Who is Satan?

Great Debates
41

Not according the scriptures:

[QUOTE=Job 42]

11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver[a] and a gold ring.
[/QUOTE]

If everyone who had know him (Job) came and ate with him (Job) this would have to include all those lost to death and they were alive enough after the restoration to eat, give presents to Job and console Job.

I’ll add to this as support that God raises people from the dead in both OT and NT.

42

In fact, the evolution of the Satan concept is a fascinating part of the evoilution of Hebrew/Jewish religious thought.

Let’s start by correcting a slight misstatement by Alessan. The word “satan” in the oldest strands of Hebrew did not mean precisely “enemy” but rather “accuser.” In the Really, Really Supreme Court, YHWH, C.J. presiding, the Satan was the prosecuting attorney, whose job it was to bring the iniquities of the person at trial to the court’s attention. This is the case in the legendary frame story on which the Book of Job was structured (the vast majority of the book as we have it is a sort of “Why Bad Things Happen to Good People: A Wisdom Dialogue, based on the Job story”, and not relevant to our purpose here). Satan seems to have early on moved from the role of Hamilton Burger to that of Ken Starr, a special prosecutor charged with ferreting out misdeeds. From this it was a short jump to tempter, trying to entrap the person into committing misdeeds through human weakness.

During Exile and especially Persian-Empire times, this conception shifted greatly. Mazdism (“Zoroastrianism”_) conceives of a good deity (Ahura Mazda/Ormazd), confronted by an evil lesser (but still powerful) deity (Angra Mainyu/Ahriman), who was or became viewed as a rebel against Ahura Mazda. The Satan, from being an anti-humanist functionary of the divine court, took on under this influence the role of rebel against the divine will, in short, the character of Satan as he is seen in the New Testament and in Christianity. His supposed fall from Heaven, his penchant for lies, etc., all derive from this elaborated later concept.

As noted above, it’s important not to read into the Biblical Satan the identities of other figures (Lucifer, the Morning Star, equated with a now-fallen powerful potentate), Beelzebul, etc.) In particular, it is only with the New Testament that we find the serpent of Eden identified with Satan; there is no Old Testament equivalence between the two.

Psychologically the idea of a tempter is very useful – it enables one to blame Someone Else for his or her own moral weaknesses. The Flip Wilson quote can be taken very seriously here – if “the Debbil made me do it,” then I’m not really as much to blame, now, am I? It does however frustrate the crap out of me that supposed “conservative Bible-believing Christians” make such a big deal out of Satan – they fail to recognize that they are turning the Judaeo-Christian monotheism into a pseudo-Zoroastrian dualism in doing so.

43

They died, right? If they were good, why did God kill them? Are you saying God killed righteous people also in the flood?

Besides Balaam’s ass (who was clearly possessed) which animal speaks?

Do snakes have souls now?

Not really sure why you bring this up. Job was ‘handed over to Satan’, this was also done in the new testament 2x I believe both done through the apostle Paul. This handing over to Satan is for the salvation of the soul of the person, and is very unpleasant, but when it is over God restores everything, including all of Job’s family (in Job 42)
[/QUOTE]

The brothers and stuff were not killed. Here is the verse about the sons and daughters:

If they were the old ones reborn, why give them new names? Don’t you think that bringing someone back from the dead, which never has happened in the real Bible, would merit a mention? From your point of view, wouldn’t three girls and seven unnamed boys being resurrected cheapen what supposedly happened to Jesus?

44

It is unknown if the nephelum perished, presumably the sons of God did not, would the sons be able to rescue their children if the children of the sons of God didn’t have the power in themselves? Scriptures made it clear that mankind and the lower animals perished, but did the nephlium - very possibly a angelic like being. Angels have stairways to ascend and descend to earth from the heavens, nephilum may have this also.

Why do you say the donkey was possessed, it appears that Balaam was the one possessed. And yes I was referring to that donkey.

what do you mean now? Are they not living creatures that God has made?

It also says in that verse that everyone that Job had know before (his ordeal), everyone would include his wife as Job did know her before the ordeal, was with Job again after the restoration, therefor the wife was returned and very much alive.

Perhaps a way of looking at this would be a ongoing ‘rapture’ or angelic harvest of the earth and Job was ‘left behind’ pre tribulation. This is totally consistent with scriptures, allows for the statement of Jesus saying that some of you will not taste death until you see the kingdom coming with power, talk about angelic harvests of the earth, how Moses and Elijah was in the promised land during the transfiguration. They were perhaps moved to the Kingdom of God, Job just came later (post tribulation)
Here is the verse about the sons and daughters:

The valley of dry bones and a young child that Elijah brought back are 2 occasions mentioned in the OT of God resurrecting the dead. Scriptures don’t say the daughters were renamed, just that the name was mentioned at the end, not the beginning. Even if renaming did take place, God often renames people, Simon>Peter, Saul>Paul, Abham>Abraham. Yes it also can be take as reborn into new infant bodies, but that is not assured.

No it wouldn’t cheapen, Jesus was always there before the world was created, God raises people from the dead, and God does not change.

45

Let’s get back on topic, please.

46

Some apocryphal (but millennia old) sources identify the serpent in the Garden as Samael or Azazel, basically colleagues expelled from Heaven along with Satan.

47

In Job it seems like the Lord and Satan is used sometimes almost interchangeably. This is also apparent in the census that King David made, in Samuel it was the Lord in Chronicles it was Satan that compelled David, though it was the same event.

This would seem to indicate that God is willing to dwell with Satan, at least at times (though this could be taken as God mediating on our behalf and delivering the message). This would seem to indicate that 1: Satan is a child of God, and 2: Satan will eventually be what we call saved, though after some extreme trials, such as the lake of fire, which seems hotter then hell. This also indicated that everything Satan has done or will do will be turned for the good, meaning that when all is said and done Satan would have done the work of God.

This also goes along with God desires none to be lost but all to be saved. If God is perfect and His plan is perfect then how could Satan be lost if God desires all to be saved.

This also is OK with how can a divided house stand, basically God dwelling with Satan can’t stand, Satan must eventually come back to God.

48

YGBSM

kanicbirdism strikes again, with his own, uh, unique interpretations of Christianity.

49

We have an answer to the OP, folks. God and Satan are one. It does explain a lot, doesn’t it. Maybe they have split personalities - the Two Faces of Yahweh.

I see the Lifetime movie now.

50

start reading interesting thread,
come to a post that appears to be written by a 13 year old xian kid on crack,
realize that once again a potentially interesting thread has been derailed by KB,
once again I wonder why I just dont have him on ignore?
sorry I coulndt possibly make that a Hiaku.

51

Be so kind as to react to my post #42, please It attempts to address the OP from the point of view of historical Biblical criticism. (Sorry for the absence of cites; I was writing from memory.)

52

I find it interesting how Christianity reconciles the two versions, Old Testament Hamilton Burger-faithful employee of the Holy Court, and New Testament Billy Flynn-manipulator of law and order, by actually ignoring what is written in the Bible and saying the former is really the latter. Thank you for confirming my suppositions with historical back-up.

53

The scriptures show a vastly different view of God also from NT and OT. The reason is that Jesus revealed God for who He is, these is also symbolically the tearing of the veil. In the OT God is distant, people don’t even know how to pronounce His name and are afraid to do so, Jesus reveals God as their daddy who Loves them.

This revelation by Jesus would also apply to the enemy, Satan. In the OT Satan doesn’t look so bad, in the NT and with the light of Jesus Satan is revealed for who he really is.

The gospels reveal that Satan has been dominion over this world, which would include influence of how God and Satan is viewed (the victor wrights the history), once Jesus became the victor over Satan God gets to have His interpretation and sets things right.

So the OT description of Satan would be highly influenced as to how Satan wanted to portray himself and God, the NT would be God’s view.

54

I’m not sure if you realize how insulting your “Old Testament was influenced by Satan, New Testament was influenced by God” idea is.

55

Can you clarify what you mean here? What part of Polycarp’s summary indicates that Christians are “actually ignoring what is written in the Bible”?

56

At what point is kanikbird guilty of threadshitting? *

*I really don’t like that term.

57

You could, however, have chosen to refrain from posting an attack on another poster or actually made the effort to contribute something, yourself, to get the thread back on track.

Leave the off-topic personal remarks for The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

58

So we can’t discuss ideas that may be insulting in GD? Tell that to Martin Luther or Galileo.
Enjoy :slight_smile:

Satan is under God, submitted to God (apparent in Job), Satan has been given control over the world (in the gospels), Satan is in the company of the sons of God (again in Job) not a far streach that Satan had some influence over scriptures - until Jesus removed this power.

59

Well, one thing to recall is that Christianity did not arise in a vacuum and the writings, (to avoid using the more charged word scriptures), circulating among Jews in the first century expressed a wider scope of ideas that those that were eventually redacted into the canon, (either Hebrew or Christian).

The notion of Satan/the devil being in opposition to God did not arise among Christians. The Assumption of Moses and the 1st Book of Enoch each have passages in which Satan is portrayed more as an opponent to God than as God’s “prosecuting attorney.” In addition, the passages referring to Satan in Zechariah, Chapter 3 are, at least, ambiguous regarding the status of Satan in relation to God. (He could still be seen as the “tester,” but he could also be seen, (particularly by first century Jews and Christians), as an opponent.)

The distinction between canonical and non-canonical writings was not nearly as sharp in the first century as we see it today, and various works were employed as sources of exhortation or spiritual guidance that we no longer see in scripture. (The reference in Jude to the 1st Book of Enoch, is one example.)

60

Of course, you can discuss ideas that are found insulting. It helps, of course, if you actually realize what is insulting about your proposed, (and seriously odd), interpretations.

What you have put forth, as encapsulated by Czarcasm, is a Marcion-like claim that the Jewish scriptures are satanic while the Christian scriptures are pure. You may actually believe that sort of thing, but if you are going to push those sorts of claims, at least have the integrity to realize what you are saying.

Of course, you have an idiosyncratic interpretation of everything related to Christian scripture and belief–meaning, an interpretation that is at odds with every other Christian or student of Christianity on earth. It is pretty difficult to actually discuss beliefs with you, because there is no common frame of reference to the beliefs of any other person. ::: shrug :::