Cohoon/Gary Debate on Satan

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach all power is from God and believing in a 
powerful fallen angel named "Satan" is having another god beside 
God.

AFFIRM: James Gary
DENY: Bobby Cohoon

I am a bit dismayed Mr. Cohoon that you have ignored my entire 
first affirmative that it is God that brings evil and curses 
according to His promises and it is not a fallen spiritual being 
that does it.  Is that not what you said happened to Job?  A 
fallen spiritual being cursed Job and brought him low?  What I 
have shown is that God is quite capable of doing His own "dirty 
work" and does not need any assistance to carry out His plan.  I 
mentioned the word "satan" no less than 15 times, the word 
"Devil" 3 times, the phrase "fallen spiritual being(s) or 
angel(s)" 13 times and demons 7 times. Yet you somehow think I 
have not fulfilled the requirements of my affirmative?

My first affirmative was dedicated to showing that it is God that 
has all power and it is He who brings calamity upon His people.  
Can you present Scriptures that show that a fallen spiritual 
being is what brings troubles on God's people?  I showed that 
ascribing the attributes of God to another was the same thing as 
giving God's glory to another.  If one gives God's glory to 
another one has made another god beside God.  I ask you sir, can 
one give God's glory to another without creating another god?

I am also dismayed that you have chosen to indict me by 
association and not by countering the Scriptures that I have 
presented. Your implications simply are not true and everything I 
have presented is from the Bible and not from some "cult" 
whatever that may be.  I am not now nor have I ever followed the 
Christadelphians.  They deny the Deity of Christ. I don't!  I am 
not now nor have I ever been a follwer of Lamsa.

I employed some of the Scriptures from his translation, not 
because I couldn't prove the same thing from the KJV, but because 
they were clearer.  What the Scriptures in his version actually 
said is in total harmony with the same Scriptures of the KJV 
which I also used in my denial of your affirmative. If I am wrong 
in what I present, I would think you could demonstrate just how 
that is without resorting to ad hominem assumption.

After all do not the followers of Satanism believe in a fallen 
spiritual being just as you do? I also could make accusation 
against the KJV  Bible, but what would it prove?  I can prove 
what I believe by the KJV alone.  I only used Lamsa because it 
was clear. The KJV also speaks of people with "devils" being 
lunatics (Mat 4:14; 17:15-18). Yet I see no benefit in 
associating you with such organizations or demeaning the Bible 
version you use simply to discredit what you present.

I am fully confident I can counter your belief per the Scriptures 
regardless of version. However, I will not turn anymore of my 
affirmative into a defense of myself against your charges by 
countering your false implications.  If you wish to ignore my 
efforts and rely on supposition for your denial, I care not, but 
I will continue to show how what is attributed to a fallen 
spiritual being is making another god beside God.

It seems that those who believe in a fallen spiritual being have 
a belief that is known as "Dualism." It requires a God of "good" 
and a god of "evil."  Of course they will tell you that their 
belief is not exactly Dualism because they believe this fallen 
angel being, known as "Satan" is under God's power.  But if God 
is capable of doing anything this supposed fallen spiritual being 
can, what need does God have for him?

I have found that apologists for "Satan" are quite willing to 
give God's glory to this fictitious being.  Besides giving God's 
power to a fallen spiritual being, they give God's promises for 
disobedience into the hands of this "creature" which I 
demonstrated in my last affirmative.  Please allow me to give you 
some other examples.

We're told that a fallen spiritual being is the "god of this 
world" and we're given 2 Cor 4:4 for the "proof."  But I ask 
you,  does that verse actually say a fallen spiritual being is 
the "god of this world?"  No, it doesn't!   Let's look at it 
please:

(2 Cor 4:4 KJV)  "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the 
minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious 
gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto 
them."

Does this say there is a God of this world?  Of course it does, 
but the question is, does that verse say the God of this world is 
a fallen spiritual being?  Of course it doesn't!  However if we 
let the Bible interpret the Bible we can see who the God of this 
world really is.  We see that God is the God of this world 
(Psalms 24:1; 50:7, 12).  We also see that it is God that blinds 
the minds of the unbelieving (2 Thes 2:11; Isa 29:10; 44:18).  Do 
we believe 2 Cor 4:1-4 is speaking of a fallen angel or do we 
believe the Bible that the attributes mentioned in that passage 
belong to God Almighty?  Do we make another god by giving God's 
attributes to a fictitious being?

Here's another example of a verse "Satan" apologists use as 
"evidence" for a fallen spiritual being.

(Eph 2:2 KJV)  "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the 
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the 
air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of 
disobedience:"

This verse says nothing of "satan", "the devil" or a fallen 
spiritual being.   What it says is that the people in Ephesus, to 
whom Paul was writing, had at one time been a part of the world 
or "children of disobedience."  It says they walked according to 
the prince of the power of the air.  Is the "prince of the power 
of the air" another title for a fallen archangel?  I don't think 
so. What is the power of the air?  Strong gives as a definition 
of the Greek word translated "ari" as "to breathe unconsciously, 
i.e. respire."  What does air give power to that respires?  The 
flesh!  And what causes the flesh of a godly person to do things 
he should not do and not do things he should?  The law of sin! 
Note that Paul said it wasn't he doing evil, but the sin that 
dwelled in his flesh (Rom 7:15-23). Not some fallen spiritual 
being.  So the law of sin in the flesh is the ruler or prince of 
the power (flesh) of the air (breath).

If we go to the next verse we have corroboration of this:
(Eph 2:3 KJV)  "Among whom also we all had our conversation in 
times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of 
the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of 
wrath, even as others."

And as for the word "spirit" in Eph 2:2 there are many kinds of 
evil spirits that are not fallen angels, but simply attitudes 
controlled by the ruler of the flesh (power of the air), the law 
of sin:

The spirit of divination (Acts 16:16), the spirit of bondage (Rom 
8:14-15), the spirit of slumber (Rom 11:8), the spirit of the 
world (1 Cor 2:11-12), the spirit of fear (2 Tim 1:7), the spirit 
of antichrist (1 John 4:2-3) and the spirit of error (1 John 
4:6).

Any of these would work in children of disobedience.  So I don't 
think Eph 2:2 proves a fallen spiritual "satan" at all.  Rather 
it proves that the "adversary" (satan) of man is his flesh.

But "Satan" apologists are quite ready to title to a fictitious 
fallen being as a god working disobedience in God's people. 
It's nothing more than having another god beside God.

Let's try this verse:

(Luke 10:18 KJV)  "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as 
lightning fall from heaven."

I have heard this verse given as "evidence" of a fallen spiritual 
"satan", but it generates several questions.  When Jesus made the 
statement in Luke 10:18, how do we know He was speaking of such a 
creature?  He made this statement immediately after He sent the 
70 disciples out to preach the Kingdom of God (Luke 10:1, 9, 11).

As I understand it, those who hold to a fallen spiritual "satan" 
contend that this "satan" fell long before man was created.  If 
that is what you believe, can you explain why Christ would have 
responded to the disciples' statement of "even the devils are 
subject unto us through thy name" (Luke 10:17), at least 
thousands of years after the fact?

And if Rev 12:7 is an explanation of Luke 10:18, can you explain 
why it was to the future of  Luke 10:18 (Rev 1:1) and after 
Christ had died?  Would this not conflict with "satan" being cast 
down to earth before man was created?

Please do allow me to elaborate on Luke 10:18.  If you will study 
what I am about to present, concerning this verse, I think you'll 
see something other than what you think you see now.

Even though the House of Judah, the remaining Israelites after 
the Diaspora, was entrenched in Talmudism (the oral forerunner of 
the written form of the Jewish "scriptures", the  Talmud, the 
Tradition of the Elders (Mat 15:1-2)) her priests, e.g., the 
Pharisees, still sat in the Law seat, which is the seat of Moses 
(Mat 23:2).  However Christ told these "lawyers" or the 
dispensers of the Law (Acts 15:21) that the Kingdom would be 
taken from them and given to a nation bearing the fruit of said 
Kingdom (Mat 21:23, 43).  These Jewish (Judahite or those of the 
House of Judah) leaders were considered by Christ to be, children 
of hell (Mat 23:15), serpents condemned to hell (Mat 23:33), 
hypocrites (Mat 23: 13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29) and dead on the inside 
(Mat 23:27).  They were Christ's adversaries.  They were the ones 
that had Christ put to death (Mat 27:1-2, 25; 1 Thes 2:14-15).

They were the ones that were given the responsibility for 
fulfilling the Covenant God made with Israel after the House of 
Israel had been divorced (Rom 3:1-2).  They were the "humans" 
that ruled the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:21).  However Christ said 
the Kingdom would be taken from them and given to a nation 
bearing the fruits a Kingdom of God (Mat 21:43).  So when the Old 
Covenant (OC) passed away, the Jews no longer were in this 
position.  And the OC passed away when Christ sent out His 
seventy disciples  telling them to "harvest" His people (Luke 10: 
1-2).  He told them to heal the sick and to tell them that the 
Kingdom of God had come unto them (Luke 10:11).   When the 
seventy returned from their mission, they said,  "Lord, even the 
devils are subject to us in your name " (Luke 10:17).  And that's 
when Christ said He saw "satan", the adversary (see Young's 
Literal Translation of Luke 10:18) fall from "heaven."  In other 
words, His adversary, the Judahites that taught Talmudism had now 
been removed from their "heavenly" Position (Eph 2:6) of being in 
Moses' seat.  In other words, the Old Covernant had now passed 
away and the New Covenant was in full effect.

But "Satan" apologists would ignore the true implications of this 
verse and create a god out of a fictitious fallen spiritual 
being.

Here's another verse that demonstrates my point:

(Mat 4:8-9 KJV)  "Again, the devil taketh him up into an 
exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the 
world, and the glory of them; {9} And saith unto him, All these 
things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

In the above verse "Satan" apologists would have us believe that 
Christ does not know the Scriptures.  But since He was quoting 
Scripture in His temptation why wouldn't He know about Ex 19:5; 
9:29; Deut 10:14; 1 Chron 29:12; Dan 2:21; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21; 
Job 12:18-21; Job 41:11;  Psa 24:1; 59:13; 75:7; 93:1; 96:10; 
97:1; 99:1; 103:19; 145:13 or 1 Cor 10:26-28 which clearly tells 
us that it is God that owns all things and rules in the kingdoms 
of men and gives it to whomever He pleases?

But that's not what the "Satan" apologists say.  They say it's a 
fallen spiritual being that does that.  They pooh pooh the idea 
that Christ had to fight with His flesh to overcome as all flesh 
and blood people do, all the while agreeing He was tempted in all 
points of the flesh as other people.

It seems they can overlook the myriad of Scripture that says God, 
not a fallen spiritual being gives the Kingdoms of men to whom He 
will, but they can't believe Christ had to struggle to overcome 
His own flesh.  If He wasn't tempted by His own flesh how could 
He overcome His flesh?  What kind of temptation would it be for 
Christ to believe a fallen spiritual being could give Him 
kingdoms he doesn't have to give?  The "Satan" apologists make a 
god out of a fictitious fallen spiritual being in place of God in 
this instance.

"Satan" apologists like to use the next three verses to "prove" 
that a fallen spiritual being exists:

John 12:31, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the 
prince of this world be cast out."

John 14:30, "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the 
prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."

John 16:11, "Of judgment, because the prince of this world is 
judged."

"Satan" apologists say that the word "prince in the previous 
three verses is the same word used in Mat 12:24-27 when speaking 
of Beelzebub.  So?  It's also the same word used in Luke 12:58 
when speaking of "human" judges, Pharisees (Luke 14:1), secular 
rulers (Jon 12:42) and Nicodemus (John 3:1).

The term "prince of this world" has nothing to do with a fallen 
spiritual being.  If the "prince of this world" is a fallen 
spiritual being who is still with us in this world, how could he 
be cast out then?  Why wouldn't Christ be able to talk much 
because the prince of this world is coming?  If a fallen 
spiritual being was to be cast out in John 12:31, does John 14:30 
mean he didn't stay cast out, but was coming back?  I don't think 
so!  However what if the "ruler of this world" were the 
Pharisaical Levites who sat in Moses' seat (Mat 23:2)?  This 
would easily fit all three of the verses when a fallen spiritual 
being will not.  They would be cast out of Moses' seat and the 
Kingdom taken from them and given to the newly reconstituted 
House of Israel (Mat 21:43).  They would cut Christ's words short 
because they would come to crucify Him (Mat 26:47-57).  And they 
were judged because the Kingdom was taken from them and given to 
another (Luke 10:18).

But, even though there is no mention of a fallen spiritual being 
or the words "Satan" or "Devil", "Satan" apologists just simply, 
without Scriptural support make these verses apply to a non-
existent being and thereby create another god for people to fear 
in lieu of God (1 Sam 12:24).

One of the most famous verses "Satan" apologists use is John 
8:44:

(John 8:44 KJV)  "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts 
of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, 
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. 
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, 
and the father of it."

Without ever showing us how the phrases "the devil" refers to a 
fallen spiritual being "Satan" apologists simply tell us this is 
about a non-existent creature formerly named "Lucifer" but now 
named "Satan" who was cast out of heaven to the earth, even 
though the Bible never shows us where such an event happened.

So what is John 8:44 really saying? Does Christ say that the 
Jews, to whom He's speaking are the children of a fallen 
spiritual being?   Does He actually say that?  No!  If we take 
that verse in its context we can see that Christ was not speaking 
of a physical father, but of one whom they obeyed.  Let us 
analyze what is actually being said shall we?

Verse 31 - We find Christ telling Jews that believed on Him, if 
they "continued" (remained, which means they were already in), in 
His Word they are His disciples.

Question - Do you believe people whose father is a spiritual 
fallen being can be disciples of Christ?  If not, was Christ 
lying?

Verse 32 - Christ says if they do remain in His Word they will be 
set free because they will have the truth.

Question - Was Christ just playing a mind game here or did He 
truly mean these Jews need to be set free of something?  Was 
Christ telling people whose father was a spiritual fallen angel 
they could have Him since He is the truth (John 14:6)?

Verse 33 - The Jews say they are Abraham's seed and express their 
lack of comprehension of what Christ meant via their saying they 
have never been in bondage to any man.  In so many words, they 
are saying, "we are not in bondage to anyone so how can you make 
us free?

Question - Do you believe children of a spiritual fallen would 
say they were never in captivity to any man? Was this bondage in 
the past or the present?

Verse 34 - Christ tells them they are not in bondage to a man, 
but sin.  At this point we can see that now the subject is not a 
physical thing, e.g., lineage, but a spiritual thing.

Question - Why would Christ tell them they were in bondage to sin 
since sin is the breaking of God's Law (1 John 3:4)?

Verse 35 - Christ tells these Jews that the slave to sin does not 
remain in the house forever, but He does.

Question -  Is not Christ saying, in so many words these Jews are 
in a house, whatever that is, with Him at least for now, but not 
for always if they continue to sin?  What "house" is Christ 
speaking of here?  What house will Christ and those whose 
Shepherd is the "Lord" abide or dwell in forever?  Have children 
of a fallen spiritual being ever been in such a house with 
Christ?

Verse 36 - Christ says if He makes these Jews free, they truly 
will be free.

Question - If these Jews are the children of a fallen spiritual 
being why is Christ stressing their believing in Him so they 
might be free?

Verse 37 - Christ acknowledges these Jews are the seed of 
Abraham, but because they don't have the truth, they want to kill 
Him.

Question - Did not Christ tell these Jews in verses 31 & 32 that 
if they continued doing what they were doing, that is believing 
in Him they would have truth?

Verse 38 - Christ says He speaks of works He has seen with His 
Father (God) and these Jews do the works they have seen with 
their father (god). At this point Christ is speaking of His God 
and their god.  He is not speaking of a physical father but, who 
they serve.  He serves God and they serve their god.  As the 
Spiritual Father of righteousness is God, the "spiritual" father 
of unrighteousness is sin.  The Bible tells us that one is slave 
to what they serve, either sin unto death or obedience unto 
righteousness (Rom 6:16).  As Christ had told these Jews, they 
were slaves to sin (John 8:34).

Question -  Do you disagree that Christ said these Jews were 
sinners?

Verse 39 - Of course the Jews cannot grasp this and thinking 
Christ is still speaking of their physical father, say, again 
Abraham is their father.  But Christ having said they did the 
works of their father shows them He is not speaking of their 
physical father by telling them if Abraham was who they served 
spiritually they would be doing his works.  Abraham kept the Law 
of God (Gen 26:5).  Since Christ told these Jews they were 
sinners, then they could not be doing the works of Abraham 
because they were sinners or Law-breakers since sin is the 
breaking of God's Law.

Question - Can one be slave to a descendant that's been long dead 
before ones great-great-great grandfather was born? If not how 
could these Jews be slaves to Abraham when he was no longer 
alive? Please remember the context of verse 39.

Verse 40 - Christ then tells these Jews they want to kill Him 
because He has told them the same truth He told Abraham that He 
heard from His Father God and Abraham didn't want to kill Him.

Question - If Christ was not sent to anyone except Israel (Mat 
15:24), why is He giving truth to children of a fallen spiritual 
being?

Verse 41 - Christ again tells these Jews they do the deeds of 
their father.  With this statement the Jews' gray matter kicks in 
and they realize Christ is not speaking of their physical father, 
but their "spiritual" father.  Understanding this, they then say 
God is their >>>only<<< Father.

Question - Why did the Jews change their response to Christ's 
statement about who their father is from Abraham to God if their 
physical lineage was the subject?  Why now would God be their 
only father?  What happened to Abraham?

Verse 42 - Christ then tells them they would love Him if their 
spiritual father was God.

Question - Is Christ speaking of a physical lineage here?

Verse 43 - Christ tells these Jews they cannot understand what 
He's saying because they do not hear His Word.

Question - Could it be the reason there's so much confusion on 
these very verses that the same quandary exists today?

Verse 44 - Christ goes on to tell them why they cannot hear His 
Word.  He says their "spiritual" father is "the devil" or false 
accuser and they do the lusts of their "spiritual" father which 
has been a murderer and a liar from "his" forming.

Question - Does not the Bible say "lusts", lies, false 
accusations and murders come from within a person (Mat 15:18-
20)?  If so, then the "father" of these Jews must have been their 
flesh.

Christ told these Jews that their physical father was Abraham and 
their "spiritual" father was "the false accuser" or the flesh. 
Thus the reason for Christ saying Both Abraham and "the devil" 
were their fathers.  One physical, the other "spiritual".

Yet the "Satan" apologists have made another god to control evil 
and to be in competition with God.

(2 Cor 11:14-15 KJV)  "And no marvel; for Satan himself is 
transformed into an angel of light. {15} Therefore it is no great 
thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of 
righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

As shown by Young's Literal Translation of the Bible the word 
"satan" is properly translated as "the adversary" and the word 
"angel" is properly translated as "messenger."  So properly read, 
2 Cor 11:14 says "the adversary disguises himself as a messenger 
of light."  What did Judaism do?  It disguised itself as an the 
representative or messenger of God (John 8:41) Who is light (Isa 
60:19)!

Now I ask you, would Judaism, not only today, but in Christ's day 
be an adversary of God and true Christianity in that it denies 
our God?  Did they pretend to be representatives of God?  Were 
the false ministers of Judaism, e.g., Barjesus (Acts 13:6-8) 
ministers of this adversary or "satan?"  Can you honestly answer 
no to any of those questions?  If not, then can it not be said 
that 2 Cor 14:13-15 can be about the establishment of Judaism and 
its followers?

To keep this post from growing too enormous I will touch upon 
just one more "proof" of the "Satan" apologists used to "prove" 
there is a fallen spiritual being.

(Jude 1:9 KJV)  "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with 
the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring 
against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke 
thee."

Do we see anything here that says this "devil" is a fallen 
spiritual being?  No!  But what we have here is Jude speaking of 
the event in Zech 3:1-2:

(Zec 3:1-2 KJV)  "And he showed me Joshua the high priest 
standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his 
right hand to resist him. {2} And the LORD said unto Satan, The 
LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen 
Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the 
fire?"

Again does this verse say this "adversary" or "satan" is a fallen 
spiritual being?  Of course it does not.  One has to take for 
granted the word "Satan" is the same thing as a fallen spiritual 
being, but it can't proven.  But is this what this "Satan" in 
Zech 3 is?  No!  What is the context of this passage?  It's about 
the salvation of God's people (Zech 2:8-13).

However there is an "adversary" that stands between God's people 
and Him?  Is it a fallen spiritual being?  No!  Zech 3:3 tells us 
what that adversary is:

(Zec 3:3 KJV)  "Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and 
stood before the angel."

It is "filthy garments!"  What are "filthy garments?"  They are 
sins (Isa 64:6).

What does the Angel of the Lord tell God's people to do in order 
to overcome this adversary?  He tells God's people that He will 
change their clothes (Zech 3:4).

The remainder of Zech 3 shows how God will remove the iniquity or 
sin of His people through Christ (the Branch).

So the "adversary" here is the flesh where the law of sin resides 
(Rom 7:23).  But "Satan" apologists, without foundation say this 
"adversary" is a fallen spiritual being and make another god 
beside God.

This concludes my second affirmative.

Thanks,
James Gary