Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
gpatton{at}bayou.com
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Fraser Orr wrote:
> >
> >> If you took the time to study some basic Christian doctrine you
would
> >> know that it is commonly held that Lucifer held preeminence before
> >his
> >> fall, due to his pridefulness,
> >
> >It appears you have John Milton's poem, Paradise Lost, mixed up with
> >"basic Christian doctrine".
>
> No, it is you who are "mixed up". See below. Besides: where did you
think Milton
> got the idea? He didn't make it up out of the whole cloth, you know.
>
> >There is nothing basic about that doctrine.
>
> Yes, there is. That is probably why Scripture _mentions_ the fallen
angels in
> passing, as if already well known.
>
> >That "doctrine" lacks any real scriptural support.
>
> That is not true. Not, at least, unless you insist on following the
Reader's
> Digest version of Scripture, which is missing several books.
>
> >Isaiah
> >tells us that the one which you call "Lucifer" (Isaiah
did not call
him
> >by that name) is dead and powerless.
>
> This is a good example of your confusion. No, Isaiah did NOT refer to
Satan as
> 'Lucifer' here in this passage. Not, at least, directly. Rather, as
you say, but
> got quite garbled, Isaiah used the term 'Lucifer' to refer to a king
whose glory
> had been like the morning star (Lucifer), but had fallen into
> ignominy.

Oh, you can read!  Yea, that is what Isaiah was writing about, a king
that died. And that king was no angel!

> But by a hermeneutic principle similar to that applied to Isa 7:14 in
Mat 1:23,
> the Christian Tradition has long seen this as prophetic of Lucifer =
Satan as
> well. See, for example, Augustine's Enchiridion 9.28-29.


Wow! Now, Lucifer has done be exhumed, resurrected and hermeneuticed!

> THAT is "basic Christian doctrine".
>
> > What should we care about some
> >dead powerless thing?  And I might mention that being dead and
> >powerless is quite different from what "basic Christian doctrine has
to
> >say about Jesus.
>
> Right. But the _one_ 'Lucifer', the human king of old, is dead,

One Lucifer, one Lucifer, will somebody give me a two.

> while the
> _other_ 'Lucifer', is very much still active. That is why it is so >
dangerous to
> pretend there is no Scriptural support for his existence and
> activity.

There we have two Lucifers, two Lucifers ,  two Lucifers,  will
somebody give me  a three!

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/23/05 2:33:38 AM ---