Ignoring for a moment The Bible as holy scripture, isn’t the Garden of Eden narrative a kind of “Just So” story, simultaneously explaining Why Life Is So Hard and Where Snakes Came From? Even those who do believe in the Bible as scripture don’t routinely treat common snakes as little Satans (although they remain symbolically potent).
Regarding the mention of Satan in 1 Chronicles, I disagree that “Satan” here just means some enemy; clearly Satan is a conscious actor, the instigator of a sinful decision to conduct a census; the same event in 2 Samuel 24:1 is ascribed to the anger of God, who himself inspires David to conduct the census, and then uses the occasion to punish Israel. Clearly some external force drove David to do such a thing! I can only surmise that the well-known character of Satan is substituted for God in Chronicles because the (later) God of Chronicles is less inscrutable and wrathful than the God of Samuel and Kings.
AFAIK, the scholars attribute Job and Chronicles to roughly the same period, and certainly Satan appears to be a similar character in both: a servant of God, yes, but somewhat independent, adversarial to mankind, and somewhat malevolent.
I want to thank you for this. As for my ‘unique interpretation’, I want to say it is in line with many versions of Christianity in that is it ‘a personal relationship with God’ which many support, as well as the freedom to discuss and debate that personal viewpoint.
As for the OT is satanic, also realize that in the way I am reading it, with Satan as one of God’s children, the OT can be both have Satanic influence and be pure at the same time. And I feel there is a lot of scriptural support for this both in the OT and NT
I also see it as indicative of God’s tolerance of our own evil behavior, He watches over it, and sometimes limits what we can do but lets us explore the evil path for us to learn.
Satan is the snake. In southern Arabic šaitan means “snake”. The Secretary Bird who feeds on snakes is called teir-aš-šaitan (don’t remember the exact spelling) literally “bird of the snakes”.
I’ve been thinking about other things the God/Satan duality explains. For instance, why there is no Mrs. God:
You know, sometimes it was very nice, glow on the ceiling, angels singing in the next room, harps. Very pleasant. Then all of a sudden you had to do the pitchfork bit. It’s ridiculous. And the brimstone? Disgusting! And the horns hurt already. Frig it, I’m walking.
And, imagine God and Jesus chatting at the holy breakfast table.
God/Satan: Son, I have a plan for you. I want you become incarnated, and go down to Earth.
Jesus: What will I do there, father?
God/Satan: You will be a humble man, and teach love and peace, and serve as an example for all, and earn salvation for all mankind.
Jesus: That is a wonderful plan, father. But how do I save mankind?
Satan/God: You die horribly on the cross! Bwah-hah-hah.
My name is not “Christianity”, and I was not trying to reconcile anything. One does not have to be atheist, or even a non-Judaeo-Christian person, to be quite aware of the fact that the volume we call “the Bible” is a collection of writings spreading across at least a millenium of time, a wide variance in authorship, and a significant number of different genres, none of which are objective repertorial prose.
The evolution over time of the Satan, Messiah, and Hell concepts are only three of the items where great change occurs; also take a good look at who God acts to ‘save’ (in the mundane, not the religious sense) according to the authors of Judges, of Kings, of Second Isaiah, and of the various New Testament books. Waay different conceptualizations, duly documented by their writers.
I think you misunderstood my response. I was thanking you for providing the historical background that shed light on how some Christians were able to reconcile the different aspects of Satan that are in the Bible.
Satan is a Hebew word and it means “Obstruction” or “opposer.” Satan as a personal entity is usually translated as “adversary.”
Shaitan in Arabic means “enemy” or “devil.”
I don’t know the reason for the name of the bird you’re referring to, but any definition of shaitan as “snake” would post-date the Genesis story, which uses a completely different word for “serpent.”
Assuming some religious mythological claims are true is irrational anyway, so why assume they are true and then try to examine the nature of their claims?
They are all false. No gods or satans exist.
From a psychological point of view, we already know why humans created the idea of the ultimate evil spirit that is in control of every undesirable human emotion or behavior.
Naxos, we get it. Like a very large percentage of the Teeming Millions posting on the SDMB, you do not believe in gods.
Now, stop popping in to every discussion on a religious topic to make your inane observation. It is nothing more than threadshitting. Clearly, the discussion in this thread could be more formally titled, “What, in the mythologies of Judaism and Christianity, are the attributes of the character identified by the name, (in English), Satan?” However, the title was sufficiently clear to everyone who has chosen to post and your little interruption is neither necessary nor interesting.
Hmm, I’ve never considered that before but it may be true. On the other hand, there are certainly commonalities that Judaism and Christianity share along with the other major off-shoot, Islam.
Would you object to “Abrahamic” as a desciptive adjective?
For what it’s worth, I use “Judaeo-Christian” to mean “shared by (most of) Judaism and (most of) Christianity but not (most of) Islam”, and “Abrahamic faith” to imply “shared by all three faiths or large parts thereof”. I for one am quite aware that there are things most Christians think they share with Jews that most Jews bite their tongues and snicker later in private about – which is where the abuse of that compound adjective seems to center.
I think that the real problem, as we’ve seen in this thread, is one of the later religions retconning their relatively recent legends or principles into Judaism. Saying that the serpent is really Satan is an excellent example. So is saying that Abraham is really Moslem.
Interestingly, I was reading Surprised by Hope by Anglican theologian (and former bishop) N.T. Wright last night, and specifically the chapter about how the early Christian church in the first two centuries “ret-conned” (he didn’t use that word) the Jewish concept of Resurrection (in addition to the idea of the Messiah). According to Wright most Jews (Sadducees excepted) believed in a bodily resurrection of all people, or at least all Jews, at the end times. So “heaven” as a spiritual home with God was a temporary after-death respite until the time when the final resurrection of everyone occurred. When, in the early believers’ eyes, Jesus appeared to be resurrected first and ahead of everyone else – it caused them to re-evaluate their concept of resurrection according to Wright.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack, but it’s an interesting book that I recommend to anyone interested in the very early church’s understanding of life after death.
