Jump to content


Photo

Satan And Demons


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
183 replies to this topic

#1 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:56 AM

This paper is a reply to Sir Anthony Buzzard’s challenge to Christadelphians, the article entitled ‘Satan – The Personal Devil’.

For the sake of convenience, Buzzard’s arguments are listed under separate headings, and the text of his article which presents each argument is to be found here under those headings.

This means that the text of Buzzard’s article is not presented here in the order in which it originally appears in the article – it is presented thematically, in order for the reader to identify conveniently the arguments Buzzard has made, and read the response to each one of them.

The following is a list of the headings under which Buzzard’s arguments have been grouped:
  • The Alleged Novelty Of The Christadelphian Interpretation: Buzzard argues that the absence of the Christadelphian interpretation of satan and demons from Christian exposition of the past 1,800 years is evidence that it should be considered suspect.

  • ‘The’ Satan Cannot Be ‘A’ Satan: Buzzard argues that the repeated use of the definite article to identify the satan, or the devil, is evidence that the Christadelphian interpretation of these words as referring to generic identities (an adversary, a devil), is both bad grammar and bad exposition.

  • Christadelphians Divided Over Satan: Buzzard argues that the divided opinion among Christadelphians as to the identity of the satan in the record of the wilderness temptation of Christ, is evidence our community is struggling to find a way to insert into the text an interpretation which is contrary to it, in order to avoid the conclusion that a supernatural being of evil is involved.

  • The Temptation In The Wilderness: Buzzard argues that the Biblical record of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness not only remains a problem unsolvable by Christadelphian expositors, but explicitly contradicts the Christadelphian interpretations, and that the most natural reading is that Christ was tempted by a supernatural being of evil.

  • Satan In The Old Testament: Buzzard argues that the Old Testament bears witness to an external satan which cannot be reconciled with Christadelphian interpretations, but which must be a supernatural being of evil.

  • Satan As A Fallen Angel: Buzzard argues that the Bible identifies satan clearly as a fallen angel, thus contradicting the Christadelphian understanding of satan.

  • New Testament Teaching On Demons: Buzzard argues that the New Testament (especially the gospel records), speaks of demons using language which cannot be reconciled with the Christadelphian interpretation, unless it is to be assumed that both Christ and the New Testament authors were practicing a deliberate deceit on their readers.


#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:56 AM

Buzzard’s article is long – consisting of some 18 A4 pages – including many quotes from commentators who share his views, as well as quotes from Christadelphian works he criticizes.

In order to ensure that this response is kept to a reasonable size, Buzzard’s original article is not quoted here in full. Since Buzzard frequently repeats his arguments, and often quotes from commentators who offer no arguments different to those which he has already presented, only his arguments have been reproduced here, not the entire text of his article.

It was not considered necessary to repeat every one of Buzzard’s quotations from commentators who agree with him, but where Buzzard has borrowed an argument from a commentator by quoting him in order to articulate or expand his own arguments, these quotations have been included and replied to.

The reader may be assured, however, that although Buzzard’s entire article is not presented here, every one of the arguments in it most definitely is. Those wishing to view Buzzard’s complete article will find it online here:

http://www.mindsprin...zzard/satan.htm

Passages of Scripture are quoted from the NRSV unless noted otherwise, and the emphasis in bold found in a number of quotations from both Scripture and other writings, has been added.

#3 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:57 AM

The Alleged Novelty Of The Christadelphian Interpretation
  • Argument: Buzzard argues that the almost complete absence of the Christadelphian interpretation of satan and demons from Bible exposition of the past 1,800 years is evidence that it should be considered suspect.

  • Reply: Buzzard’s claim is proved false by the witness of a number of Christian expositors who held the same understanding as the Christadelphians, up to almost 300 years before Brother Thomas. In addition, the Christadelphian understanding is found among some of the earliest Jewish expositors, pre-dating Brother Thomas by over 1,600 years.
Buzzard writes:

‘Alan Eyre's informative book, The Protesters, traces the fascinating history of those who through the centuries have shared the "unorthodox" beliefs of the Christadelphians and groups such as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. These tenets include the firm belief in the future millennial reign of Christ on earth, in the mortal soul, in One God, the rejection of the Trinity, and the refusal to take part in war. It is however very remarkable that Eyre was able to find only two references to the extraordinary belief that Satan in the Bible refers to the evil in human nature, and not to a personal being.

[…]         

It would also be fair to ask them [Christadelphians] to produce some evidence of this belief having been seriously entertained by anyone other than those who came under the influence of John Thomas and Robert Roberts.’


Research by Brother Steve Snobelen has produced the evidence requested by Buzzard.

Men who rejected the concept of Satan or the Devil as a literal supernatural agent of evil, include the following:
  • 1651: Thomas Hobbes
  • 1695: Balthassar Bekker
  • 1727: Sir Isaac Newton
  • 1761: Hugh Farmer (at least in the account of Christ’s temptation)
  • 1791: William Ashdowne
  • 1804: John Simpson
  • 1842: John Epps


#4 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:58 AM

Men who rejected the concept of demons as literal supernatural agents of evil (arguing instead that they were physical sicknesses and illnesses), include the following:
  • 1651: Thomas Hobbes
  • 1695: Balthassar Bekker
  • 1727: Sir Isaac Newton
  • 1737: Arthur Sykes
  • 1742: Nathaniel Lardner
  • 1755: Richard Meade
  • 1804: John Simpson
  • 1842: John Epps


#5 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:58 AM

A full copy of Brother Snobelen's research is found in Appendix A. It is unlikely that any of these men ‘came under the influence of John Thomas and Robert Roberts’.

This same research was presented directly to Buzzard by Brother Snobelen during an email debate of the issue of satan, but no mention of it is to be found in Buzzard's article.

Though Buzzard’s article was most likely written prior to the email discussion, it would have been appropriate for Buzzard to have at least updated his article on receipt of this information, to qualify the absolute claims he makes in it which have now been demonstrated inaccurate.

#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:58 AM

Buzzard writes:

‘It is a fact that the believer in the non-personality of Satan must hold that belief against practically all of his brethren who share with him a rejection of traditional dogmas. The works of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, spokesmen for the Church in the second century, show no Trinitarianism in the later, Chalcedonian sense (though they do not retain belief in the fully human Messiah of the New Testament); they contain no belief in the survival of the soul in heaven after death, nor in eternal hell-fire; they are also strongly millenarian.

The notion that Satan is not a personal being, however, is utterly foreign to their writings. This will mean that Irenaeus, the "grand pupil" of John the Apostle, through Polycarp, had gone badly astray on this major point: the proper understanding of Satan. Is such a proposition credible?’


The proposition is equally credible with the proposition that these same men were astray in that 'they do not retain belief in the fully human Messiah of the New Testament'.

Buzzard finds no difficulties in understanding that these men could have 'gone badly astray' with regard to a fundamental doctrine of the gospel (without which it becomes meaningless), but unprepared to believe that they could have gone astray with regard to their understanding of satan and the devil.

#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:59 AM

This is curious enough, but becomes even more so given that Buzzard must surely be aware that the reason for their going astray on the subject of the devil is the same as the reason for their going astray on the nature of Christ. To the Greek mind, locked into the superstition of multiple divine beings and supernatural agents of evil, even the very concept of monotheism was a struggle, as we know not only from the writings of the early Greek Christians, but also from the witness of Scripture itself.

Several examples from Acts will help to demonstrate the extent of this superstition among the Greeks, whilst also providing a number of compelling arguments against Buzzard's overall case:
  • In Acts 14:11, Luke records the incident in which both Paul and Barnabas were mistaken by the local people for gods, on account of Paul's miraculous healing of the lame man

  • In Acts 17:18, Luke records the incident of Paul's preaching at Athens, on which occasion when he taught of Christ and the resurrection he was understood by some to be teaching people about new demon

  • In Acts 28:6, Luke records the incident in which Paul (bitten by a poisonous snake), shakes it off and miraculously comes to no harm, by reason of which the local people conclude he is a god

Not only do these examples demonstrate the extent to which the Greek mind was possessed by superstition, they also stand as a powerful witness against the arguments of Buzzard.

#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:59 AM

The first and third incidents (Acts 14:11, 28:6) both show the difficulty which the Greek mind had in comprehending that a man could wield Divine power and authority without being, himself, Divine:

Acts 14:
8  In Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet and had never walked, for he had been crippled from birth.
9  He listened to Paul as he was speaking. And Paul, looking at him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed,
10  said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And the man sprang up and began to walk.
11  When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!
12  Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.
13  The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates; he and the crowds wanted to offer sacrifice.

Acts 28:
3  Paul had gathered a bundle of brushwood and was putting it on the fire, when a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand.
4  When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “his man must be a murderer; though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live.”
5  He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
6  They were expecting him to swell up or drop dead, but after they had waited a long time and saw that nothing unusual had happened to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.


To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable.

Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf.

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:59 AM

Buzzard is well aware that this error of attributing Divinity to men empowered by God was a major contributing factor to the Early Fathers' failing to 'retain belief in the fully human Messiah of the New Testament'. He rightly rejects this error with regard to Christ.

But incredibly, Buzzard then falls into the trap of this very error when he comes to discuss the identity of satan. He asks how it could be possible for an ordinary mortal man to wield the power attributed to satan in Job - causing natural disasters, and striking Job with sickness.

The answer, very simply, is in the text itself - satan seeks delegated authority from God, and it is God Himself whom Job, his wife, his three friends, his relatives and acquaintances all identify as the true source of Job's afflictions.

Nowhere in the entire book is there any suggestion of belief in a supernatural agent of evil, and Buzzard's acknowledgement that even Job's satan must seek authorisation from God in order to act undermines completely his argument that the text is showing us a satan possessing undelegated power which is independent from God's own. We shall return to this point later.

#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:00 AM

Buzzard is well aware that many Christians today commit the same superstitious error as the Greeks - attributing Divinity to Christ on account of his exercise of Divine powers and authority - and rightly rejects it as an argument for the doctrine that Christ is God.

But his own use of the same error in his attempt to argue that the satan of Job must necessarily be a supernatural agent of evil is equally flawed, and demonstrates a serious inconsistency in his reasoning.

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:00 AM

The second incident in the list (Acts 17:18, in which Paul, preaching in Athens, is understood by some of his audience to be teaching of new demons), is a New Testament 'demon' passage of such importance to the issue under discussion that it is incredible that Buzzard has failed completely to address it.

Acts 17:
18  Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities [Greek ‘demons’].” (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.)


The word commonly translated 'gods' here is the Greek word daimonia, meaning demons. Other translations make this clear:

Rotherham:

18  But, certain both of the Epicurean and of the Stoic philosophers, were encountering him; and some were saying—What might this picker-up-of-scraps wish to be saying?
And, others—Of foreign demons, he seemeth to be a declarer: because, of Jesus and the Resurrection, he was announcing the joyful tidings.

Darby (1890):

18  But some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers attacked him. And some said, What would this chatterer say? and some, He seems to be an announcer of foreign demons, because he announced the glad tidings of Jesus and the resurrection to them.

Young’s Literal:

18  And certain of the Epicurean and of the Stoic philosophers, were meeting together to see him, and some were saying, ‘What would this seed picker wish to say?’ and others, ‘Of strange demons he doth seem to be an announcer;’ because Jesus and the rising again he did proclaim to them as good news,


Given that Paul was preaching the gospel concerning Christ and the resurrection, how is it possible that some thought he was teaching of demons?

The answer is that for the 1st century Jew and pagan, a demon was not the powerful, supernatural, but non-Divine being of evil in which so many Christians today believe – a demon was none other than a god. The Early Christian Fathers are a witness to this fact (see Appendix B), and we see further evidence of it here in Acts 17:18.

#12 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:00 AM

When Paul taught of Christ and the resurrection, certain of the Athenians interpreted his message as a doctrine of new gods. This is noted by a number of standard Bible commentaries:

‘A setter forth of strange gods - Ξενων δαιμονιων

Of strange or foreign demons
. That this was strictly forbidden, both at Rome and Athens, see on Act_16:21 (note).
There was a difference, in the heathen theology, between θεος, god, and δαιμων, demon: the θεοι, were such as were gods by nature: the δαιμονια, were men who were deified.

This distinction seems to be in the mind of these philosophers when they said that the apostles seemed to be setters forth of strange demons, because they preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards raised to the throne of God. This would appear to them tantamount with the deification of heroes, etc., who had been thus honored for their especial services to mankind.

Horace expresses this in two lines, 2 Epist. i. 5: -

Romulus, et Liber pater, et cum Castore Pollux,
Post ingentia facta, deorum in templa recepti.

“Romulus, father Bacchus, with Castor and Pollux, for their eminent services, have been received into the temples of the gods.”’

Adam Clarke, ‘Commentary On the Bible’, note on Acts 17:18, 1813



‘Of strange gods. Of foreign gods, or demons. They worshipped many gods themselves; and as they believed that every country had its own peculiar divinities, they supposed that Paul had come to announce the existence of some such foreign, and to them unknown divinities.

The word translated gods daimoniwn, denotes, properly, the genii, or spirits who were superior to men, but inferior to the gods. It is, however, often employed to denote the gods themselves; and is evidently so used here. The gods among the Greeks were such as were supposed to have that rank by nature. The demons were such as had been exalted to divinity from being heroes and distinguished men.’

Albert Barnes, ‘New Testament Notes’, note on Acts 17:18, 1851



‘The meaning of this phrase is not clear. Literally it reads “strange deities” (see BDAG 210 s.v. daimovnion 1). The note of not being customary is important. In the ancient world what was new was suspicious. The plural daimonivwn (daimoniwn, “deities”) shows the audience grappling with Paul’s teaching that God was working through Jesus.’

The ‘New English Translation’, footnote on Acts 17:18, 2003


We have noted previously the difficulties encountered by the superstitious Greeks when confronted with the teaching regarding a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf.

To the Greeks, such a 'man' would be no man but a god. The footnote from the NET is especially significant here, demonstrating what we have already argued – that the Greeks experienced great difficulty in comprehending that Christ could wield such power and authority as the apostles taught, without himself being a Divine being. As the footnote says, they were ‘grappling with Paul’s teaching that God was working through Jesus’.

#13 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:01 AM

A few verses later, Paul describes the men of Athens using a Greek word which again shows that the word for ‘demons’ was understood to refer to gods:

Acts 17:
When Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way.


The Greek word here translated ‘extremely religious’ is in fact a compound word meaning ‘demon-fearing’. The well known Greek grammarian A T Robertson (quoted with great approval by Buzzard in his own article), comments in this way on the word:

deisidaimwn is a neutral word (from deidw, to fear, and daimwn, deity).
The Greeks used it either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious.

A T Robertson, ’New Testament Word Pictures’, note on Acts 17:22



#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:02 AM

The same understanding is presented by the 19th century Baptist minister Edward Elliott:

'In the New Testament the word daimonia is similarly used in this sense.

First, it is used as a simple designative of the imaginary heathen god.  So in the narrative of St. Paul's visit to Athens, Acts xvii. 18, 22, by the Athenians directly; " He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange daimonia, or gods;" xenwn daimwniwn: also impliedly by St. Paul ; "I see that ye are deisidaimonesteroi , very much given to worshipping daimonia, demons, heathen gods."

His comment on which, as well as on the idol-inscription he had seen, is not to be forgotten; "Him, whom ye ignorantly worship, [God, not the daemon,] declare I unto you."

The same, I believe with Dr. Campbell, is the meaning of the term in 1 Cor. x. 20, 21 ; "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice daimonois, to daemons, and not to God." For by Corinthians, as by Athenians, such would, I conceive, be understood as the meaning of the word.

St. Paul's representation of the case of the heathen, so understood by them, would then precisely agree with that given in Deut. xxxii. 17, already commented on; and indeed with the Apostle's own notice of it at Athens.

Nor, as to his argument against intercommunion in respect of things offered to heathen gods, would it be rendered nugatory by this view of them as mere idol vanities; any more than in the appeal made elsewhere in the epistle, "What communion hath the temple of God with (not a devil but) an idol?" 2 Cor. vi. 16.

There is certainly no necessity here for the sense of devil, so as Dr. Maitland would have it, on this ground.

And indeed Dr. C.'s remark seems unanswerable: - that the heathen could not be said to have sacrificed to devilish satanic spirit, either abstractedly considered, or in respect of intention; seeing they had not even a notion of the Devil, or Satan, of Holy Scripture.'

Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume II, pages 500-1, 5th edition, 1862


Elliott’s study on demons is very useful to our examination of the subject, and more of it can be found in Appendix C.

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:02 AM

Importantly, we can see from Acts 17:18, 22 that to the 1st century Greek mind a demon was in fact a god. Later we shall see Scriptural evidence for the fact that the same definition was held among the Jews, since it had been taught consistently by the Old Testament.

The significance of this is immense. We now see that Buzzard's belief in the demons of contemporary Christian thought constitutes a belief in what Scripture identifies clearly as the gods of the pagans.

It is for Buzzard to explain to us why he wishes us to convert to a belief in the gods of the pagans which Scripture insists in so many places:

  • Are false gods

  • Are not to be acknowledged by true believers (to do so is idolatry)

  • Do not exist


#16 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:02 AM

Of course Buzzard does not himself actually believe in the gods of the pagans, for he is a strict monotheist. His definition of demons identifies them as them as powerful supernatural agents of evil, but not as Divine beings, and certainly not as gods. In fact, Buzzard holds to the belief that the demons of Scripture are fallen angels, under the command of the chief of the fallen angels, satan.

But this does not change the fact that Buzzard’s views contradict clear Scriptural teaching on this matter. It is not enough for Buzzard to appeal to a definition of demons which supports his idea – especially where the definition to which he appeals contradicts the definition found in the Bible.

By doing so, he repeats the error of those trinitarians who agree wholeheartedly that God is one (but who appeal to an unBiblical definition of ‘one’ which actually means ‘three in one’), or those who worship dead ‘saints’ or who worship Mary the mother of Christ, under definitions of ‘worship’ which they believe avoid the Biblical charge of idolatry.

#17 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:03 AM

But attempting to excuse such behaviour by using definitions of these activities other than the definitions found in Scripture is hardly a valid practice, as Buzzard himself would readily acknowledge.

It must be said, however, that Buzzard’s own definition of demons is as entirely foreign to Scripture as are these.

The fact remains that according to the Biblical definition of demons, Buzzard is attempting to foster a belief in the gods of the pagans.

Buzzard’s attempts to redefine demons as fallen angels are futile if the Scriptural definition is acknowledged as true – and unless Buzzard’s definition is to be considered as superior to the Bible’s, then it is Buzzard’s definition which must give way.

#18 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:03 AM

Buzzard writes:

‘To say that the Trinity, in the popular sense, is not in the Bible is in fact only to say what numerous scholars admit. To proclaim the future millennial reign of Christ is to echo the opinions of the first 250 years of Christianity and of many noted theologians of all ages.

To deny the immortality of the soul is to align oneself with scores of scriptural experts from all denominations. To deny that the Satan (i.e. Satan as a proper name) is an external being in Scripture, is, however, virtually unknown in the history of exegesis.

Such a situation demands an explanation which will fit the facts of history as well as the facts of the Bible.’


We have already seen from Brother Steve Snobelen’s research that the understanding of satan and demons held by Christadelphians is far from ‘virtually unknown in the history of exegesis’.

It was also held by Christians who lived prior to the formation of our community by almost three centuries.

An additional weight of evidence against the idea that the Christadelphian understanding is unique (or almost unique), is to be found among the Jewish commentaries.

#19 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:03 AM

The following Jewish sources contain expositions of ‘satan’ or ‘Belial’ which hold to the same interpretation as Christadelphians:
  • Rabbi Jonathan Ben Uzziel’s paraphrase of Zechariah 3:1, in Targum Palestine (also known as Targum Jonathan), 1st century AD

  • Numerous passages in Talmud Babylon (an early collection of rabbinical commentaries), compiled from the 4th to 5th centuries AD

  • The interpretation of satan in Job 1:6 given by Saadia Ben Joseph, 892-942

  • The interpretation of the prompting of David to number the people in 2 Samuel 24:1 given by Rabbi David Kimchi, born 1160

  • The interpretation of the prompting of David to number the people in 2 Samuel 24:1 given by the medieval Jewish commentator Levi ben Gershon, 1280-1344


#20 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:04 AM

Specific Jewish witnesses include:
  • 100s AD: Rabbi Jonathan Ben Uzziel

  • 135-160: Rabbi Joshua Ben Kar’ha

  • 230-270: Rabbi Simeon Ben Lakish

  • 330-360: Rabbi Nachman Ben Isaac

  • 400s (?): Rabbi Judah (approving Nachman’s interpretation)

  • 892-942: Saadia Ben Joseph

  • 1160 (b): Rabbi David Kimchi

  • 1344 (d): Lay commentator Levi ben Gershon
Not only is this a significant list of independent witnesses to the antiquity of the Christadelphian interpretation, it is also remarkable for the fact that it is found consistently over so many centuries.

We shall now examine these witnesses individually, in chronological order. In the following examples a passage of Scripture will be quoted, and then the Jewish interpretation presented.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users