The devil is imagined by everybody as a evil man with horns and a goat beard, but isn't that concept wrong since he was an angel and no body knows if angels are male or female?
Also why do u represent it that way, why can't it be a blonde angel with blue eyes and broken wings?
... it has to look wicked, different and evil so that u can fear him?
I think that the devil is just a reflection of the dark souls of those who portrait him. (that if it was originally portraited by a man, if by a woman then I would say that's just a way to express how man were cruel to woman and how we used to oppress them)
Full Version: The devil
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs
In my opinion, the devil, like God, would be neither male or female. They both pre-dated the Creation, which is associated with sex and gender. The devil is a spirit. And any description of "him" being beautiful, would be because he used to be white light. Even the Apocrypha (I don't agree with this story though) describes the devil as a white light. But since he has fallen, I imagine the devil is now a mass of dark energy.
QUOTE(Bahamut_0 @ Oct 31 2005, 03:11 PM) [snapback]910516[/snapback]
The devil is imagined by everybody as a evil man with horns and a goat beard, but isn't that concept wrong since he was an angel and no body knows if angels are male or female?
Also why do u represent it that way, why can't it be a blonde angel with blue eyes and broken wings?
... it has to look wicked, different and evil so that u can fear him?
I think that the devil is just a reflection of the dark souls of those who portrait him. (that if it was originally portraited by a man, if by a woman then I would say that's just a way to express how man were cruel to woman and how we used to oppress them)
i think i see what you mean you got a good point he could be a realy hot blonde or he could look like g bush for all we know. maby the devil is just the thing we fear most.
The devil is the angel of light right. So he looks good. He is not scary or evil looking. Looks acan be decieving.
But I don't think it is white light anymore.
I don't know. Maybe he is different now. But he can only appear one place at one time. He is not omnipresent and I have never seen him. Do you think people have seen the devil?
Perhaps on a subconscious level. Didn't Adam and Eve supposedly see the devil (not really in my opinion). And didn't Jesus "see" the devil as well?
edit
Because we think devil has a beard and horn just in movie we see it like that.
I always think devil was a fresh good man, around 1m80, but it's only me, and god it's an old man
I always think devil was a fresh good man, around 1m80, but it's only me, and god it's an old man
I saw him as a handsome figure. Didn't look at the wings though.
Satan, or Lucifer as I prefer to call him, was a great being IMO.
Why?
Because he commands PRIDE. EGO. Pride and Ego are some of my favorite aspects of the human soul and psyche. They are powerful, and yes, I believe honorable.
Lucifer fell because of his Pride. But he kept it nontheless. If he was so intelligent, wouldn't you think he knew that God (in his infinite power) would be able to eventually crush him? I believe he does, yet he chooses to fight.
I respect those who fight, not those who cower before the might of greater beings.
The greatest sinners are the greatest saints, although few seem to realize this.
Satan, or Lucifer as I prefer to call him, was a great being IMO.
Why?
Because he commands PRIDE. EGO. Pride and Ego are some of my favorite aspects of the human soul and psyche. They are powerful, and yes, I believe honorable.
Lucifer fell because of his Pride. But he kept it nontheless. If he was so intelligent, wouldn't you think he knew that God (in his infinite power) would be able to eventually crush him? I believe he does, yet he chooses to fight.
I respect those who fight, not those who cower before the might of greater beings.
The greatest sinners are the greatest saints, although few seem to realize this.
QUOTE(Infrazael @ Oct 31 2005, 10:30 AM) [snapback]910551[/snapback]
Because he commands PRIDE. EGO. Pride and Ego are some of my favorite aspects of the human soul and psyche. They are powerful, and yes, I believe honorable.
They are powerful if you use them properly.
The whole goat with the beard is not the accurate portrayal of the devil. No one should believe it is either.
Satan and Lucifer are different beings. Lucifer is used only once, and is in reference to a Babylonian king. It means morning star. As for Satan ... Satan is at the command of god, not a separate entity. He holds a position in god's court if you will, a prosecutor of god's will. So then, who does evil? God!
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."
Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.
So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."
Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,
"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...
How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.
How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."
Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".
So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.
The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.
So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.
Sean
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."
Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.
So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."
Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,
"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...
How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.
How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."
Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".
So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.
The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.
So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.
Sean
QUOTE
Lucifer
From the Latin meaning 'light-bearer' or 'light-giver', the name was first applied logically to Jesus (as 'day star', 2 Peter 1, 19) as well as to Venus, the morning star. In demonology Lucifer is the celestial being wrongly equated with Satan, probably due to a misreading of Isaiah, 14, 12 (applied to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who in his pomp and glory aspired to exalt himself to the level of God):
"How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning."
St. Jerome also applies the name Lucifer to Satan when writing his comments about Luke, 10, 18:
"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from Heaven."
The general view, adopted in the literary tradition, is that Satan was called Lucifer before the Fall from Heaven. According to the legends of the rebellion, Lucifer was the chief in the hierarchy of Heaven, and as preeminent among all created beings in beauty, power, and wisdom. To him God allotted dominion and power over the earth; and even after his fall from grace, he seemed to still retain, if not all, some of this power and status. Lucifer's sin was pride, an act of pure egoism and malice; he loved himself, above anything else and to the exclusion of everything, without the excuse of ignorance. As governor of Heaven, he was seated next to the Lord; but as soon as God left His seat, Lucifer, swelling with pride, would sit himself on the heavenly throne. A indignant Michael (the archangel) battles with him, and after a angelical war, succeeds in banishing Lucifer and his followers from Heaven, casting all down to the infernal dwelling reserved for them for all eternity. The one once called Lucifer in Heaven, was now named Satan on earth; the angels that joined with him became the demons, of whom he was lord.
John Milton, in 'Paradise Lost', applies the name Lucifer to the demon of sinful pride; in Dante's 'The Divine Comedy' and in the play 'Doctor Faustus' (Christopher Marlowe), Lucifer is depicted as the king of Hell.
At all events, the name Lucifer has been adopted in esoteric circles to represent the modern equivalent of the being of the Sun (originally named Ormuzd in the Zoroastrian dualism) opposed by the darkness, the Prince of Lies, who was called Angra Mainyu, in occultism called Ahriman. Lucifer is also one of the demonic sins.
From the Latin meaning 'light-bearer' or 'light-giver', the name was first applied logically to Jesus (as 'day star', 2 Peter 1, 19) as well as to Venus, the morning star. In demonology Lucifer is the celestial being wrongly equated with Satan, probably due to a misreading of Isaiah, 14, 12 (applied to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who in his pomp and glory aspired to exalt himself to the level of God):
"How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning."
St. Jerome also applies the name Lucifer to Satan when writing his comments about Luke, 10, 18:
"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from Heaven."
The general view, adopted in the literary tradition, is that Satan was called Lucifer before the Fall from Heaven. According to the legends of the rebellion, Lucifer was the chief in the hierarchy of Heaven, and as preeminent among all created beings in beauty, power, and wisdom. To him God allotted dominion and power over the earth; and even after his fall from grace, he seemed to still retain, if not all, some of this power and status. Lucifer's sin was pride, an act of pure egoism and malice; he loved himself, above anything else and to the exclusion of everything, without the excuse of ignorance. As governor of Heaven, he was seated next to the Lord; but as soon as God left His seat, Lucifer, swelling with pride, would sit himself on the heavenly throne. A indignant Michael (the archangel) battles with him, and after a angelical war, succeeds in banishing Lucifer and his followers from Heaven, casting all down to the infernal dwelling reserved for them for all eternity. The one once called Lucifer in Heaven, was now named Satan on earth; the angels that joined with him became the demons, of whom he was lord.
John Milton, in 'Paradise Lost', applies the name Lucifer to the demon of sinful pride; in Dante's 'The Divine Comedy' and in the play 'Doctor Faustus' (Christopher Marlowe), Lucifer is depicted as the king of Hell.
At all events, the name Lucifer has been adopted in esoteric circles to represent the modern equivalent of the being of the Sun (originally named Ormuzd in the Zoroastrian dualism) opposed by the darkness, the Prince of Lies, who was called Angra Mainyu, in occultism called Ahriman. Lucifer is also one of the demonic sins.
What i found in occultpedia,
, i think when bible said hell is more like earth!!!for me satan or lucifer was a man like us.
There were two Lucifers that I am aware of and one was a man. Lucifer is a mistranslation. And Satan is supposed to be the "devil".
Here's what theologians have to say. From the Oxford Companion to the Bible ...
Satan. The name of the archenemy of God and the personification of evil, particularly in Christian tradition. The name may derive from a Semitic root ?ãn, but the primitive meaning is still debated, the most popular suggestions being “to be remote” and “to obstruct.” Some alternative roots include ?wã (cf. Hebr. “to rove”) and syã (cf. Arabic “to burn,” especially of food).
In the Hebrew Bible ?åãån could refer to any human being who played the role of an accuser or enemy (1 Samuel 29.4; 2 Samuel 19.22; 1 Kings 5.4; 1 Kings 11.14). In Numbers 22.32 ?åãån refers to a divine messenger who was sent to obstruct Balaam’s rash journey.
Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and 1 Chronicles 21.1 have been central in past efforts to chart an evolution of the concept of ?åãån that culminates in a single archenemy of God. However, such evolutionary views have not gained general acceptance because ?åãån in these passages does not necessarily refer to a single archenemy of God and because the relative dating of the texts remains problematic. In Job 1–2, the ?åãån seems to be a legitimate member of God’s council. In Zechariah 3.1–7 ?åãån may refer to a member of God’s council who objected to the appointment of Joshua as chief priest. The mention of ?åãån without the definite article in 1 Chronicles 21.1 has led some scholars to interpret it as a proper name, but one could also interpret it as “an adversary” or “an accuser” acting on God’s behalf.
Most scholars agree that in the writings of the third/second centuries BCE are the first examples of a character who is the archenemy of Yahweh and humankind. Nonetheless, the flexibility of the tradition is still apparent in the variety of figures who, although not necessarily identical with each other, are each apparently regarded as the principal archenemy of God and humankind in Second Temple literature. Such figures include Mastemah (Jubilees 10.8), Semyaz (1 Enoch 6.3), and Belial at Qumran (Zadokite Document 4.13). Still undetermined is the extent to which the concept of the Hebrew ?åãån was influenced by Persian dualism, which posited the existence of two primal and independent personifications of good and evil.
Although it shares with contemporaneous Jewish literature many of its ideas about demonology, the New Testament is probably more responsible for standardizing “Satan” (Greek satanas) as the name for the archenemy of God in Western culture. However, the devil (the usual translation of “Satan” in the Septuagint), Beelzebul (“the prince of demons,” Matthew 12.24; See Baal-zebub), “the tempter” (Matthew 4.3), Beliar (2 Corinthians 6.15), “the evil one” (1 John 5.18), and Apollyon (Revelation 9.11) are other names for Satan in the New Testament. Lucifer, a name for Satan popularized in the Middle Ages, derives ultimately from the merging of the New Testament tradition of the fall of Satan from heaven (Luke 10.18) with an originally separate biblical tradition concerning the Morning Star (cf. Isaiah 14.12).
According to the New Testament, Satan and his demons may enter human beings in order to incite evil deeds (Luke 22.3) and to cause illness (Matthew 15.22; Luke 11.14). Satan can imitate “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11.14), has command of the air (Ephesians 2.2), and accuses the faithful day and night before God (Revelation 12.10). Jude 9 mentions the struggle between Satan and the archangel Michael for the body of Moses. Revelation 20.2, among other texts, equates “the Devil and Satan” with “the dragon,” thus reflecting the merging of ancient myths concerning gigantic primordial beasts that wreak havoc on God’s creation with the traditions concerning Satan. Satan’s destiny is to be cast into a lake of fire (Revelation 20.10–15).
In 563 CE the Council of Braga helped to define the official Christian view of Satan that, in contrast to dualism, denied his independent origin and his creation of the material universe. As J. B. Russell (Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, 1984) notes, writers and theologians of the medieval period popularized many of the characteristics of Satan that remain standard today and that have roots in, among other sources, Greek, Roman, and Teutonic mythology. Although the Enlightenment produced explanations of evil that do not refer to a mythological being, the imagery and concept of Satan continues to thrive within many religious traditions.--HECTOR IGNACIO AVALOS
Sean
Satan. The name of the archenemy of God and the personification of evil, particularly in Christian tradition. The name may derive from a Semitic root ?ãn, but the primitive meaning is still debated, the most popular suggestions being “to be remote” and “to obstruct.” Some alternative roots include ?wã (cf. Hebr. “to rove”) and syã (cf. Arabic “to burn,” especially of food).
In the Hebrew Bible ?åãån could refer to any human being who played the role of an accuser or enemy (1 Samuel 29.4; 2 Samuel 19.22; 1 Kings 5.4; 1 Kings 11.14). In Numbers 22.32 ?åãån refers to a divine messenger who was sent to obstruct Balaam’s rash journey.
Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and 1 Chronicles 21.1 have been central in past efforts to chart an evolution of the concept of ?åãån that culminates in a single archenemy of God. However, such evolutionary views have not gained general acceptance because ?åãån in these passages does not necessarily refer to a single archenemy of God and because the relative dating of the texts remains problematic. In Job 1–2, the ?åãån seems to be a legitimate member of God’s council. In Zechariah 3.1–7 ?åãån may refer to a member of God’s council who objected to the appointment of Joshua as chief priest. The mention of ?åãån without the definite article in 1 Chronicles 21.1 has led some scholars to interpret it as a proper name, but one could also interpret it as “an adversary” or “an accuser” acting on God’s behalf.
Most scholars agree that in the writings of the third/second centuries BCE are the first examples of a character who is the archenemy of Yahweh and humankind. Nonetheless, the flexibility of the tradition is still apparent in the variety of figures who, although not necessarily identical with each other, are each apparently regarded as the principal archenemy of God and humankind in Second Temple literature. Such figures include Mastemah (Jubilees 10.8), Semyaz (1 Enoch 6.3), and Belial at Qumran (Zadokite Document 4.13). Still undetermined is the extent to which the concept of the Hebrew ?åãån was influenced by Persian dualism, which posited the existence of two primal and independent personifications of good and evil.
Although it shares with contemporaneous Jewish literature many of its ideas about demonology, the New Testament is probably more responsible for standardizing “Satan” (Greek satanas) as the name for the archenemy of God in Western culture. However, the devil (the usual translation of “Satan” in the Septuagint), Beelzebul (“the prince of demons,” Matthew 12.24; See Baal-zebub), “the tempter” (Matthew 4.3), Beliar (2 Corinthians 6.15), “the evil one” (1 John 5.18), and Apollyon (Revelation 9.11) are other names for Satan in the New Testament. Lucifer, a name for Satan popularized in the Middle Ages, derives ultimately from the merging of the New Testament tradition of the fall of Satan from heaven (Luke 10.18) with an originally separate biblical tradition concerning the Morning Star (cf. Isaiah 14.12).
According to the New Testament, Satan and his demons may enter human beings in order to incite evil deeds (Luke 22.3) and to cause illness (Matthew 15.22; Luke 11.14). Satan can imitate “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11.14), has command of the air (Ephesians 2.2), and accuses the faithful day and night before God (Revelation 12.10). Jude 9 mentions the struggle between Satan and the archangel Michael for the body of Moses. Revelation 20.2, among other texts, equates “the Devil and Satan” with “the dragon,” thus reflecting the merging of ancient myths concerning gigantic primordial beasts that wreak havoc on God’s creation with the traditions concerning Satan. Satan’s destiny is to be cast into a lake of fire (Revelation 20.10–15).
In 563 CE the Council of Braga helped to define the official Christian view of Satan that, in contrast to dualism, denied his independent origin and his creation of the material universe. As J. B. Russell (Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, 1984) notes, writers and theologians of the medieval period popularized many of the characteristics of Satan that remain standard today and that have roots in, among other sources, Greek, Roman, and Teutonic mythology. Although the Enlightenment produced explanations of evil that do not refer to a mythological being, the imagery and concept of Satan continues to thrive within many religious traditions.--HECTOR IGNACIO AVALOS
Sean
QUOTE(Yelekiah @ Oct 31 2005, 04:50 PM) [snapback]910582[/snapback]
There were two Lucifers that I am aware of and one was a man. Lucifer is a mistranslation. And Satan is supposed to be the "devil".
it's odd because each text doesn't say all the same or only 40% of them are copy/paste.
I think the devil is just our animal tendences.
QUOTE(seanph @ Oct 31 2005, 03:53 PM) [snapback]910587[/snapback]
Here's what theologians have to say. From the Oxford Companion to the Bible ...
Satan. The name of the archenemy of God and the personification of evil, particularly in Christian tradition. The name may derive from a Semitic root ?ãn, but the primitive meaning is still debated, the most popular suggestions being “to be remote” and “to obstruct.” Some alternative roots include ?wã (cf. Hebr. “to rove”) and syã (cf. Arabic “to burn,” especially of food).
In the Hebrew Bible ?åãån could refer to any human being who played the role of an accuser or enemy (1 Samuel 29.4; 2 Samuel 19.22; 1 Kings 5.4; 1 Kings 11.14). In Numbers 22.32 ?åãån refers to a divine messenger who was sent to obstruct Balaam’s rash journey.
Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and 1 Chronicles 21.1 have been central in past efforts to chart an evolution of the concept of ?åãån that culminates in a single archenemy of God. However, such evolutionary views have not gained general acceptance because ?åãån in these passages does not necessarily refer to a single archenemy of God and because the relative dating of the texts remains problematic. In Job 1–2, the ?åãån seems to be a legitimate member of God’s council. In Zechariah 3.1–7 ?åãån may refer to a member of God’s council who objected to the appointment of Joshua as chief priest. The mention of ?åãån without the definite article in 1 Chronicles 21.1 has led some scholars to interpret it as a proper name, but one could also interpret it as “an adversary” or “an accuser” acting on God’s behalf.
Most scholars agree that in the writings of the third/second centuries BCE are the first examples of a character who is the archenemy of Yahweh and humankind. Nonetheless, the flexibility of the tradition is still apparent in the variety of figures who, although not necessarily identical with each other, are each apparently regarded as the principal archenemy of God and humankind in Second Temple literature. Such figures include Mastemah (Jubilees 10.8), Semyaz (1 Enoch 6.3), and Belial at Qumran (Zadokite Document 4.13). Still undetermined is the extent to which the concept of the Hebrew ?åãån was influenced by Persian dualism, which posited the existence of two primal and independent personifications of good and evil.
Although it shares with contemporaneous Jewish literature many of its ideas about demonology, the New Testament is probably more responsible for standardizing “Satan” (Greek satanas) as the name for the archenemy of God in Western culture. However, the devil (the usual translation of “Satan” in the Septuagint), Beelzebul (“the prince of demons,” Matthew 12.24; See Baal-zebub), “the tempter” (Matthew 4.3), Beliar (2 Corinthians 6.15), “the evil one” (1 John 5.18), and Apollyon (Revelation 9.11) are other names for Satan in the New Testament. Lucifer, a name for Satan popularized in the Middle Ages, derives ultimately from the merging of the New Testament tradition of the fall of Satan from heaven (Luke 10.18) with an originally separate biblical tradition concerning the Morning Star (cf. Isaiah 14.12).
According to the New Testament, Satan and his demons may enter human beings in order to incite evil deeds (Luke 22.3) and to cause illness (Matthew 15.22; Luke 11.14). Satan can imitate “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11.14), has command of the air (Ephesians 2.2), and accuses the faithful day and night before God (Revelation 12.10). Jude 9 mentions the struggle between Satan and the archangel Michael for the body of Moses. Revelation 20.2, among other texts, equates “the Devil and Satan” with “the dragon,” thus reflecting the merging of ancient myths concerning gigantic primordial beasts that wreak havoc on God’s creation with the traditions concerning Satan. Satan’s destiny is to be cast into a lake of fire (Revelation 20.10–15).
In 563 CE the Council of Braga helped to define the official Christian view of Satan that, in contrast to dualism, denied his independent origin and his creation of the material universe. As J. B. Russell (Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, 1984) notes, writers and theologians of the medieval period popularized many of the characteristics of Satan that remain standard today and that have roots in, among other sources, Greek, Roman, and Teutonic mythology. Although the Enlightenment produced explanations of evil that do not refer to a mythological being, the imagery and concept of Satan continues to thrive within many religious traditions.--HECTOR IGNACIO AVALOS
Sean
This is what I have been taught.
A great book[s] on this whole subject is "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels and "The River of God" by Gregory Riley. Both are outstanding.
I will have to look at those books.
The idea isn't the "exact" nature of Satan/Lucifer, etc.
The idea I'm presenting is the metaphorical figure Satan/Lucifer represents.
The idea of Pride, Ego, and Honor. Like I said, he commands my utmost respect because he refuses to bow down before God, and before Man.
The idea I'm presenting is the metaphorical figure Satan/Lucifer represents.
The idea of Pride, Ego, and Honor. Like I said, he commands my utmost respect because he refuses to bow down before God, and before Man.
As sean pointed out, Lucifer never existed, he is a translators mistake, and therefore this nonexistant fallen angel has no connection to Satan. Satan is usually refered to as a creature and never a human-like angel. The identification of him as a "dragon" strongly suggests he is a Seraphim, a word which in hebrew means "a fiery and flying serpent". This is the highest rank of all heavenly creatures, and would be expected of a creature which Jesus said was the Prince/Lord of this World. Jesus also warned that Satan sought to devour men, and there are many references to man-devouring dragons in Judao-Christistin literature. Satan was created by God to be a fearsome, draconic creature of heavenly retribution. The original Old Testaement says nothing about him disobeying God. He must have God's permission to harm Job, and in this book is still counted among the Sons of God, and regarded highly despite the New Testaemtn connection to Eden, for which nothing in the Genesis account actually condemns or identifies him there.
The evil Satan did not emerge until the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity, imbued with new religious ideas of dualism which supplanted their old ideas of a true monotheism. Many ideas of Persian Zorastrianism were then copied by the Jews, and especially the Christians. Because Zorastrianism had an evil Dragon diety as the dualistic counterpart to their good God, Ahura Mazda, the Jews and Christians converted the loyal dragon-servant Satan into their own version of the Zorastrian evil dragon. The Christain attempt to do this is so blatantly imitated from Zorastrian theology, that Satans fate, to be wrapped in chains and cast into the abyss for 1000 years, is stolen directly from the Persian mythology verbatim, the only difference in the texts is that Ahura wraps his dragon in a "magic girdle", and Michael wraps his dragon in chains.
The evil Satan did not emerge until the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity, imbued with new religious ideas of dualism which supplanted their old ideas of a true monotheism. Many ideas of Persian Zorastrianism were then copied by the Jews, and especially the Christians. Because Zorastrianism had an evil Dragon diety as the dualistic counterpart to their good God, Ahura Mazda, the Jews and Christians converted the loyal dragon-servant Satan into their own version of the Zorastrian evil dragon. The Christain attempt to do this is so blatantly imitated from Zorastrian theology, that Satans fate, to be wrapped in chains and cast into the abyss for 1000 years, is stolen directly from the Persian mythology verbatim, the only difference in the texts is that Ahura wraps his dragon in a "magic girdle", and Michael wraps his dragon in chains.
Fear is a great tool to control and in this case it has another name Lucifer, lol Namaste Sheri
The Devil seemed to have been taken from old paintings on cave walls of Shamen with antlers on their headdresses. They also depicted many gods from other religions to be wearing horns.
And since the Devil is part of Christianity, I don't believe the devil is real.
And since the Devil is part of Christianity, I don't believe the devil is real.
Not sure if it is a matter of right or wrong; Satan's appearance in images is that of a cultural representation, and it changes with each depictor's interpretation.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan ....
"Particularly in the medieval period, Satan was often depicted as having horns and a goat's hindquarters. He has also been depicted as carrying a pitchfork, and with a forked tail. None of these images seem to be based on Biblical materials. Rather, this image is apparently based on pagan horned gods, such as Pan and Dionysus, common to many mythologies. Neo-pagans allege that this image was chosen specifically to discredit the Horned God of ancient paganism."
Also: "A popular image of Satan, adopted from the deity of Greek mythology, Pan, is as a horned, hoofed goat-like monster holding a trident. In modern times, the goatlike image of Satan has been adapted into a more human-looking form of a dark, foreboding man wearing a goatee. Satan has also been depicted as a charming and attractive man, as symbolic of the belief that Satan acquires human souls by appealing to their vanity and presenting them with appealing and attractive temptations."
Imagistic derivation: "In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is an angel that [G-d] uses to test man for various reasons usually dealing with his level of piety (i.e. the test in the Book of Job). In the Apocrypha and New Testament, Satan is portrayed as an evil, rebellious demon who is the enemy of [G-d] and mankind. These two ideals are not necessarily mutually exclusive."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan ....
"Particularly in the medieval period, Satan was often depicted as having horns and a goat's hindquarters. He has also been depicted as carrying a pitchfork, and with a forked tail. None of these images seem to be based on Biblical materials. Rather, this image is apparently based on pagan horned gods, such as Pan and Dionysus, common to many mythologies. Neo-pagans allege that this image was chosen specifically to discredit the Horned God of ancient paganism."
Also: "A popular image of Satan, adopted from the deity of Greek mythology, Pan, is as a horned, hoofed goat-like monster holding a trident. In modern times, the goatlike image of Satan has been adapted into a more human-looking form of a dark, foreboding man wearing a goatee. Satan has also been depicted as a charming and attractive man, as symbolic of the belief that Satan acquires human souls by appealing to their vanity and presenting them with appealing and attractive temptations."
Imagistic derivation: "In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is an angel that [G-d] uses to test man for various reasons usually dealing with his level of piety (i.e. the test in the Book of Job). In the Apocrypha and New Testament, Satan is portrayed as an evil, rebellious demon who is the enemy of [G-d] and mankind. These two ideals are not necessarily mutually exclusive."
QUOTE(mklsgl @ Oct 31 2005, 09:39 PM) [snapback]911450[/snapback]
Not sure if it is a matter of right or wrong; Satan's appearance in images is that of a cultural representation, and it changes with each depictor's interpretation.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan ....
"Particularly in the medieval period, Satan was often depicted as having horns and a goat's hindquarters. He has also been depicted as carrying a pitchfork, and with a forked tail. None of these images seem to be based on Biblical materials. Rather, this image is apparently based on pagan horned gods, such as Pan and Dionysus, common to many mythologies. Neo-pagans allege that this image was chosen specifically to discredit the Horned God of ancient paganism."
Also: "A popular image of Satan, adopted from the deity of Greek mythology, Pan, is as a horned, hoofed goat-like monster holding a trident. In modern times, the goatlike image of Satan has been adapted into a more human-looking form of a dark, foreboding man wearing a goatee. Satan has also been depicted as a charming and attractive man, as symbolic of the belief that Satan acquires human souls by appealing to their vanity and presenting them with appealing and attractive temptations."
Imagistic derivation: "In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is an angel that [G-d] uses to test man for various reasons usually dealing with his level of piety (i.e. the test in the Book of Job). In the Apocrypha and New Testament, Satan is portrayed as an evil, rebellious demon who is the enemy of [G-d] and mankind. These two ideals are not necessarily mutually exclusive."
mklsgl ...
DC ...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.