Did God create demons?

Originally posted by blindfaith101

Biblical history and "omni" traits of GOD are one and the same

Are you just trying to argue with me or what?

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
So you are saying that God didn't know that this would happen when he created Lucifer and these other offending angels exactly the way he did? Becauae if he knew, he did it on purpose. If he didn't, then God is capable or making mistakes and therefore imperfect. So, which is it?

... --- ...


God exists outside the scope of time. As such a cause and effect model is fairly pointless. We know the Word existed from the beginninig, we know Jesus is the Word in flesh. Did God know would Adam and Eve would rebel ? Well yes, God knew his only son would be killed before we even created the earth. He knew man would be flawed, would turn from Him. Only those that turn back to Him will demonstrate their love.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Are you just trying to argue with me or what?

just the facts

Originally posted by blindfaith101
just the facts

If you say so bub. 😕

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
So God deliberately created beings that would move against him? In short, he created animosity?

God deliberately created creatures of free will. Animosity comes about from the manner in which they used their free will.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
When Lucifer rebelled he took 1/3 of the angels with him. When these angels lost their holy spirits(holiness). They became evil spirits,or some call them demons. CHRIST dealt with them as evil Spirits. So that is what they should be called. But many have been taught to call the demons. The word demon(s) is not found in the translations of today. But ma ...[text shortened]... ound in the early translations of the King James Version and earlier Versions of the Scriptures.

This is the biggest baloney claim ever.

First of all 'Lucifer' doesn't exist as a Biblical personage. The word
Lucifer is a mistranslation of 'Morning Star' in Isaiah. The Morning
Star refers, as is very clear in that chapter, to the King of Babylon.

As for the claim that 1/3 of the angels were taken by Satan when
he rebelled, this is another thing which doesn't exist in the Bible at
all. Darfius made the feeble claim that Revelation 12:4 (where
the 'Dragon' sweeps away 1/3 of the 'stars'😉, but that doesn't hold
up in the slightest since Revelation is predicting the future
metaphorically, not relating the past and stars are not angels in any
event.

Even if you take the Bible as Truth, Lucifer <> Satan and the idea
that 1/3 of the angels 'fell' is a myth with no Scriptural support.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is the biggest baloney claim ever.

First of all 'Lucifer' doesn't exist as a Biblical personage. The word
Lucifer is a mistranslation of 'Morning Star' in Isaiah. The Morning
Star refers, as is very clear in that chapter, to the King of Babylon.

As for the claim that 1/3 of the angels were taken by Satan when
he rebelled, this is another ...[text shortened]... n and the idea
that 1/3 of the angels 'fell' is a myth with no Scriptural support.

Nemesio

Well now, I would first state that I hold no greivance with you holding this stance. It is a logical stance indeed.

However...

I would note that there are several metaphors with the "Morning Star" concept. My sons middle name is such for one of these metaphorical reasons (in fact, it is a triple pun in his case, but that's neither here nor there). My memory is not exact, so I shall post the various meanings next time I'm online (as I obviously have notes on the matter, both scriptural and otherwise).

As for Revelations, I can concur with your understanding, but I do not believe that all that is revealed is phrophetical in the sense of the furture necesarrily ( this is for various reasons, and is my own personal understanding of the passages which is a fair bit different than the common perception, but that is a tale for another day under another topic ).

.....and please don't misunderstand me. I am not meaning to support that this claim is valid, but rather I support the possibility as an academic theory of interest. For all things scriptural have a beginning (sans deity), and so I think I shall make this my area of focus for the next few days. It is an interesting theory to be sure, more interesting still if I can find some basis for its claim (though obviously some of this shall be from documents outside of the scriptures).

Anyway, in a nutshell I don't blame you if you don't bite on this theory. I would like to entertain the notion a bit though, for curiosity sake. I'll let you know what I find in a few days. 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
Well now, I would first state that I hold no greivance with you holding this stance. It is a logical stance indeed.

However...

I would note that there are several metaphors with the "Morning Star" concept. My sons middle name is such for one of these metaphorical reasons (in fact, it is a triple pun in his case, but that's neither here nor there) ...[text shortened]... in the notion a bit though, for curiosity sake. I'll let you know what I find in a few days. 🙂

I bring it up because of Blindfaith101's own words to you, that
extra-Biblical sources are risky theological tools. I am observing that
his assertion that Lucifer = Satan is the product of post-NT interpretation
by the Latin Church Fathers (who used the term after the Biblica Vulgata
was 'published'😉. The term did not exist until after this mistranslation.
Furthermore, the idea that 'Satan brought 1/3 of the angels with him'
is also an extra-Biblical interpretation which has no basis in Scripture.

In other words: Blindfaith's deep concern about your using the Dead
Sea Scrolls for theological insight is hypocritical, for he, himself, is
using all manner of extra-Biblical mythology to inform is own theological
perspective.

Start a thread about Lucifer when you've done your research. I'd be
interested in reading it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I bring it up because of Blindfaith101's own words to you, that
extra-Biblical sources are risky theological tools. I am observing that
his assertion that Lucifer = Satan is the product of post-NT interpretation
by the Latin Church Fathers (who used the term after the Biblica Vulgata
was 'published'😉. The term did not exist until after this mistran ...[text shortened]... ad about Lucifer when you've done your research. I'd be
interested in reading it.

Nemesio

Ah, I see. Very good sir. I shall resume this discussion with you in a few days then. 🙂

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is the biggest baloney claim ever.

First of all 'Lucifer' doesn't exist as a Biblical personage. The word
Lucifer is a mistranslation of 'Morning Star' in Isaiah. The Morning
Star refers, as is very clear in that chapter, to the King of Babylon.

As for the claim that 1/3 of the angels were taken by Satan when
he rebelled, this is another ...[text shortened]... n and the idea
that 1/3 of the angels 'fell' is a myth with no Scriptural support.

Nemesio

It is nice that you and others have decide that what is wrritten in THE WORD OF GOD, is a myth or has no Scriptural proof. I guess you never understoo that GOD speaks on many levels of understanding.
Question: Are there times in the WORD OF GOD, when satan has been spoken as the King of Babylon?
True The Book of Revelation does predict the future. Since the time that understanding was given, has not the Book begun to become true. Are we not int the early pages of the Book?
Question: Who was this dragon that swept away 1/3 of the angels in Heaven?
Question: Would that not be that same dragon that is spoken of in REVLATION 20:2,3
Question: Was not Lucifer one of the stars of the morning?
Then would he be one of those stars spoken in JOB 38:7
Question: What is your undrstanding how satan became satan?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I bring it up because of Blindfaith101's own words to you, that
extra-Biblical sources are risky theological tools. I am observing that
his assertion that Lucifer = Satan is the product of post-NT interpretation
by the Latin Church Fathers (who used the term after the Biblica Vulgata
was 'published'😉. The term did not exist until after this mistran ...[text shortened]... ad about Lucifer when you've done your research. I'd be
interested in reading it.

Nemesio

First of all The Dead Sea Scrolls, are a interresting read. But remember that THE WORD OF GOD, gives instructions to see if undrestanding is true or not. Does thos other sources of information agree completely with THE WORD OF GOD. If they do not they are false doctrine, are they not?

Originally posted by blindfaith101
It is nice that you and others have decide that what is wrritten in THE WORD OF GOD, is a myth or has no Scriptural proof. I guess you never understoo that GOD speaks on many levels of understanding.

YOU are the one asserting that things not written in the Bible are true, not I.
You are making absurd mythological claims that have no basis in Scripture whatsoever.


Question: Are there times in the WORD OF GOD, when satan has been spoken as the King of Babylon?

Yes, but there are also times when the King of Babylon is the King of Babylon. And, furthermore,
the word 'Lucifer' is not anywhere in any modern translation of the Bible because, as I said,
this word was a mistranslation of the Latin Bible's mistranslation of the Hebrew. The word
is 'Morning Star.' In this case, in Isaiah 14, it is rather clear that the object of discussion is not
metaphorical (unless you are a non-literalist) and, in any event, makes no mention of 'a fall of
angels' or anything else.

What this passage likely signifies was the belief in the King of Babylon as a decent person was
determined to be false. As such, the King 'fell from grace.'

If you want to call Satan 'Morning Star,' that is fine, but I think it is Biblically unsupported. To call
Satan 'Lucifer' is simply an error, as this word does not exist in the Bible.

True The Book of Revelation does predict the future. Since the time that understanding was given, has not the Book begun to become true. Are we not int the early pages of the Book?

We are NOT in the early pages of Revelation. We are in the section after the seven trumpets
have sounded, signifying the end of the world. Wrong again.

Question: Who was this dragon that swept away 1/3 of the angels in Heaven?

There is no dragon that swept away 1/3 of the angels. This is a myth. There is a dragon
that swept away 1/3 of the stars. Star <> angel, however.

Question: Would that not be that same dragon that is spoken of in REVLATION 20:2,3

I don't see why not. However, there is no indication of his taking any angels. The word
angel is featured prominantly in Revelation, so if Satan did take angels with him, it would
reasonable to assume that the writer would say 'angel' when he meant 'angel.'

Question: Was not Lucifer one of the stars of the morning?

The word Lucifer does not exist, so the question is nonsense.

Then would he be one of those stars spoken in JOB 38:7

If you would like to claim that the King of Babylon was an angel, then, sure. However, as it is
clear that the literal King of Babylon was being referred to, I would say that the claim is false. As
I believe that Isaiah was using the term 'morning star' metaphorically while Job is using the term
literally (to refer to actual angels), we are comparing apples and oranges.

Question: What is your undrstanding how satan became satan?

I have no claim to understanding. Whether a person believes that the Bible is or is not the Word
of God, they have no ground upon which to claim that 'Lucifer' exists (as the word doesn't) and
that he took 1/3 of the angels with him when he 'fell.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by blindfaith101
First of all The Dead Sea Scrolls, are a interresting read. But remember that THE WORD OF GOD, gives instructions to see if undrestanding is true or not. Does thos other sources of information agree completely with THE WORD OF GOD. If they do not they are false doctrine, are they not?

Do me a favor. Start a thread titled 'What is the WORD OF GOD?' and give a introductory
post and I will comment. To discuss this here would be way off-topic.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101
[b]It is nice that you and others have decide that what is wrritten in THE WORD OF GOD, is a myth or has no Scriptural proof. I guess you never understoo that GOD speaks on many levels of understanding.

YOU are the one asserting that things not written in the Bible are true, not I.
You are making absurd myth ...[text shortened]... (as the word doesn't) and
that he took 1/3 of the angels with him when he 'fell.'

Nemesio[/b]

No I have said that any understanding that does not line up completely with THE WORLD OF GOD, is false understanding.
The interresting thing about understanding THE WORD OF GOD, in what ever Version of Scripture. We are to be set before THE MOST HIGH, and whatever is the truth shall be know. How ever you,I or others understand THE WORD OF GOD, GOD will reveal the truth. Not saying that you or I are right or wrong in our understanding. But that GOD shall reveal the truth.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do me a favor. Start a thread titled 'What is the WORD OF GOD?' and give a introductory
post and I will comment. To discuss this here would be way off-topic.

Nemesiothe

We are discussing the WORD OF GOD therefore the WORD OF GOD is not off topic.