Satan more overzealous than evil says UCLA Historian - Satan is very misunderstood

[astro]

Interesting artcle via fark

What the Devil? Prince of Darkness Is Misunderstood, Says UCLA Professor (http://www.physorg.com/news75128924.html)

There's little or no evidence in the Bible for most of the characteristics and deeds commonly attributed to Satan," insists a UCLA professor with four decades in what he describes as "the devil business."

In "Satan: A Biography" (Cambridge Press), Henry Ansgar Kelly puts forth the most comprehensive case ever made for sympathy for the devil, arguing that the Bible actually provides a kinder, gentler version of the infamous antagonist than typically thought.

"A strict reading of the Bible shows Satan to be less like Darth Vader and more and more like an overzealous prosecutor," said Kelly, a UCLA professor emeritus of English and the former director of the university's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. "He's not so much the proud and angry figure who turns away from God as [he is] a Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. Satan's basic intention is to uncover wrongdoing and treachery, however overzealous and unscrupulous the means. But he's still part of God's administration."

The view runs in opposition to the beliefs held by many Christians and others about key religious concepts like original sin and the nature of good and evil.

"If Satan isn't really in opposition to God and he isn't really evil, then that means the fight between good and evil isn't an authentic part of Christianity," Kelly said. "What I'm saying will be scandalous to some people."

Is this true? Are Christians ignorant of Satan's true role?

[XT]

Its funny...but for years I've thought the same thing from my own reading of the bible. I just assumed it was because I was coming at it from an agnostics perspective and I was missing all that deep, underlieing meaning...

-XT

[John Mace]

I dunno. "Get they behind me, J. Edgar Hoover" doesn't have quite the right ring to it. I think the coneption we have of Satan comes from sources other than the Bible.

[John Mace]

"Get they behind me, J. Edgar Hoover"
Man, my fingers are so sloppy today. Get thee behind me, of course.

[Bobotheoptimist]

I've long wondered why Satan was viewed as the bad guy. In the OT he frequently comes out looking better than the other guy (imho, of course).

Who kills babies? Who tortures innocents? Who punishes countless generations for the sins of one or two people?

Yeah, I think christians are ignorant...

:)

... of Satan's true role.

[David Simmons]

I dunno. "Get they behind me, J. Edgar Hoover" doesn't have quite the right ring to it.It doesn for me.

I think the coneption we have of Satan comes from sources other than the Bible.There isn't all that much about Satan in the Bible and some of what there is is thought to be later interpolations.

God is pretty friendly with and accomdating to Satan in the Book of Job.

[Frylock]

Well, it looks like the word "Satan" appears in the Bible just 49 times:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=satan&version1=9&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no

Assuming the KJV says "Satan" every time the originals do.

Would be interesting, then, to search these 49 references and see what kind of picture they paint.

Most Christians also identify Satan with the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and with the Dragon in Revelation. I don't know if "the devil" is a separate term in the greek or if it is the same thing as "Satan," but if separate, most Christians identify "the Devil" with Satan as well. That probably increases the number of citations by quite a bit... but it's perfectly legitimate IMO to debate whether the identification of "Satan" with these various labels is correct in the first place.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

, then, to search these 49 references and see what kind of picture they paint.

Most Christians also identify Satan with the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and with the Dragon in Revelation. I don't know if "the devil" is a separate term in the greek or if it is the same thing as "Satan," but if separate, most Christians identify "the Devil" with Satan as well. That probably increases the number of citations by quite a bit... but it's perfectly legitimate IMO to debate whether the identification of "Satan" with these various labels is correct in the first place.

-FrL-

I see from the list I provided that the identity between Satan, the Devil, the Dragon, and arguably the Serpent, is made in a passage from Revelation. I can't believe I didn't know that.

-FrL-

[astro]

Well, it looks like the word "Satan" appears in the Bible just 49 times:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=satan&version1=9&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no

Assuming the KJV says "Satan" every time the originals do.

Would be interesting, then, to search these 49 references and see what kind of picture they paint.

Most Christians also identify Satan with the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and with the Dragon in Revelation. I don't know if "the devil" is a separate term in the greek or if it is the same thing as "Satan," but if separate, most Christians identify "the Devil" with Satan as well. That probably increases the number of citations by quite a bit... but it's perfectly legitimate IMO to debate whether the identification of "Satan" with these various labels is correct in the first place.

-FrL-

From the article

Perhaps most surprising is not the figure Satan cuts, but his notable absences in the Old Testament. In the Bible's first reference to Lucifer, for instance, Satan doesn't appear — even by implication, Kelly points out. "'Lucifer' is Latin for light-bearer," he said, and was the name given to the morning star, or the planet Venus. Originally written in ancient Hebrew, the passage, on face value, refers to the tyrannical Babylonian king who boasts of his conquests but who is "about to be cast to the ground." Kelly insists there's nothing more to the reference than an apt use of metaphor, but the third-century Christian philosopher Origen of Alexandria argued in his best known work, "On First Things," that the reference applied to Satan.

"Origen says, 'Lucifer is said to have fallen from Heaven,'" Kelly explained. "'This can't refer to a human being, so it must refer to Satan.' Subsequent church fathers found this reasoning persuasive, and so did everyone who followed them."

Another prominent omission in the Old Testament, Kelly said, can be found in Genesis. "Nobody in the Old Testament — or, for that matter, in the New Testament either — ever identifies the serpent of Eden with Satan," Kelly said. "The serpent is just the smartest animal, and he's motivated by envy after being jilted by Adam for Eve."

Kelly traces the correlation of Satan and the serpent to not long after the New Testament was completed. In his "Dialogue With Trypho," the second-century Christian martyr Justin of Samaria first argued that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God, according to Kelly.

"This is what I call 'The New Biography,'" Kelly said. "It starts with Justin Martyr, who implicates Satan in the fall of Adam and Eve. By causing Adam and Eve to fall, Satan caused his own fall.

"The second step in this new and phony biography comes with Origen, who said, 'No, Satan's first sin was not deceiving Adam and Eve or refusing to go along with God's plan of creating Adam in his own image,'" Kelly said. "'It was to sin out of pride like the morning star, like Lucifer in the passage from Isaiah.' Turning Satan into God's enemy is a two-step process."

[rjung]

"An apology for the devil: it must be remembered that we have heard one side of the case. God has written all the books."
-- Samuel Butler (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/samuelbutl125316.html)

[Frylock]

From the article

Thanks, I hadn't read the whole article.

I wonder where this came from:

and he (the serpent) is motivated by envy after being jilted by Adam for Eve.

Hadn't heard that one before! :eek:

-FrL-

[Skald the Rhymer]

Thanks, I hadn't read the whole article.

I wonder where this came from:



Hadn't heard that one before! :eek:

-FrL-

It's not new. Some persons even identify Satan as the true father of Cain, saying that he impregnated Eve before Adam even figured out what the wang was for. This extremely stupid Wikipedia article can tell you more, but reading it may give you apoplexy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_Seed)

[BrainGlutton]

[porgy & bess]

Now dey'll tell you chillun
Da Devil's a villain
But don't you believe it all

[/p&b]

[BrainGlutton]

Is this true? Are Christians ignorant of Satan's true role?

Only if you limit your reading to the Old Testament.

[BrainGlutton]

"He's not so much the proud and angry figure who turns away from God as [he is] a Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover.

:dubious: I fail to say how that makes Satan look any better.

[BrainGlutton]

To see . . .

[FriarTed]

It's not new. Some persons even identify Satan as the true father of Cain, saying that he impregnated Eve before Adam even figured out what the wang was for. This extremely stupid Wikipedia article can tell you more, but reading it may give you apoplexy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_Seed)

The ironic thing is the idea of Cain as child of Eve committing adultery with the Serpent originally shows up in the Talmud and Kabbalistic literature.

I was afraid that the Wikipedia article would be actually advocating it. It was an incomplete article but still wasn't bad as it examined that stupid idea.

To the OP- Satan in the OT is more Prosecutor than Super-Villian, but the NT does indeed present Satan as Evil and Hateful.

[Skald the Rhymer]

The ironic thing is the idea of Cain as child of Eve committing adultery with the Serpent originally shows up in the Talmud and Kabbalistic literature.

I was afraid that the Wikipedia article would be actually advocating it. It was an incomplete article but still wasn't bad as it examined that stupid idea.

To the OP- Satan in the OT is more Prosecutor than Super-Villian, but the NT does indeed present Satan as Evil and Hateful.

I'm familiar with the notion's roots in Jewish folklore, but I don't see how that is "ironic" in any but an Alanis Morisettian sense. In what sense do you think it ironic?

As for why I call the article stupid:

[quote=someone who spent high school biology smoking marijuana in the bathroom and later wrote a wikipedia article]
William Branham taught that the fall of mankind resulted from Eve having sexual intercourse with an upright 'Serpent'* [1]. From this relationship, Cain was conceived and produced as a man/serpent hybrid. While from a scientific perspective, it is unusual to have interspecies hybrids that are fertile, it is not impossible as evidenced by animals such as the Beefalo/cattalo (a cross of an American Bison and a domestic European cow) and the Wolphin (a cross between a False Killer Whale and a Bottlenose Dolphin). The result of these interspecies cross-breeds is that they produce an offspring that has to breed back into one of its parental lineages. This would mean that Cain's children would have come through Adam's daughters, and the evidence of any difference between Adam and Cain's lineages would have been diluted with each successive generation.
[quote]

That was when I had my apoplexy and gave up on Wikipedia.

[chowder]

I've long wondered why Satan was viewed as the bad guy. In the OT he frequently comes out looking better than the other guy (imho, of course).

Who kills babies? Who tortures innocents? Who punishes countless generations for the sins of one or two people?

Yeah, I think christians are ignorant...

:)

... of Satan's true role.
Yup I agree.

As Al Pacino said "Gods up there laughing his ass off"

At least we know where we stand with Old Nick...he's the bad guy...or is he?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I always thought he was a terrific poster.

[kaylasdad99]

He sure knew how to compile a list...

[BrainGlutton]

Satan more overzealous than evil says UCLA Historian - Satan is very misunderstood

I'm just a boy whose intentions are good
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I'm just a boy whose intentions are good
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

You have my sympathy.







:)


Why have we no "Mick The Lick" smiley?

[Grammaticaster]

I'm a seminarian, and I've never heard my professors attribute anything in the OT to Satan (but I haven't studied Job yet), and things are very rarely attributed to him in the NT. He's mentioned a few times in parables (which are obviously not to be taken literally), and a lot in the Revelation -- which certainly isn't to be taken literally either. The word "satan" just means "adversary" in Hebrew, so I imagine there's some places where it could rightly be translated as such.

[JRDelirious]

I think the coneption we have of Satan comes from sources other than the Bible. I would say heavily so -- what the average man-on-the-street thinks of when Satan or Hell are mentioned is likely more heavily colored by Dante, Milton, and the ancient/medieval theologians from whom these two borrowed; but the man-on-the-street isn't aware of that all (or that the writers and theologians were in turn influenced by extant mythologies -- e.g. Tartarus, the place in the Greek netherworld where folks such as Tantalus were tortured).

One could even say what is called "Satan" in the NT and in the theologians is not quite the same as what is called "Satan" in the Book of Job. This may have involved a period of Zoroastrian influence, that led in the direction of a more black-and-white embodiment of the Good-Evil opposition. Like Grammaticaster mentions, "Satan" may have been used in some passages in the sense of an embodiment of "the adversary" or "the enemy", in whatever the context is of the adversarial or enemy role in the particular writing -- sometimes a mere challenge, sometimes outright evil.

[RTFirefly]

Why have we no "Mick The Lick" smiley? :confused:

That was an Animals song, not a Rolling Stones song.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

:confused:

That was an Animals song, not a Rolling Stones song.

Sir, I know it is rather unique for me to be right about things around here, but I politely insist that ity is a Stones song.

It was the first song on the Begger's Banquet album. I think.

But it was a Stones song!

[RetroVertigo]

"Sympathy For The Devil" is the first song on Beggar's Banquet, but it doesn't contain those lyrics

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

"Sympathy For The Devil" is the first song on Beggar's Banquet, but it doesn't contain those lyrics


Correct, but I was riffing on the Thread's theme, not the lyrics.

[RTFirefly]

Sir, I know it is rather unique for me to be right about things around here, but I politely insist that ity is a Stones song.

It was the first song on the Begger's Banquet album. I think.

But it was a Stones song!
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animals):
The Animals' two-year chart career, masterminded by producer Mickie Most, featured singles that were intense, gritty pop covers such as Sam Cooke's "Bring It On Home To Me" and "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" (from Nina Simone).(Underlining mine.)

Beggars Banquet tracks here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_Banquet).

[threemae]

That probably increases the number of citations by quite a bit... but it's perfectly legitimate IMO to debate whether the identification of "Satan" with these various labels is correct in the first place.

[Church Chat Lady]
Oh, could it be, I don't know,
SANTA?
[/Church Chat Lady]

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animals):
(Underlining mine.)

Beggars Banquet tracks here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_Banquet).

We have a communication problem here.

What is your contention--stated explicitly? :confused:

[mr. jp]

I'm familiar with the notion's roots in Jewish folklore, but I don't see how that is "ironic" in any but an Alanis Morisettian sense. In what sense do you think it ironic?

Nice one. That song sure had stupid lyrics.

[Mangetout]

Nice one. That song sure had stupid lyrics.
Indeed - it has been said that the only ironic thing about the song is that AM does not appear to know what 'ironic' means.