was of the 12 tribes or not.

Furthermore, on down the line, when it gets to Boaz and Ruth, that ‘pure line’ is made impure in the exact same degree as if Judah had sired that lineage with his Canaanite wife.

Originally posted by whirlwind
I disagree.

So what's new? You disagree with 99%, if not 100%, of everything I post!!!

Not that I expect YOU to agree with ME...in the field of opinions and personal viewpoints; however, what I post is just exactly what the bible says...I don’t add to it nor do I leave out the parts that might not make sense to many readers.

When I do express my own opinion, I make that clear.

The reason for the violence, wickedness, lewdness, etc. was The Fallen Angels!

Scripture and verse, then, please. In Genesis...where the flood story is told. What the bible says that GOD says is:

And God, looking on the earth, saw that it was evil: for the way of all flesh had become evil on the earth. And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come; the earth is full of their violent doings, and now I will put an end to them with the earth.
~Genesis 6:12-13

Were your fallen angels ‘flesh?’
If so, then why weren’t they destroyed, too, along with all the mortal men?

Because the other verses you cited, along with your comments, clearly state that these fallen angels survive unto this very day.

It is contradictory and doesn’t hold water. Pun intended!

There will be turmoil into the false peace of the end times.

False peace...what a strange and interesting concept. To me, it is like saying 'a little bit pregnant.'

Either it is peaceful or it not.

Either there is violence or there is absence of violence. The absence of violence is peace. And GOD is going to give us an expected end; not of peace-then war-then peace again…but of PEACE.

Final and lasting peace.

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
~Jeremiah 29:11

reply to post by queenannie38

Originally posted by whirlwind
The Moabites were enemies of the Israelites but, as you stated, they were offspring of Lot and his daughters........they were Hebrew. Their lineage was pure Hebrew not Gentile. Ruth, therefore, was Hebrew.



It’s not about being Hebrew; it is about being descended from Israel.

In fact, you won’t find the word ‘Hebrew’ anywhere in the Old Testament. They didn’t think of things in those terms as we do in modern times; but rather in terms of patriarchal bloodlines. And, since Israel had not yet been born when Moab and Amon were born, their descendants were never considered to be of the Israelite tribes.

Ruth was a descendant of Moab, not Jacob/Israel.

I'm afraid you are wrong Queenie. The word Hebrew is in the Old Testament. Moab and his brother were both Hebrew as was their father and his uncle Abraham.

So...when you say, "It’s not about being Hebrew; it is about being descended from Israel" you are again wrong as you leave out a big chunk of Christ's lineage - the Israelites had to begin somewhere:

Abraham was Hebrew but wasn't an Israelite. Neither was Adam, Seth, Enos, Calnan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Calnan, Sala, Heber, Phalec, Ragan, Saruch, Nachor Thara, Abraham, Isaac. None of those were Israelites but they are ancestors of Christ.....the patriarchal bloodline.

It is with Jacob/Israel that GOD made a covenant – and with his father, Isaac, before him – and with Abraham before that.

Yes, that's true but that isn't what we were talking about. We are discussing the bloodline of Christ being pure...from Adam.

The Moabites were as equally off-limits, as far as marriage prospects, as were the Canaanites: Ezra 9:1

Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord forever:


That is the curse God placed on them but in Hebrew it is masculine - it refers to the males only.

Instead, Tamar "played the harlot" and had a child by Judah himself and that was the PURE line from which Christ came.


Sounds good; except for the simple fact that we are NOT told whether Tamar was of the 12 tribes or not.

Do you believe with the laws God placed to protect the bloodlines that He would allow the bloodline of Christ to not be pure?

Furthermore, on down the line, when it gets to Boaz and Ruth, that ‘pure line’ is made impure in the exact same degree as if Judah had sired that lineage with his Canaanite wife.

Except that Ruth was pure, as Tamar was pure, as ALL in the line to Christ were pure and exactly as God planned!


............Whirlwind

reply to post by queenannie38

The reason for the violence, wickedness, lewdness, etc. was The Fallen Angels!


Scripture and verse, then, please. In Genesis...where the flood story is told. What the bible says that GOD says is:

And God, looking on the earth, saw that it was evil: for the way of all flesh had become evil on the earth. And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come; the earth is full of their violent doings, and now I will put an end to them with the earth.
~Genesis 6:12-13


Were your fallen angels ‘flesh?’
If so, then why weren’t they destroyed, too, along with all the mortal men?

Because the other verses you cited, along with your comments, clearly state that these fallen angels survive unto this very day.

It is contradictory and doesn’t hold water. Pun intended!

Everything Satan did was to try to stop the line to Christ. That is why God made certain that line was pure. His first attempt was in the garden, the next attempt was when his angels came to earth. They didn't just mate with all human women but with the daughters of Adam and as Gen. 6 tells us....all but Noah's family were corrupted.


Other attempts were made when the Pharoah ordered all the sons of the Hebrews to be slaughtered and when Mary and Joseph had to hide Christ from the decree of king Herod to kill the male children.


That appears to have been his main goal, to keep Christ from His birth as God planned from the beginning.


I believe it is obvious that God flooded the land because of what the fallen angels had done but if you think He was just upset with men that's fine with me. Believe as you will.


God didn't destroy them as He did men. He tells us that they are being held until they will be released with Satan to come to earth during the tribulation of Satan. When Christ arrives they are dead! Until then it appears they have a job to do.

There will be turmoil into the false peace of the end times.


False peace...what a strange and interesting concept. To me, it is like saying 'a little bit pregnant.'

Either it is peaceful or it not.

Either there is violence or there is absence of violence. The absence of violence is peace. And GOD is going to give us an expected end; not of peace-then war-then peace again…but of PEACE.

Final and lasting peace.



For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
~Jeremiah 29:11

The "false peace" is the one Satan brings in when he is playing like he is Christ. It is not the final and lasting peace. There won't be a final peace until Satan is thrown in the lake of fire....at the end of the millennium. Then we go into the eternity and true peace....the expected end.


...........Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
I'm afraid you are wrong Queenie. The word Hebrew is in the Old Testament. Moab and his brother were both Hebrew as was their father and his uncle Abraham.

Ooops, you are right and I am wrong. I think I must have been searching in a different version than the KJV but didn't notice. My bad.

It is with Jacob/Israel that GOD made a covenant – and with his father, Isaac, before him – and with Abraham before that.

Yes, that's true but that isn't what we were talking about. We are discussing the bloodline of Christ being pure...from Adam.

Regardless of how you go down the line, the bloodline is not what could be considered 'pure,' according to the laws that governed Israel. It doesn't matter anyway; there is no requirement that it had to be, in the first place. Why would it?

That is the curse God placed on them but in Hebrew it is masculine - it refers to the males only.

It isn't a curse! It is part of the law given by Moses. And it is not restricted to just males - that is not the correct understanding of patronymic (from Wiki):

A patronymic, or patronym, is a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. A component of a name based on the name of one's mother is a matronymic, or matronym. Each is a means of conveying lineage.

Do you believe with the laws God placed to protect the bloodlines that He would allow the bloodline of Christ to not be pure?

It has nothing to do with what I believe – and, in fact, on a personal level, it doesn't matter to me at all.

Except that Ruth was pure, as Tamar was pure, as ALL in the line to Christ were pure and exactly as God planned!

What definition of 'pure' are you using, when you say that?

.........Whirlwind

Of course we would be here. God never instructed Adam and Eve not to have children and they weren't the only humans.

yeah, actually I think they had two sons (don’t knowhow it properly spell names) Cain and Able……or how ever you spell it, anyway….but that doesn’t matter as didn’t cain kill able, and so doesn’t that mean cain had sex with his mum,…..? incest, ewww…..lol…..and so that means through generations and generations, we’ve been having incest sex literally with each other according to the bible, even up to now….and so every time you have sexual relations with someone, you are actually having sex with some related to you….and so when a brother and sister have sex, is that so bad…..when everyone is doing it anyway…

“of course we would be here”, no we wouldn’t, we would be in the garden of Edan….although I’m not sure if you can fit 6 billion people into the garden….although I’m not sure how big it sais the garden is….but yo get the idea….

God doesn't punish for no reason. Genesis 2:16-17 gave the law and it was broken.

God may have gave a law….but as I said…..it wasn’t their fault they ate the apple, as they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong, as they didn’t know what wrong was…..god knew this and yet still god punishes them….what a prick….

[edit on 19-10-2007 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18
God may have gave a law….but as I said…..it wasn’t their fault they ate the apple, as they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong, as they didn’t know what wrong was…..god knew this and yet still god punishes them….what a pr...

Im not sure about this one, it was the tree of knowledge of 'good and evil'... is that the same as 'right from wrong?' how childlike were they is what I wondered too.

Does that mean Adam and Eve didnt know how to take an order?

16.And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17.But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So if they dont know good and evil yet do they know how to take a commandment? how would they know what 'dying' is? its not like God sat them down and told them about the birds and the bees either and that dying means all this will happen.

God knew it was all going to happen anyway. If he really didnt wana mess up then he could have removed that tree or fenced it off! so all of this is a test or a mistake or false information... or all of the above plus some.

Where did the 'apple' ever come into it anyway it doesnt mention what fruit it was, if it was any it was probably a pomegranate they are infamous.. full of 'bitter seeds'

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 19-10-2007 by Sekhemet]

reply to post by Sekhemet


Free will for his creation, perfect and total freedom in the presence of God. But to be like God, that is worth disobeying him right?

reply to post by queenannie38

Originally posted by whirlwind
I'm afraid you are wrong Queenie. The word Hebrew is in the Old Testament. Moab and his brother were both Hebrew as was their father and his uncle Abraham.



Ooops, you are right and I am wrong. I think I must have been searching in a different version than the KJV but didn't notice. My bad.

That's okay....it's not nearly as bad as confusing Abraham and Moses!

It is with Jacob/Israel that GOD made a covenant – and with his father, Isaac, before him – and with Abraham before that.


Yes, that's true but that isn't what we were talking about. We are discussing the bloodline of Christ being pure...from Adam.



Regardless of how you go down the line, the bloodline is not what could be considered 'pure,' according to the laws that governed Israel. It doesn't matter anyway; there is no requirement that it had to be, in the first place. Why would it?

Leviticus 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.


That was God's law for Levitical priest but staying within one's own people was required for all of them.

That is the curse God placed on them but in Hebrew it is masculine - it refers to the males only.



It isn't a curse! It is part of the law given by Moses. And it is not restricted to just males - that is not the correct understanding of patronymic (from Wiki):



A patronymic, or patronym, is a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. A component of a name based on the name of one's mother is a matronymic, or matronym. Each is a means of conveying lineage.

Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabile shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

4.Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.


It sounds to me as if He is cursing them because of what they did. As far as Ruth, my information shows that the "curse" or whatever God placed on them, in the Hebrew manuscripts, was in the masculine.....it referred to the males only.

Do you believe with the laws God placed to protect the bloodlines that He would allow the bloodline of Christ to not be pure?



It has nothing to do with what I believe – and, in fact, on a personal level, it doesn't matter to me at all.



Except that Ruth was pure, as Tamar was pure, as ALL in the line to Christ were pure and exactly as God planned!


What definition of 'pure' are you using, when you say that?

Pure as in their blood-line was not mixed with other races.

Take the term Arab....one of the definitions means to braid, intermix. Abraham's blood mixed or braided with that of a gentile produced Ishmael.



........Whirlwind

reply to post by jakyll

.Christ was of David's line


Mary is not mentioned in any of the genealogy lines in the Bible,and as Joseph was not the father of Jesus,it is her blood that counts.It was not until the 15th century AD,when Annius of Viterbo first suggested the reassignment of the Luke genealogy to Mary,with it gaining popularity only in the following centuries since.

Matthew 1:1 begins the geneology of Christ but, as you said, it is actually the geneology of Joseph, step-father to Christ. This was to show His legal claim to the Kingship of Judah (or so I have been taught)


Luke 3:23 begins the geneology of Christ through Mary. Notice in 3:23 the "as was supposed." That means "as reckoned by law." In other words in-law. Also notice there are no "begats." This is the true lineage to Mary.


She was of the tribe of Judah through her father but her mother was of the tribe of Levi....This brings, in Christ, the royal line and the priest line together. They are both fulfilled in Him.



...........Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
That's okay....it's not nearly as bad as confusing Abraham and

Moses!

I don't know that it's all that bad - I often get George C. Scott and Charleton Heston confused, myself!

:shk:

He is actually "Enki" in the original creation record, who is the creator and defender of the human race that was villified as the one who caused the "fall" of man, when in fact, he was showing humanity the potential they had. Here is a good link en.wikipedia.org...
The 3 dominate religions have twisted history and changed the stories of the true record: the Sumerian Text. Remember that "Occult" simply means hidden, but by who? The ones who are called the elite, the leaders of these faiths know of the deception they use that enslave man by supressing the ancient knowledge by labeling it "evil", and backing it by fear. Read my thread "The Real Greatest Story Ever Told" and you will see what I mean. The Truth is coming out and the planet of Nibiru is already well within this system, as the ancients were told it would be. Go to ancientx.com and you can see NASA pictures of it.

Thanks for that weblink ancient x.

So the pyramid is at least 10000 years old according to the dating of when the stars would have been properly aligned. Nice.

That is the basis of all my articles and threads! I am also writing a several-page article titled "Who is the Devil? The Answer May Suprise You!" that goes into the greatest detail yet and explaines the REAL LIE and the TRUE HISTORY of the GOD"S that can no longer be kept hidden with the coming Nibiru the "Planet of the Crossing" where the God's originate and the New Age of Aquarius already begun, as well as several other points about the religious elite who pretend to believe in this created god of the 3 religions, while they enslave by fear and programming from birth from one generation to another. They will usher in the one world government in the name of their own god, to continue in the lies, but this will not be. I will have the entire article on my 360 page when its finished at 360.yahoo.com...



[edit on 02/13/2007 by ForceMaster]

reply to post by whirlwind

Luke 3:23 begins the geneology of Christ through Mary. Notice in 3:23 the "as was supposed." That means "as reckoned by law." In other words in-law. Also notice there are no "begats." This is the true lineage to Mary.

I've looked through at least 16 different Bible's and not one of them states,in the 3rd chapter of Luke,that this is the genaeology of Jesus through Mary.Her name isn't mentioned anywhere!!

You believe that because there are no "begets" in this passage that it proves its the line of Mary? Wouldn't that also prove that none of these men where not the children of their fathers? We know Seth was a son of Adam do we not?



I found this interesting passage in the Latin Vulgate....

(in English)

3-28:Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her,

3-29:Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi,

(in Latin)

28 qui fuit Melchi, qui fuit Addi, qui fuit Cosan, qui fuit Elmadan, qui fuit Her,

29 qui fuit Jesu, qui fuit Eliezer, qui fuit Jorim, qui fuit Mathat, qui fuit Levi,

The name Jesus/Jesu appears! Who is this person?
And who is the Her that is mentioned?

Of course later translations and different texts have changed these names.Jesus has become Joseph,Joshua & Jose.Her has become Er.



Er(rrrr what?)indeed!