Orgin of satan

[brody196]

Steve have you listen to this guy John Anderson
"Satan an authorized Autobiography"

This guy sounds well!

He was once in the occult, he seems to hold some leanings.

http://www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com/ Tread lightly...

Should show up on the first section of the web page.

[Guest]

Listening to him, he's basically saying that there is no such "entity" as Satan, and that all the references to him just boil down to some kind of adversary in human terms.

I'll take one for the team here...I'm ordering the book. I have an Amazon.com gift certificate, so it won't hurt my pocketbook to pick it up.

-Seth

[Guest]

Well, I've read the book now, and I can officially say that I don't know what to make of it. From purely literature-critical position, it's quite poor. From a theological perspective, it's challenging and interesting.

I've written up a 2500+ word "review" of it, complete with a heavy load of excerpts. Shall I place it here, or would it better fit under "Authors" or "Essays" (for its length)?

-Seth

[Guest]

That's great Seth, I look forward to the review. I tried listening to a couple of his audio links that dealt with this subject. I think I understand his premise but he never went deep enough into the explanation (to my satisfaction anyway). Perhaps your review will shed more light on his view. Thanks

[Guest]

<u><b>Satan: An Authorized Autobiography - Reviewed</b></u>

John Anderson is a former occultist/Satanist whose experiences in that world have colored his Christian perspective. Having seen that the so-called "miracles" he saw in his former life were, in fact, illusory, he has concluded that there is <b>no</b> power in occult practice. Through searching the Scriptures, he has concluded that all the references to Satan and/or demonic activity have been misinterpreted throughout the Church Age.

Strangely, rather than a straightforward account of his Scriptural interpretations, Anderson chose to put his interpretations in the form of a novel. Now, if an author should choose to use fiction as a vehicle for forwarding a theology, he must make sure the fiction is up to the task. Frankly, this is just not the case. Consistent mistakes in punctuation and an absurd lack of contractions mar the smooth reading the novel needs. In addition, a subplot involving the convalescence of the protagonist's mother distracts from the main thrust of the novel.

The main theological pronouncements are put forth in various forms of conversation. There are sermons, deacons' meetings, phone calls, and - most prominently - a series of lunch meetings the protagonist (John) has with his local Pastor (Len). Being bound to these methods of communication, there is nothing like a consistent, orderly presentation of argument.

Problems with the novelization aside, the theology deserves a thoughtful analysis. Unfortunately, this is difficult given the format of the presentation. It is my intention with this review to put the points in a format in which they can be thoughtfully considered. It is not my intention to give an in-depth analysis of the actual theology. I leave that to my esteemed brothers and sisters on the Forum.

For the very curious, I'll spoil the surprise: Mr. Anderson believes in neither Satan nor his minions. There it is.

The main thrust of his argument rises from 1 Kings 18, the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal. He takes that confrontation as emblematic of the battle between God and any takers. The bottom line? God has all the power. Amen to that!!

Anderson also makes great use of Jeremiah 17:9, which states:

9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?

Anderson takes this verse at face value. If the heart is the most wicked thing, he argues, what room is left for an All-Evil Being such as the Devil? A valid response, in this reviewer's mind, would be to question whether Jeremiah intended this verse to be taken in a completely absolute sense. Anderson seems to assume that he did.

Thus far, we have Man's Heart as the sum of all evil (from Jeremiah), and God owning all power (1 Kings). So, if there's nothing more evil than man's heart, and there is no power outside God, what role could there be for a Devil?

Of course, Anderson cannot posit these two ideas and say the case is open and shut, so he must address the ample Scriptural evidence for the Forces of Darkness. I cannot present for you a systematic summation of Mr. Anderson's beliefs, because the author himself does not do so in his book. However, I think the best presentation I can muster is to compose a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions). So, without further ado, here we go. I'll attempt to put things in the order in which they appear in Scripture, rather than in the novel.

Please note that I have very carefully and faithfully transcribed all the excerpts from the novel. Where there are errors of spelling, grammar, or punctuation, they belong to the author. And there are myriads of such mistakes.

<u><b>What about the serpent in the garden (Gen 3)?</u></b>

Since this passage in the book is confusing in the extreme, I'll print it here, without modification and attempt to interpret it.

"Len," John continued, there are a couple of points I want you to consider. In Genesis 3:15 God said "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou salt bruise his heel. If we have 3 individuals there, not counting God, and only 2 seed to whom is thy seed referring?

I counted six errors any editor should have caught. Unfortunately, this was not an uncommon occurence in this book.

If I get the drift of what the author is saying, he's trying to point out that the serpent was Adam. In that case, the "seed" would be natural children of the couple. If somebody has a better interpretation, please elaborate.

On this point, there is an additional text:

"When Adam decided to disobey God, he became God's adversary."

There it is. Adam is Satan. And, by correlation with Revelation 20:2, the serpent.

"Len, remember in Matthew 23, Jesus said to the Pharisees, 'ye serpents, ye generation of vipers'. And in John 8:44 he said, 'You are of your father, the devil'." Len nodded his agreement. "Genesis 49:27 refers to the tribe of Dan as a serpent, and Jeremiah 9:11 says that Jerusalem would become a den of dragons. Do you see a pattern beginning to form? Now, I want you to look at Ezekiel 29:3. 'Oh Pharoah, king of Egypt, the great dragon'." John said.

"I'm not exactly sure what you are saying," Len said, his brow furrowed with curiousity.

"Len, this is my point. If every place we look, we find that terms Devil, Satan, Dragon or Serpent always referring to a man or used analagous to men, how should we interpret it? Could it be that we have created another being that is simply not there? Could this not simply mean that all these names are being used to describe man's adversarial and rebellious nature against God?"

<u><b>What about the Egyptian magicians in Exodus 7?</u></b>

They were illusionists, and their "power" was pretty limited, given that they gave up attempting to bamboozle anybody after the third plague. Picking up Anderson's train of thought with the fourth plague:

"When God turned the dust of the ground into lice, the magicians said, "this is the finger of God." In other words, when God created life from the dust of the earth, as only God can do, Pharoah's magicians recognized that Moses and Aaron were not magicians but the power of God was working through them."

<u><b>What about the Scriptural mandates against sorcery/witchcraft?</u></b>

Bottom line, it was something forbidden, but not something with spiritual power. Galatians 5:19-20 lists witchcraft as a work of the flesh. (p. 65)

<u><b>What about David being incited by Satan to take the census?</u></b>

Satan simply means adversary, and when David disobeyed God, he became God's adversary. In addition, since Chronicles was written after the Babylonian Captivity, the author had simply picked up the language and ideas of Babylon in relating this story. Clear? Here's the original context in the book:

"The real issue became clear to me when I read in 1st Chronicles 21:1 that Satan moved David to number Israel. The same identical word in Numbers 22:22 is translated correctly as adversary. However the same word #7854 in Strongs saw-tawn in Numbers 22:32 it is translated withstand.

The Angel of the Lord became Balaam's adversary. Yet the same word Satan in 1st Chronicles 21:1 is not translated adversary. Why? Then I read in 2nd Samuel 24:1 an account of the same incident which said the anger of the Lord was kindled and he moved David to go number Israel. If I interpret those scriptures literally, or more precisely simply verbally, they appear to be a contradiction. One says the Lord did it and the other says it was Satan." "I see what you're saying," replied Len, "but wasn't God simply using Satan to do his will?"

"A lot of people have tried to reconcile these verses that way, but the Scriptures don't say or imply that. They are both straight forward statements," John replied. "Len, if we look at the words that are used we realize that when David disobeyed God, God became David's adversary. That is, simply put, what Satan means, adversary."

"In my research I discovered that 1st and 2nd Samuel were written before the Babylonian captivity and 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written afterward by Ezra. The Southern Kingdom, Judah, during her 70 years of captivity, had picked up the idolatry and beliefs of the Babylonians. Ezra was simply using the language and ideas to which they had become accustomed."

Since the author chose not to footnote the book, it is difficult to determine how he came to the conclusion about Ezra's Babylonian ideas.

<u><b>What about Lucifer in Isaiah 14?</u></b>

I'm sure we've all heard Steve tackle this one, showing that the title 'Lucifer' simply applies to the king of Babylon. Many see God speaking to the power behind the throne (one of the teaching pastors at my church takes this tack), but Anderson sees something else:

"When I looked at Isaiah 14 through a new perspective, it began to make sense. First of all it was written to the king of Babylon. Lucifer means bringer of light. When I was in the occult, we called him the light bearer. In verse 12, Lucifer is called the son of the morning. Then it says how he was cut down to the ground. When I look back to the curse in the garden, the serpent was cursed to the ground to crawl on its belly in Genesis 3:14.

I believe that Adam and Lucifer are synonymous. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. In Luke 3:38 he's called the Son of God. He was perfect in all his ways. God's first messenger, if you will, before the fall. Adam wanted to be like God as verse 14 says of Lucifer.

<u><b>What about all the demon-possessions so common in the Gospels?</u></b>

This topic is covered in more than one place in the novel. The first example is a discussion about "the man of the tombs". Basically, Anderson attributes his statement about "Legion", and the fact that different synoptics show either two or one man in the story to mean that what Jesus was dealing with was a case of multiple personalities.

"I always keep the idea in the forefront that the Scriptures will be harmonious and that God is not the author of confusion. When I finally came to the point of understanding that demon possession in the New Testament was the result of the curses that God said he would put on Israel if they broke his covenant in Deuteronomy 28, it was the key for me that unlocked the door to understand it."

"Len, I see the incident as a case of multiple personalities. It was a form of the madness that God said he would bring on them in Deuteronomy 28. In my opinion, Jesus took the madness and sent it into the pigs as another sign of his power to remove the curse."

"When Jesus asked his name and he said Legion, which he defined as, we are many, could this mean he was referring to the many personalities that he had?" Len asked.

"That's how I would understand it," John replied.

Another, more general treament is here:

"Len, grab your Bible and turn to Deuteronomy 32:17," John said.

"Okay, just a minute," Len said turning to the passage. "They sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils," Len read.

"The word devil, number 7700 in Strong's Concordance is the Hebrew word translated to demons in the New King James and other modern translations as well," John began. "Psalm 106:37 says the same thing. To what was Israel sacrificing?" John asked.

"It was idols," replied Len. "They kept falling away from God and back into idolatry, Baal worship."

"Yes, that's true," John, said in agreement. "Now remember [hermeneutical consistency]. If idols are demons in the Old Testament, what are the demons in the New Testament?"

There was a pause on the phone. Then Len responded. "Idols, but how can idols possess someone?"

"Well, they can't," John, replied.

"Okay," Len said, "now I'm really confused."

"Len," John replied, "remember Deuteronomy 28, the chapter on blessings and curses. God gave Israel a half page of blessings if they kept the covenant, but about three plus pages of curses that He would bring on them if they went back to idol worship. Look at verse 28. 'I will bring upon you madness, blindness and astonishment of heart'. In verse 35 God reminds us 'The Lord shall smite thee in the knees and legs;' in verse 65, 'a trembling heart' and so on. Jesus was reversing the curse that God had placed on them for their idol worship. Remember Isaiah 53. It was prophesied that He, the Messiah would bear their iniquities."

I know I said I copied the excerpts exactly, but the phrase I bracketed was referring back to an analogy for hermeneutical consistency. For anyone interested, it appears on pages 74-75.

<u><b>What about Jesus's statement to Peter: "Get thee behind me, Satan"?</u></b>

"What about Jesus saying to Peter 'Get thee behind me Satan'," Deacon Smith stated in an attempt to recover. "He said that Satan had possessed him."

"Well, actually, the next verse explains it," John responded. "Jesus said to Peter that 'he savourest not the things of God but those that be of men'. Jesus knew that his Father's will was for him to go by the way of the cross. Peter's response was that of men and was an adversary of God's plan, not a supernatural being."

I can't let that sentence pass, though, without pointing out that he just said Peter's response was not a supernatural being. Ugh.

<u><b>What about Jesus seeing Satan fall from Heaven?</u></b>

"Let's look at Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2. John begins both verses by saying that the Devil, Satan, Serpent, and Dragon are synonymous or one and the same. In Matthew 23, Jesus calls the Pharisees serpents. In Ezekiel 29:3 Ezekiel calls Pharoah, King of Egypt, the great dragon. If we find that these four words are always used to describe a man's attitude, why would we want to redefine it as a spiritual being? Jesus was referring to the old covenant system. Those that were against God would be cast out."

<u><b>What about Peter's warning about "your enemy the devil"?</u></b>

In this case, the "adversary" referred to those who were against Christ.

"Peter warned us in First Peter 5:8 to," be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour," Deacon Smith stated strongly.

"Yes, he did," John replied. "I've heard you use that scripture before, and I'd like to respond to it. Zephaniah prophesied in Zephaniah 3:3 that Jerusalem's princes would become roaring lions and ravenous wolves. Peter was pointing out that the believers in Christ were to watch out for these that were against Christ. He said that they were of the synagogue of Satan, because they had turned against God and rejected their Messiah."

<u><b>What about Jude's mention of "Angels who sinned"?</u></b>

The word "angels" should be translated "messengers", and the passage is referring to the spies who gave a bad report in Numbers.

"In Jude verse six, the word angels is used. It is #32 in Strongs concordance. Aggelos means messenger, pastor, or in some cases it could mean and angelic being. For example, in each of the letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation, it says to the angel of the different churches. I believe, as many do, that it should have been translated as messengers in those cases. In Jude verse 6, the same word there would be translated messenger. It is better stated 'the messengers that sinned'."

There's then a rather lengthy recap of the situation with the return of the spies with Joshua and Caleb, and how God caused those who doubted God to wander and die in the wilderness. Here's the summation:

"Len, I believe that Jude was pointing this out to them because there were those that had crept in and were causing the new Christians to doubt what God had done through Jesus Christ."

And that's all I have to say about the actual contents of the books. More than anything, I'm given to the impression that Anderson basically took his view of demonology and read the text of the Bible through it. Not that there aren't some strong points in his theories, but I'm not completely convinced.

Your thoughts?

[Guest]

Does he address Jesus' temptation in the wilderness by "the devil"?

I can't see how he could see that text differently.

[Guest]

I don't recall him addressing that particular passage. I believe I covered all the major points hit in the book.

I think he'd respond that "diabolos"="Satan"="Adversary", and so it would just be a matter of determining what Jesus' adversary was in this case. If I had to guess, I'd say he'd pick Jesus' human nature. So, the verse would be rewritten:

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the human nature."

Again, I'm speculating. This is another problem with the novel presentation, lacking even an index of concepts or scriptures referenced. Frustrating...

[Guest]

Thanks for doing the review Seth. I wanted to get a better understanding of his position and your review helped out a lot. It was very well done.

I heard him quote the Jer 17:9 passage and had the exact same reaction as you. His arguments do seem like a bit of a stretch to me but I don't want to be too quick to discount what he's saying. I would put myself in the same position as yourself....not convinced yet. I think I'm going to give myself a bit of time to think about it and then revisit the arguments you've posted.

Thanks again