For John Gecik from the Charnel post message:

You are right John G. about the number of messages 4600. I was thinking about the posted questions in which you have participated: 1360 as jfgecik@hotmail, 461 as jgecik@desc.dla.mil, 9 as jfgecik@desc.dla.mil, and 154 as jgecik@mdg.ihs for about 1975. As for the millions who use it, not in the churches I attended. It was in the cards they give when someone dies.

John, look at this Bible book, and < a href= "http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ch/1Ch021.html#top"> this other one which shows that someone used the Hebrew word "satan" to call God an "adversary." As for Satan see Numbers 22:22, and 22:32. Also compare 1 chronicles 21:1 with its parallel passage in 2 samuel 24:1.

May Yahweh our God and his Son Jesus Christ be with you.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srlas.org), April 22, 2003.

-- elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 22, 2003

Answers

Can you see the parallel passage John?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 22, 2003.

Jmj

Elpidio, I already replied to the above message on the other thread. I don't know why you started a whole new thread!
I'd like to get to the bottom of this, so I hope that you will help me.

On the other thread, you wrote: "John, even King David called God Satan= adversary."

I replied that you were wrong. I gave you a link to a lexicon/concordance page to prove this. (Did you visit that page and study it, or did you just reply to me blindly?) The page shows EVERY biblical use of the Hebrew word "satan," which sometimes is used to mean "satan" (the devil himself) and sometimes "adversary."

The page proves that NEVER did King David call God "satan" (i.e., adversary).

Now, in your new message you give me a link and a URL to pages (for 1 Chr 21:1 and 2 Sam 24:1) that do not show anyone calling God "satan".
Also, you have now pointed me to Numbers 22:22 -- which refers, not to God himself, but to an angel sent by God as the adversary (i.e., figurative "satan") of Balaam.

So, I ask you to please withdraw your comment that King David (or anyone else in the Bible) called God "satan."

May Jesus, who IS God, bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Probably David didn't say it, John G. As for someone else not using it using it....Stan i chronicles becomes The Lord (Yahweh) in 2 samuel

1 Chronicles 21 1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so (NIV).

2 Samuel 24 :1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

There was another instance of God becoming a satan towards David for taking the wife of another man.egonzalez@srla.org), April 25, 2003.

Another instance of God becoming a satan towards David for taking the wife of another man.egonzalez@srla.org), April 25, 2003.

Another instance of God becoming a satan towards David for taking the wife of another man. 2 samuel.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 25, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Elpidio.

What you are doing here is a good example of why the Protestant way of Bible study -- unguided private interpretaion -- is not valid.

Let me take things you have presented in reverse.
You wrote: "Another instance of God becoming a satan towards David for taking the wife of another man", and you provided a link to 2 samuel 12.
But that chapter of the Bible does not contain the Hebrew word "satan." It is highly improper (and even insulting to God) for you to say that God "bec[ame] a satan towards David." The real "satan" (devil) is much more than just an "adversary." That is why it is so offensive to say that God became a satan. It's just not acceptable. You have a little bit of erudition with languages and the Bible, and you have let it go to your head. As the saying goes, "A little learning is a dangerous thing" -- because it is TOO little.

You wrote: "Probably David didn't say it, John G."

Only "probably"???
Is it really so difficult for you to just admit that David didn't call God "satan"? Please be honest and humble, sir!

You wrote: "As for someone else not using [the word "satan" in reference to God] ....Satan i chronicles becomes The Lord (Yahweh) in 2 samuel
"1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. ...
"2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

Elpidio, because your interpretation of these parallel verses is unguided by the Catholic magisterium, you mistakenly think that they are equating God with satan (or at least calling God a figurative satan). You are wrong. The two passages were put in their final, published form by two different men. The verse in 1 Chronicles describes the event literally -- showing the devil himself successfully tempting David to sin. But the verse in 2 Samuel employs the Hebraism of attributing to God himself an action that he merely permitted. The Church helps us to know that -- both from the words used in 1 Chronicles, and from the fact that God himself would never incite a man to commit sin -- that God only permitted satan to tempt David. God himself never tempts people to sin. (Every temptation that satan has ever accomplished has been permitted by God -- who has the power to prevent satan from tempting anyone.)

Please, Elpidio ... Start thinking about the fact that every unorthodox idea that you have ever presented at this forum has been refuted. This has to start burdening your conscience with the realization that you are swimming against the divine current. You need to return to Catholicism. That's all there is to it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

John G, I never said that God was Satan.

What I did was show the progression of words. Satan went from being a word that meant adversary or opponent to a word to signify total evil: ha Satan (Satan). God never was ,neither is, nor will ever be Satan (the evil one).

It has happened the same in Enlish: Holy Ghost is now Holy Spirit. Ghost has a different connotation today in Enlish. Gay used to mean happy, now means homosexual. That's what I mean.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 28, 2003.

I was impressed, John. You admit two different people penned those passages. If that is so, who was the inspired one?

Also, John, as a catholic you know that not everything is written in the Bible. We were not there when David was having a hard time because of his sins...

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 29, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Elpidio.

You wrote: "John G, I never said that God was Satan."
I didn't flat-out accuse you of having done so. However, you came so close that your words were offensive to me.

You wrote: "What I did was show the progression of words. Satan went from being a word that meant adversary or opponent to a word to signify total evil: ha Satan (Satan). God never was, neither is, nor will ever be Satan (the evil one)."
Too bad you didn't make this clear to begin with. I shouldn't have had to draw it out of you. But really, my main point is that God is never even figuratively named as a "satan" (in the sense of "adversary"). Thus, you should never have even raised this subject. It is "bad news" all around. It is unpleasant to discuss and is of no profit to anyone (except perhaps satan himself).

You continued: "It has happened the same in English: Holy Ghost is now Holy Spirit. Ghost has a different connotation today in Enlish."
No. This is not analogous at all to "satan/satan."

You continued: "Gay used to mean happy, now means homosexual."
You are mistaken. The word "gay," in the right context, still means "happy and carefree." And, with pathetic irony, it has been adopted to refer to the LEAST "happy and carefree" people on earth -- active sodomites. (It is not equivalent to "homosexual" [a word that includes chaste people who abhor sodomy], but is only equivalent to "homosexual activist" or "practicing homosexual.")

You wrote: "You admit two different people penned those passages. If that is so, who was the inspired one?"
I assume that you are referring to 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1? You need to read more carefully. I didn't say that "two different people penned those passages." I said: "The two passages were put in their final, published form by two different men." Can you see the difference?
There could have been one writer of the original text and two later editors. Or the original text may be in 2 Samuel and an edited (but still accurate) text may be in 1 Chronicles. It doesn't matter. God protected his revealed word from taking on any error.

You closed by saying: "Also, John, as a catholic you know that not everything is written in the Bible. We were not there when David was having a hard time because of his sins..."
Well this is true, Elpidio, but I can't see how this observation of yours has any relevance to our discussion of the Hebrew word "satan."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Sometimes, John, certain things have relevance.

It is not in the Bible, as you have shown that David didn't call God Satan (meaning adversary, not the Evil One). That means David dind't say, right? Then since David didn't say it because it is not in the Bible, then, other beliefs like Mary's assuption into heaven, her conception being also miraculous, Jesus falling 3 times, a woman named Veronica, Anna and ... being the parents of Mary, ... which are not in the Bible then didn't exist, since they are not in the Bible. Get it?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 30, 2003.

Jmj

Come on, Elpidio. Please don't be foolish. You are a teacher with a good head on your shoulders. I just can't believe that you are writing such strange things!

You wrote: "It is not in the Bible, as you have shown that David didn't call God Satan (meaning adversary, not the Evil One). That means David didn't say [it], right?"

I did not say one way or the other, because I have no way of knowing. Neither do you. The point is that any pure speculation about what David may or may not have said about thousands of different things, including the one you raised, is worthless.
Maybe King David said, "I wish I were taller," or maybe he said, "I wish I were shorter." Maybe [this] or maybe [that]. Maybe ... or maybe ... [etc, etc., etc., ad infinitum]. Who knows? Nobody. Who cares? Nobody.

You continued: "Then since David didn't say it because it is not in the Bible, then, other beliefs like Mary's assuption into heaven, her conception being also miraculous, Jesus falling 3 times, a woman named Veronica, Anna and [Joachim] being the parents of Mary, ... which are not in the Bible then didn't exist, since they are not in the Bible. Get it?"

What I "get" is that you are trying to undermine our Catholic faith -- just as your own was undermined. [I call it, "Misery loves company."]
What I "get" too is that you are mixing apples and oranges.
On the one hand, you are inventing or imagining -- out of your own mind -- some barely possible saying of David (that he may have referred to God as his "satan" [adversary]). That idea came from you, not having been revealed by God, nor having been passed down from the first Christians.
But on the other hand, we learn two of the things you listed as part of oral/unwritten Divine Revelation (and the others as ancient, probably reliable, stories). They did not come from our own heads in the 21st century (as your David/satan idea came from your head), but were passed down by word of mouth from the first Christian century (and later set to writing by the early Church Fathers)

I hope you can see the major difference!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.

May Yahweh bless you ,too, John G.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 03, 2003.

Alas, you struggle with the same question which has dragged many an otherwise Christian soul into the ungodly pit of predestination. In fact, a perfect God could not prevent the reality of hell, for a perfect God is a perfectly loving God, and a perfectly loving Creator would not create people who are mere automatons, amoral robots without the ability to love and hate, choose and reject. What would be the ;point of that? How would that express the perfect love of a perfect God? A perfect God would, and did, create us in His own image and likeness, with moral capacity and free will. A perfect lover does not force Himself upon the object of His love, but offers Himself freely, allowing His beloved to choose Him, or reject Him. Only a perfect God could create in such an astonishingly magnanimous manner. And having expressed His perfect love for each of us by presenting us with such an unimaginable gift, it is then obviously necessary that a place exist for those who choose to refuse the gift. The only alternative would be to force the gift on all, in which case it would not be a gift at all, and we would be reduced to pitiful creatures without moral capicity or free choice. Since the gift He offers is eternity in His presence, rejection of the gift necessarily means eternal separation from Him. And since He is the source of all that is good and loving and wholesome and true, complete separation from Him necessarily means an existence dominated by all that is evil, hateful, loathesome, and false.

God gave each and every person free will, to choose eternal peace and joy, or to reject it. God does not see each person's ultimate choice "before he makes it". That is thinking in temporal and linear fashion, which is how human beings normally think. But God exists outside of time itself. For Him there is no such thing as "before and after". He knows each person's ultimate destiny because He has already seen each person making all the free choices of his or her life - each person who has ever existed, now exists, or ever will exist (from our temporal perspective) is eternally present to God.

Cruel, you say? If I tell you I have a million dollars to give to you as a gift, free and clear, if you will just come over to my house and pick it up, but you DECIDE not to do so, does the fact that you end up homeless and starving somehow make me cruel??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

Hi jesus (heh-soos).

It seems to me that you are forgetting that genuinely evil people walk the earth. What do you suppose shall happen to these people who commit evil deeds to others, especially when these evil people never repent?

rod.. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 22, 2003.

HI jesus.

I believe John thinks that you call yourself "jesus", which left me wondering about your "name". I am taking it for granted that your name is a spanish name "Jesus" given to you at birth. Yes or no?

rod.. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 22, 2003.

Dear jesus,

Your choice in society is "choose to obey the law or choose to ignore the law and go to jail". Why would it be different where God's law is concerned? However, where God's law is concerned, the decision is far more crucial, first because what we stand to gain or lose is infinitely greater than anything available to us on earth, and secondly because the result of our choice will be eternal, not a mere "life sentence".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 22, 2003.

Actually, I find your idea of God's "mercy and love" very hard to take.

So God creates perfect beings and plans to give them an eternity of happiness, but before that, just for fun, he puts them on earth to "fight it out."

The only ones left in pain are the ones still alive.

Sort of like cock-fighting, isn't it? Or bear-baiting? In other words, do whatever you can to get ahead in this life, because suffering is a waste of time; God's gonna scoop you out of the mess you make and bring you to live in happiness with all those you've tortured on earth...

No, I'd rather believe that life on earth is a test, and that you can either pass or fail, and that God gives everyone the ability (grace) to pass.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 01, 2003.

Hi Jesus.

So, then by your belief, Satan is really in Heaven and not in hell because he understands the whole picture and knows why God does what He does. And, we who are weaker in mind and spirit will overcome any temptations and will ourselves to a place in Heaven. So, if Satan is really in Heaven, evilness originates in man. Once man dies, the evilness leaves him instantly and man will be pure without sin. Logically, Satan has experienced the same thing. How can God create a soul that will suffer in Hell? Then, there must not be a Hell. Then, why have a Heaven at all? It would seem quite a waste of energy to create earth for no practical purpose at all. And, why create so many people at all? Why couldn't God simply create those He needed--perfect souls? Why even consider having a FREE WILL? Why even worship a god that you would not have a choice to worship, but only by default? Where is the perfection in an artificial existence?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2003.

Hi Jesus.

I'm not angry. I can see how my rapid fire questioning could be interpreted as an angry reply. Trust me. I'm not angry.

Those are questions that I hope you would have a chance to ask yourself. Perhaps you have, I don't know. All I'm trying to do is to stimulate our thoughts. Your thoughts are very thought provoking, so just allow me to add my own in the form of questions.

Angry? No, just trying to touch on all possibilities, if possible.

rod. . . ...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 08, 2003.

"life isn't a test"

Maybe not, but what about all of our trials and tribulations?

"Life is here for us to experience ourselves. For our soul to experience the pure joy of life."

Would this include how we react and interact with those experiences?

" Why a perfect entity would need to "test" us in such a clumbsy manner is ridiculous."

I thought, that because of our own FREE WILL, we make our own ordeals and suffering by sinning and disobeying God, not that God tempts us--He doesn't.

" How miniscule do you think this earth is in comparison to the greater scope of things, let alone our own universe."

What is the 'greater scope of things', if not us and our walk with God?

I think that you've answered your own questions or made your statements center around our purpose in life. We live on earth to interact with each other under God's teachings. We live to be more like Christ. Perhaps this is the 'greater scope of things'. God created us with a free will in order for us to choose to live and be with Him in Heaven. We can choose not to, then comes the trials and tribulations. Not that we won't have trials, but we will have God to show us the path. Without Him, we are basically lost. Had God created us without FREE WILL, then nothing would make any sense to me.

I'm not sure what you meant by "clumsy".

rod<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 08, 2003.

Hey, I'm not angry, either; it's just that the only way I can explain evil and suffering is by viewing life as a test.

The pure joy of life? What about children who starve? What about children who are aborted? What about children who suffer abuse all their lives?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 09, 2003.

Hi Catherine.

Yes, many people in the world are suffering. People around us are suffering. Hey, we are suffering. There are times when we can enjoy living and times when the suffering we witness can be overwhelming. There has to be a purpose for all that we experience. I don't think it is enough to observe, but to be part of our joy and sadness as people who make a difference. God knows what He is doing and we are all one in God. God is not "clumsy"; He is devine.

rod. . . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 09, 2003.

You see?

God is "divine", but I am "devine".

de-vine-once belonging to a vine; fallen from the fruit wagon.
Rod is devine and very much off his rocker.

This is what happens to bilingual thinking people--they get over-ripe.

rod. ... ...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 09, 2003.