Satan attempted to force God to follow his will and was thus cast out? This is some really bizarre theology.
Besides, the whole fully God/fully human thing is never mentioned in the Bible and thus can hardly be used to explain Bible stories.
We are not explaining Bible stories in doing theology. We are replying to Bible questions based on theology. It is the expressions of concepts as portrayed in the Bible, if one is going by the strict definition of theology as: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world. : a system of religious beliefs or ideas.
Jesus being fully God and fully human is a theological stance. What Satan was or did, is a Gnostic/theological discussion. Perhaps my theology is not as complex and complete, but taking what the book of Genesis has on the topic, seems pretty straight forward. I realize that humans have debated the topic for about as long as humans have been recording history. Even the ancients used the term "gods". What they were addressing seems to have been lost to us. Recently humans have started to even think that Satan's rebellion has not even happened yet. The Bible refers to Satan as the Prince of the Earth, the Prince of the Air. It could even be that Satan has a Trinity himself, as a mirror to God. I suppose one could even point out that Satan is just a straw man, God uses to do battle against.
First of all Satan is given a reptilian "persona". A serpent in the Garden. A dragon "cast out". Unless one accepts the "reptilian" aspect in the evolution of species, Satan is not representative of the "human" aspect of earth. He would be the closest thing as an alien exiled to earth, and was given the position of Prince and power of the Air. Self claimed as the ruler of all the earth. He allegedly offered this position to Jesus, in the account in question. One other thing of point is the fact that a third of the stars followed after Satan. This seems to indicate there are other inhabited worlds and those created beings have decided to follow this Satan, and not God. The worship part comes in under Muslim theology. It is bizarre that God allegedly asked all the angels to worship this newly formed humanity. In fact it would seem that All of the "humanity" created on day six was the creation of all angels and humanity is actually all the earthly Sons of God, including all of Adam's offspring. Satan's rebellion was not against humans. It was against God, and the point that Satan wanted God to worship him, instead of Satan or any other created beings actually worshipping God. Satan even has the ability to appear as an angel of Light. God is the only source of Light, and the only actual physical form of God is pure light. If the goal of Satan is to replace God, and place himself in that position, then it would certainly indicate that Satan does not care to worship God, but that Satan is the one to be worshipped. Worship just being the fact that one is submitting their will to the will of another. I realize that "worship" can mean or refer to quite a host of ideas. However when it comes to God it is an involuntary act, that seems to undercut one's ability to act on their own volition. It is even stronger that obedience, as obedience is a willful act. As far as I know, there is no example of one obeying compulsively. Yes, the angels willingly obey God, but even Satan does not seem to be compelled to. Having no choice may be viewed as compulsory obedience, but we do seem to have the ability to discern between worship and obedience. At least those humans who have experienced a total loss of control.
I made no such claim, so I feel no need to argue about it. If you do, kindly leave me out of it.
Ok
I think the flow of acceptance is that gods are created beings that mirror God. God is not a created being. What is not clear is who or what are all created beings. Now if one thinks, that God is just a concept created by humans, that would tend to close down any discussion at all. Do all humans accept the relationship or even understand the phenomenon of Jesus and God? It is logical to point out that God cannot be tempted, but does that mean a being cannot tempt God, or the mere fact that such an attempt has no effect on God? When used in the Bible the "temptation" Of God is either trying to get God to go against a command that God gave, or to see if God will hold to a punishment stated. It is trying to get God to do something that is impossible for God to do, which in itself is a contradiction of terms. The whole story was not given to prove that Jesus was not God, but that Jesus was God. Not because God was being tempted, but that Jesus was being tempted, and Jesus was immune to temptation, even while going through an attempt by Satan. It is not logical to make a claim impossible. It is logical to show that it was a test that Jesus did pass, and show that he was God. Then there is the ethics of the law itself. Is God disobeying a law when not acting ethically from our perspective?
As for evolution being blind, is the point about being free to do what ever happens. One would not say that evolution is a law that has to be obeyed. But even biology is confined within the laws of physics. Evolution does not have a mind of it's own, but it is free from the constraint of following an only path. Neither does it make choices, but there are more choices given to evolution because that is the very nature of evolution. Even humans may be kidding themselves to try to gain control over evolution.
The debates were already done, a long time ago. The Council of Nicea went over all this, at a time when apocryphal Gnostic books were being written and this was pretty much exactly the topic under consideration. The product of Nicea was the New Testament. I prefer to look straight to God's word--not a bunch of men's discourse about it.
For someone who holds the Bible as Literal, why are you claiming The New Testament was the result of the Council of Nicaea? The council was human theology in action. It would be like scientist peer reviewing the latest dogma, and voting on it.
The New Testament was already there. Stating a canon is not the same thing as producing a written work.
