metaspy, thanks for that answers you gave. it seems to have balanced the arguments here. however, a curious question for you i have. if satan was considered disfellowshipped or an apostate in the adams time, why was he allowed to have a discussion with Jehovah in jobs time? in principle, why was he allowed to have a discussion and influenced Jehovah ( as audsoul pointed out)? this mystery of our dealings with the apostate, i felt, should be solidly based on scripture specially that we are acknowledging to be Gods true witnessess.
If Jesus could talk to Satan...
by AuldSoul 62 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
heathen
I certainly don't have sympathy for the devil but I think God just uses him to test peoples motives and loyalty, there are parts in the old testament even where God would send a lying spirit to his enemies as well . The bible itself can be interpreted in ways that support the FDS dogma or the need for preaching and evangelizing on the part of believers , there is no part about swearing alligiance to a publishing corporation prior to baptizmal dedication to God tho. That can be construed as idolotry . There are warnings in the early church against the sectarianism but certainly not against challenging current inspired expressions , I think the WTBTS tries to get around that by saying they are not spirit inspired ,however, remain spirit directed .
-
SWALKER
If Jesus could talk to Satan...then so can you!!!
Oh wait, I thought this was the thread about talking to spirits. Nevermind. Oops.
Swalker
-
agapa37
(1) According to the Bible, was Satan an apostate from at least the Garden of Eden onward? (the meaning of "apostate"; Genesis 3)
Beautiful answer Metaspy. That's what I have been saying (or trying to say). People look to the scriptures and try to make them fit somewhere they don't just to satisfy there own agenda. Auld seems to be a master at it and the rest follow his suite because he uses FANCY words and prides himself on Perfect vocabulary. Talk about brainwashing! I think this thread should be closed because both Metsapy and I responded and throughly answered your question with the bible and logic that cannot be refuted successfully! Thanks again Metaspy PS: Auld maybe JWS won't talk with you because of your superior attitude and argumentative appraoch. Example, I told you wouldn't hear from me due to the fact that I can only post five per day, but you HAD to throw in a smart and condesending comment about me.....something about crickets. Remember? You can add one more witnees who refuse to have a conversation with you I would also like to add, I see the way you CHANGED the subject after she thouroughly undisputably answered your questuons and DESTROYED your logic, i guess hold habits are hard to break.
Yes Satan could be considered the first apostate, as he was the first to cause someone to apostasize from true worship
(2) Was Satan, a known apostate, allowed in the assembly of God's angels? (Job 1-3)
Yes Satan was allowed in Heaven. He was not forcibly removed until Jesus became king of God's kingdom. Until then, Jehovah gave him the freedom to go where he pleased.
(3) Did Jesus talk with Satan? (Matthew 4)
Jesus answered his temptations
(4) Did Jesus use Scriptures when talking with Satan? (Matthew 4)
Jesus did answer Satan with Scriptures
(5) Did Jehovah both talk with and allow himself to be influenced by Satan? (Job 1-3)
yes and no. I do not see where Jehovah is being influenced by Satan. (Look up influence with Miriam-Webster: alter, modify - neither of which did Jehovah do when talking with Satan) He answers Satan's taunts, but does not change in anyway.
(6) Would the interaction between Jesus and Satan described in Matthew 4 be permissable for Jehovah's Witnesses? (Matthew 4)
Jehovah's witnesses probably shouldn't be talking to Satan. :)
That, indisputably, being the case: Why is it okay for Jesus to talk with Satan but not okay for my family to talk with me?
I dispute your assumption that Jesus would be disfellowshipped for talking with Satan. Situations would be taken into account. If I were on a mountain and an apostate came and tempted me 3 times and all I responded with was scripture (then told him to get lost), I would not be disfellowshipped.
You keep referring to Jesus temptations from Satan to a fullfledged conversation. According to scripture, it was 3 temptations.
Satan: "make bread out of this rock", Jesus: "man lives on utterances from God too".
Satan: "jump, God will save you", Jesus: "don't put God to the test".
Satan: "worship me!", Jesus: "worship only God! Leave me, now."
Not much of an indepth conversation. I highly doubt this to be a disfellowshipping offense.
Edit:ooops, I guess I didn't finish answering your question.
Since Jesus didn't have a real in-depth conversation with Satan, neither should your family have one with you. -
metaspy
----Dark Angle:----
if satan was considered disfellowshipped or an apostate in the adams time, why was he allowed to have a discussion with Jehovah in jobs time?
My question in response would be: why was Satan (a rebel, slanderer of Jehovah, and slayer of mankind) not killed immediately following his rebellion?
For the simple reason that Jehovah was proving a point. Satan made a claim against Job's integrity - no doubt all angels that were present could hear the discussion too. If Jehovah ignored Satan, or kicked him out, what would the angels think? It was better to resolve the situation, instead of ignoring it.
in principle, why was he allowed to have a discussion and influenced Jehovah ( as audsoul pointed out)?
the reason for the allowance of discussion is answered above. The influence of Jehovah did not happen, as I tried to mention before.
James 1:17 says of God - "with him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow" - the point I am making is: Jehovah was not changed by the discussion with Satan. His purpose, personality, power, all remained the same. Look again at the definition of influence
Main Entry: influence
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -enced; -enc·ing
1 : to affect or alter by indirect or intangible means : SWAY
2 : to have an effect on the condition or development of : MODIFY So now I ask, was Jehovah altered in any way? Was his condition effected? Was he modified by the discussion? If the answer is yes to any of these, please point out the scripture that tells us how he was altered/modified.
----AuldSoul----
Are Jehovah's Witnesses doctrinally allowed to answer an apostate's questions with Scriptures?
Good question! I have no idea what the official standing is. Most of what I have found in the WTS literature about apostates says not to take in apostate ideas through reading, and listening. But I did happen across a sentence that may apply to your question... W86 3/15 "Do not Quickly be shaken from your reason" - "If the one spreading apostate teachings cannot be restored to spiritual health by loving but firm application of the balm of God’s Word, amputation of this member (disfellowshipping) may be the only alternative for the protection of other members of the body."
If not, are they really encouraged to follow the example of Jesus?
A fine point also. The above mentioned sentence seems to allude to some sort of scripture sharing.
Also, if Satan did not "influence" (according to Merriam-Webster) Jehovah, why did Jehovah permit Satan to do to Job what he had not formerly permitted Satan to do to Job?
See above. I focus more on the point Jehovah was not changed from the person He was before the discussion. Jehovah permitting Satan to do more things does not change Jehovah.
Your response is intriguing in that it admits that church dogma holds Satan to be the first apostate and seems to regard the discussion (see Merriam-Webster) between Satan and Jesus as a good thing.
Indeed, it was a good thing. Jesus was tested to the full. Thereby, Satan could not later say, "things would have been different if I could have done this or that." A fully tested perfect man equalled out the sin of Adam.
----Agapa37----
I see the way you CHANGED the subject after she thouroughly undisputably answered your questuons
who is she? If you were referring to me, I am a male. ;-D -
metaspy
First off, let me apologize for the double post.
I finished my other reply, then realized that AuldSoul had asked further questions.
I felt the first response was crowded enough. Sorry.
----------------------------------
Before I start let's take a look at the status of most of the JWs who come here - fading. Metaspy included.
I defended against your other question because you used an illogical argument. There are not going to be straight forward scriptures for these questions. Plus, I am not one to make up something to defend an idea I do not believe whole-heartedly. (sorry agapa37 if you thought you would see metaspy come in for round 3 swinging)
(1) Where can I find the Scriptures that teach that the faithful and discreet slave is a "class" of people that comprises the conduit for God's spirit to direct his "spirit-directed organization" and has the resonsibility of interpreting and revealing "new light" to the "other sheep," who could not possibly get this light from any other source?
I will admit that the scriptures do not specify what the faithful and discrete slave is comprised of. Nor do the scriptures describe what the "food at the proper time" would be.
(2) Where can I find the Scriptures that teach that elders can convene private trials that cannot be recorded and judge ones undeserving of God's favor on behalf of and instead of the congregation, the details of which judgments and trials will never be made known to the congregation?
none
(3) Where can I find the Scriptures that teach that regular meeting attendance, Bible study, regularity in publishing the good news, a specific prayer of dedication to God, and undergoing a question and answer test are required for Christian baptism?
While not specifically for baptism, the Bible does encourage: reading God's word(joshua 1:8), getting together with other christians (Heb. 10:24,25), praying on a regular basis(1 Thes. 5:17), preaching and teaching(Matt 28:19,20). However, you already knew that. You were asking why the WTS makes rules as to who can get baptised and what hoops they have to jump through, without scriptural proof.
Hence the true answer is - none.
What is your conclusion?
This one is tougher. I have seen some great things happen to people because they changed their lives to conform to the lifestyle of JWs. I helped study (I covered for the other brother) with one man who never would have even looked at the Bible if it weren't for JWs studying with him.
On the other hand, I have seen the pain that comes from the elder's personal decisions in matters that did not concern them. I have been personally hurt by elders/COs rules. The points you brought out too - hypocrisy, rule making (much like pharasees), judging.
it is hard to make a straight forward decision, so many factors...
I do not condemn your decision, for someday it may become my own. -
dark angle
metaspy, i appreciate your answr, and ive been intrigue by that. however, you said: "if satan was considered disfellowshipped or an apostate in the adams time, why was he allowed to have a discussion with Jehovah in jobs time? My question in response would be: why was Satan (a rebel, slanderer of Jehovah, and slayer of mankind) not killed immediately following his rebellion?For the simple reason that Jehovah was proving a point. Satan made a claim against Job's integrity - no doubt all angels that were present could hear the discussion too. If Jehovah ignored Satan, or kicked him out, what would the angels think? It was better to resolve the situation, instead of ignoring it." is my asking about why did they have such discussion is the same why did not Jehovah killed satan? i think its entirely different. but yet, even if they're the same, and the reason why Jehovah allowed such discussion is because to prove a point, does it give us also an excuse to discuss spiritual matters to an apostate if the circumstances are quite similar? your argument about Jesus temptation was, i felt, splendid. there was indeed no in depth discussion between them and it was also a temptation not a spiritual sharing. thanks for pointing that out. about the definition you gave about influence you said: Main Entry: influence Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -enced; -enc·ing 1 : to affect or alter by indirect or intangible means : SWAY 2 : to have an effect on the condition or development of : MODIFY So now I ask, was Jehovah altered in any way? Was his condition effected? Was he modified by the discussion? If the answer is yes to any of these, please point out the scripture that tells us how he was altered/modified. my common sense tells me that the answer was YES AND NO. YES in the sense that satans request was granted to a degree to test job(1 : to affect), which Jehova would never do to Job. but he granted and tolerated such humiliation on Job NO in the sense that Gods nature was not altered in those accounts(MODIFY). anyways thanks for posting answers here. it made this a lively discussion.
-
tetrapod.sapien
why was Satan (a rebel, slanderer of Jehovah, and slayer of mankind) not killed immediately following his rebellion?For the simple reason that Jehovah was proving a point.
satan is not the slayer of mankind. we die because without death there would be no evolution. but that answer might not work here, so let me rephrase:
satan is not the slayer of mankind. Jehovah is. let's get this straight.
Jehovah is the one killing people for the sins of their ancestors, not satan.
satan did not slander Jehovah either. Satan called it as he saw it. Jehovah is a big autocratic cry baby. --> Satan was attempting to help human beings break free from the grasp of this tyrant.
Satan, being more intelligent than Jehovah, had no real choice than to rebel against him. he was only being honest to his personally developed moral structure!
Jehovah does not have the power to kill satan, and is pretty incapable of making a point, actually. would you like to know why?
because satan is human will. the will to govern ourselves, and think with freedom whatever thoughts we want. we also have the right to drop jehovah as satan did. we have the right to free minds, independent of God, and the satisfaction and happiness that this life choice can bring.
jehovah pretends that he is letting satan live to teach everyone a lesson. but actually, jehovah is powerless over satan and humans (human will and tenacity).
If the answer is yes to any of these, please point out the scripture that tells us how he was altered/modified.
now remember, you will not find the answers to scientific questions in the bible. neuroscience is no exception.
i would venture that jehovah was modified. if we were created in his image (or him in ours as i feel is more likely), then it probably went something like this:
"pssst. hey jehovah" (satan executes first command. this is sort of like booting the jehovah program)
"yes satan my evil son?" (program output. retreives satan file from database. all succesive conversation is now linked with this file.)
"hey uh, this job guy seems way too goody goody two shoes. you know, think he don't stink. you wanna give him reason to curse you? heheheh..." (plants seed of idea in brain of jehovah the almighty tighty. note. when brains are presented with new ideas, they have been altered)
"okay satan. he seems perfectly happy and god fearing, but lets rough him up a bit. whatya say? for old times sake! remember adam and eve? ha! what a gas!" (jehovah has been altered from his omniscient great and just self, to the apathetic and easily swayed entity of job 1-3)
this shows me something about this so called jehovah. he does not even approach omniscience. why can i say this?
because what he did to job was wrong. let's be clear about this. even i can see this!
you know, this story of Job really smells. smells like a frame up job if i ever saw one. after all this, i am actually skeptical of whether satan was ever even near the scene of the crime! nothing like a good scape goat! ...goat... hmmmm? the implications of my devistating logic i leave to you!
---
i find it humorous that satan is the typical apostate here, and people seem to be cheering on his shunning. jesus is not having a spiritual conversation with the bad apostate, but only answering his questions! yay team!
let me ask you: what did satan ever do to you? and while we're at it: why do "bad" things happen to "good" people?
tetra
-
dark angle
hey tetrapod, i find you amazingly humorous. when i was a kid, i had a very simple question that bewildered my old folks. i ask,: if satan knows Jehovah to be all powerfull, all wise, and there is no change for him to challenge him in any manner, then why did he rebelled as we were taught? i observe there was no simple answer to that question. then, on early aduthood, i thought of this: if we were made in gods image, endowed with godlike qualities, would it not be pleasing to God that we are doing things in our own, exercising our talents or wisdom without always leaning on him, to learn from our mistakes, and out grow them. if i were in his position, i would be glad to see humans to doing things their own, maturing, evolving in different directions. after all he likes diversity and change if we glimpse the universe through science. but yet the bible clearly states not to lean on ones understanding.huh
-
AuldSoul
Thank you, metaspy. Both for your candor and for sticking with your opinions/defending them despite how others might take such defense.
I still believe that Jehovah's choices were influenced by Satan in the matter of Job. I believe the text is clear on that point. While I understand the need to pin down precisely that Jehovah himself was not influenced, influencing choices can be reasonably argued as influencing an individual.
In fact, in the laws of the United States "exerting undue influence" is determined by the choices a person makes as a result and judging whether those choices would have been made without that influence. I don't believe I used "influence" improperly. But you are free to believe otherwise, if you like.
The text that you quoted from "Do Not Quickly Be Shaken..." does not contextually refer to apostates. It contextually refers to those who may have been considering apostate material and are now spreading doubts and apostate thinking in the congregation. They are not considered apostates until after they are disfellowshipped (or disassociate themselves).
I take it you are not an elder. I have never been, either. But I have read Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, so I know the standards the elders employ.
If you wish to find out what is the Governing Body's stand on the matter of sharing Scriptures with confirmed apostates (or any disfellowshipped person), please do a search on the CD-ROM regarding what is allowable discourse with a disfellowshipped person. The same rules apply to a disassociated person, as per the book Organized to Do Jehovah's Will under the subheadings dealing with "DISFELLOWSHIPPING" and "DISASSOCIATION".
You will find that it is specifically not appropriate to engage any disfellowshipped or disassociated person in spiritual discourse. Matters of purely secular nature can be discussed freely, but only when absolutely necessary. This is true even of family members. Including when a wife (such as mine) is still a JW and a husband (such as myself) has disassociated himself. My father (a Presiding Overseer) shared lots of Watchtower articles with my wife regarding that particular subject, and not a shred of Scriptural support.
In the Bible, there is no caveat provided to 1 Corinthians 11:3 that says the congregation (euphemistically, "elders") can supplant the husband as spiritual head of his household.
Back to the other point: Please consider the book Reasoning From the Scriptures, under the heading "Organization" and find the subheading that deals with how to identify the organization God is using in our day.
Point 3 is very pertinent to the three questions I asked you. You will immediately see why. If you believe their standards should be used to determine at least whether they are the organization God is using, do they measure up on point #3, or not?
When it comes to life changes, I do not know of a single religion that does not boast outstanding examples of life altering conversions. However, most religions do not hold themselves as the only true religion and the sole means through which anyone can gain the approval of God.
I dispute your assumption that Jesus would be disfellowshipped for talking with Satan. Situations would be taken into account. If I were on a mountain and an apostate came and tempted me 3 times and all I responded with was scripture (then told him to get lost), I would not be disfellowshipped.
You keep referring to Jesus temptations from Satan to a fullfledged conversation. According to scripture, it was 3 temptations.Jesus did not tell Satan to "get lost". At any point. Maybe you are thinking of what he said to Peter?
Satan "took Jesus along to an unusually high mountain." There is no indication that this was speedy. There is no indication that this was a vision, either, except by reasoning on modern knowledge of physics and applying this knowledge to a time period in which such knowledge was not available.
I referred to it as a Scriptural discussion, and such it was. Tongue-in-cheek, I referred to it as "at length" once.
I think before you decide you would not be disfellowshipped you might want to ask a local elder. Perhaps you could frame it in the form of a hypothetical question, not related to Jesus.
metaspy: "Brother so-and-so, if I was alone in a place where I could easily avoid conversing with a known aostate, but a known apostate approached me and challenged me to do something contrary to God's word, would it be okay for me to respond with Scriptures as long as I didn't get into anything else?
See what the elder says. You might be surprised to find out how limited your "freeness of speech" really is.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul