Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; P-Marlowe; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; jo kus
FK: "Dr. Papademetriou is apparently authorized to represent the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. He clearly disagrees with the ancient Jews you were referencing."

He may be an authority in the Orthodox Church, but he is no authority in Judaism. Jewish Encyclopedia says (emphases mine) ......

There is no doubt that many Jews in those days had unsound theology. We are told about some of them in the Bible. But there is no way you can pin this on the OT righteous, the OT doesn't teach it. You can say that many Jews had it wrong at the time. The bottom line is that your church and my church both agree on the issue.

[Jewish Encyclopedia:] This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the "angel of the Lord," who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity.

Zech 3:1-2 : 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"

The natural interpretation of this would have satan correctly being an enemy of God. There were strained and wrongful interpretations, but I'm sure the OT righteous had it right. For anyone to say that this passage has satan being a "mere accuser" is ridiculous.

So, the teaching of the Church and of the Protestants regarding Satan is patently "apocryphal." Just remember that by accepting the NT, you also accept its "apocryphal" demonology even if you as a group reject the "Apocrypha."

We reject the Apocrypha as being inspired, and so they should not be included with the Holy Bible. Nobody says they are useless or "all lies" or something. Luther himself prefaced the Apocrypha with this statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

In addition, The Bible itself sans Apocrypha is patently clear that satan is evil. I certainly didn't need the Apocrypha to come to the correct conclusion.

7,031 posted on 09/23/2007 2:52:10 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6900 | View Replies ]


To: Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; jo kus
Zech 3:1-2 : 3:1

Your comment on this is not in line with general commenatry. As an accuser, his job was to accuse, just as a prosecutor is charged to exaggerate the wrongdoing in order to strengthen the government's case. Satan merely got carried away and God put him in his place. But he is not portrayed as an enemy of God out there to compete with God or to draw those who are of God away from Him.

In addition, The Bible itself sans Apocrypha is patently clear that satan is evil. I certainly didn't need the Apocrypha to come to the correct conclusion.

Not the Old Testament. And all references form the New Testament that involve satan as the devil come from "Apocrypha."

7,039 posted on 09/23/2007 7:52:56 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7031 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson