You know the look. Spiked tail, horns, hooves. Let's backtrack, though. Before trying to take over Heaven, wasn't Lucifer one of God's favorite angels? If he was an angel, you'd think he'd be handsome. Curly blond hair, blue eyes, maybe.

Maybe when God kicked him out he condemned him with eternal ugliness lol i dunno.

At some stage in History Roman armies invaded Britain on a religious level rather than on a physical level. This is because the inhabitants of Britain at the time where known to be fierce fighters and had caused the Roman armies a lot of grief during the last invasion.

A very clever tactic was used where many of the God's worshiped by the folk in Britain where either identified as Roman(soon to be Catholic) religious figures, assimilated into the religion or where completely outlawed by the conquoring army.

The original Catholic or Christian based religions (It is important to note that the religious system used by the Romans was not the same as today's Christian or Catholic religions) used a dualistic system to keep there flocks in the fold this at the time in history ensured that the Church or nation with the most followers held power and there for money and control.
Dualistic meaning good and evil or in other words follow our God or be smitten by the devil. They decided to take one of the strongest Gods Britain's used at the time, Pan a.k.a Cerrunos a forrest God of Hunting and use his form as their own Devils. So effectively telling the Pagans that if they worshiped their God Cerrunos they would burn for all eternity in Hell.
All in all this was a very succesfull campaign for the Romans.

Actually I would love to talk about this. Satan, and Lucifer are two completely different beings. Lucifer, for one, never FELL from heaven, nor was he cast out. Lucifer left heaven on his own accord.

Lucifer is more into the intelligence, and the knowledge while Satan is into power, and base animalistic instincts.

Lucifer is the most "divine" angel to have ever been created, and the most beautiful.

Satan is the beast you see nowadays. Also, Satan is not always portrayed as a red hook nosed devil. He has been portrayed as a giant blue beast sitting in a thrown next to a lake that is completely frozen over with his minions and most loyal followers locked up to their jaws in the ice. He has three heads in these descriptions, and one chew on Judas, the other two I cannot recall, but they are not happy about it to say the least.

If anyone ever needs a bit of background information on demons feel free to ask, or message me. I will be happy to aid you.

My mother-in-law, a Southern Freewill Baptist, believes as such:

[quote]Lucifer, the first angel God created, was the most beautiful of all created. When Lucifer rose up against God, her interpretation not mine, he was cast out of heaven and as punishment for his vanity (Sin apparently went into him in Heaven) his beauty was taken and he was changed into the most hideous form imaginable.[/quote]
Why God, being omnipotent and omnipresent, would think of this as the most hideous form imaginable is beyond me. I'm sure it has more to do with Kismit's explanation.

I'm not sure when or where he was stripped of his name only to be identified as Satan or the Devil, but it's become somewhat clear that the Beast and the Dragon are not the same being as Lucifer. I'm sure the Dragon and the Beast had something to do with Eastern religion.

Demons??? This is a pagan greek nonsense practically non-exisitent in the Bible before Alexander the Great brough pagan Greek religious ideas to the land of Israel. And what are construed as demons in the Holy Torah are actually the other "sons of God" that were appointed by the creator to look after the various tribes of people, just as Yahweh was the personal God/Watcher of Israel.

Most serious Biblical scholars state Lucifer never exsted, this is a Christian invention hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. This is why the Jews or Jesus NEVER mentions Lucifer. These passages refer to both the Prnce of Tyre and the King of Babylon, neither of which are angels, but are political rivals and enemies of ancient Israel.

With the lucifer nonsense gone, there is nothing in the Bible about Satan's appearance except that he is described as a dragon in the New Testament, and Christians also claim he the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He is never said to be an angel but counted among the sons of God in the book of Job. These are undoubtedly the highest of heavenly creatures, the Seraphim, whcih means fiery flying serpents in Hebrew, and translated by the ancient Jews themselves to Drakons, the greek word meaning dragon.

Interestingly, the Sumerian God who created the Garden of Eden is Enki, who is described as a "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven", so maybe the new Testamant is right about the dragon imagery of Satan. The Old testament Satan though is not connected with the GArden of Eden, and is God's obedient servant, NOT his opponent, which is another Christian invention. . In ancient Jewish texts he is also a serpent or dragon that God commands to swallow Moses, but orders Satan to spew Moses up again, when his wife circumcises Moses Son just in the neck of time. These Sumerian dragon Gods look much like the modern conception, with a long neck, long tail, four clawed feet, scaly body and wings.

The blue Statan with three mouths is purely the invention of Dante, as his his whole concept of Hell. In Early Christian scriptures, like the Apocolypse of Baruch, Hell is not an underground place in imitation of the Greek Hades, but the bellies of the huge dragons in heaven (also the Seraphim?) who consume the souls of sinners. By far, the most common depictions of Satan before Dante's book was that of a red dragon, sometimes with seven heads, but just as often with just one head. But the rest of these dragons were still regarded as heavenly creatures as well. God is depiected in many medieval Bibles riding on the back of one of his dragon servants called a cherub, though now these have evolved into ridiculous fat baby angels.

Medieval and renaissance artists would portray Satan as a goatlike Satyr, from Greek mythology, but the horns, red leotards and pointed spade tail actually stems from the "Red Dragon of Revelation". The iron of the dragon identity, which is probably the most accurate, is the fact that all of the rest of these Seraphim that work for God are also these same "dragons".

As far as I ever understood, Satan was what ever the person thought he would be. If you thought Satan was good looking, then he was. If you thought he was hideous, then he was. Really though, who would be more seductive, some monstrous beast or a handsome man? Look at Bundy, he was quite handsome, that is why most of his victims trusted him enough to get into the car with him.

*coughs* Kismet has it right.

Satan still is the beautiful deceiver. He can take many shapes and forms, but if you ask yourself, would you buy a used car from this entity, you might get an idea of his physical and emotional qualities.

I don't know where the fanciful images came from; probably a literary creation, but there is no biblical evidence for them. Some of the more modern symbols of satan represent the pschological nature of satan and his relationship with humanity. ie our fears, lusts and other desires, our need for recognition, our innate sense of right and wrong, and the subconscious knowledge that bad deeds will bring their own punishments, both real and psychological

What a JOKE! You play up the greek word "Drakon" to support your Dragon BS. Then when it swings the other way all of a sudden the greek have pagan nonsense. Besides the greek influence did not taint the NT till the 3rd century. The Aramaic texts hold the gold standard for accuracy and thought. You are correct about the hell theology but are dead wrong on the fallen angel part.

I thought yo knew more about the Bible. The Old testament angels are flesh and blood creatures that are identical to men in their appearance. Greek influence affected Jewish religous thought from the tiem of the Hellenistic conquest and rule by the seleucids three hundred years before the birth of Christ. Invisible spirit daemons were amond these Greek ideas, as well as the tormenting hades.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. Because Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Eastern Mediterranean, it was extensively used by the educated Jews, NOT aramaic, the tongue of the common rabble. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this, for many of the scriptures are in GREEK. Indeed, many Jewish scriptures are known ONLY in Greek.

The use of the greek word Drakon in the Dead Sea Scrolls to translate the word Seraphim proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ancient hebrews regarded the seraphim and winged reptilian creatures. But this should be no surprise because becasue we still see this definition commonly accepted today in the most scholarly Biblical sources, although it apparently bothers some Christians who feel the highest heavenly creatures whould not be "dragons" but winged human monstrosities stolen from pagan classical art.

So understand that it is two very different matters to acknowledge the Greek language used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is why Seraphim was translated to Drakon, (and spoken by every learned Rabbi of the time), and to accept pagan greek THEOLOGY as the early Christians did, which set Christianity distinctly apart from Judaism. But I agree that we can certainly gain new insights by studying the aramaic texts, but to dismiss the fact that Greek was just as commonly used in the time of Jesus is incorrect.

The Biblical dragons themselves go back to the very Sumerian roots of Judaism in Ur, the origin of Abraham and his people. That is why there is a dragon's pleasure garden named Eden, and tower of Babel, a man named adam tricked out of eternal life by the dragon, and the flooding of the earth save for one good family, by an angry storm dragon (brother of the dragon of Eden), all much more ancient Sumerian stories, carried over in the earliest book of the Bible.

There is no evidence to support that at all. Please show us just one piece of ancient Christian art or scripture that depicts Satan in any other way than a literal serpent or dragon. You will find that the "Satyr" look of Satan stems from the time of the Renaissance.

Nor was there some devious Roman plot to instill Christianity on the Britains. In fact, by the time Christianity became the state Roman religion, the people of Roman Britain were thoroughly Romanized. The pagan Celtic and Roman Gods were largely very similar, and in Roman Britain we see the Celtic and Roman Gods worshipped side by side. You see this in the identificatin of Pan and Cerrunos. But when Christianity became the only tolerated religon, BOTH Roman Pan and Celtic Durrunos were outlawed. Now the Pagan Romans destroyed the power of the druids in the first century AD to prevent any more revolts, but other than that did not interfere with the local religion.

There is a popular misconception to make the Romans seem like foreign occupiers in Britain. A better way to imagine Britain it like the American State of Hawaii, first conquered by America, but in a short time, it has become just another state with the same American culture. Then understand that Britain was a "Roman state" (province) for three times as long. These people thought they were as "Roman" as everybody else in the empire. But much later, we do see Christian missionaries like St. Columba trying to convert pagan picts to Christianity, so maybe this is what you mean.

But you are right about the dualistic nature of Christianity. That is why Satan was transformed from the obedient servant, and "son" of God in the Book of Job, to the opponent of God in the New Testament. But this has a lot to do with the huge influence of Zoroastrian theology in early Christianity which most Christians are unaware of.

Where did Satan's look come from? I defer to the turtle. Link

I shall call him, Sooty! Because it really confuses the Baptists.

Well, what i've learnt and heard about over the years is that when christians were tryin to replace Pagan rituals with Christianity like in the Roman times and that, they took the image of one of the main Pagan worshipped Gods, "Pan" and made him the image of "Gods enemy" so to wane people onto the worship of God rather than their Pagan counterparts...it worked din it LOL....this eventually led to the oppression and torture of many women and some men accused of partaking in witchcraft which was deemed "evil" for the relationship/comparrison that had been created between "Pan" and the devil.

Pans image was simply manipulated into the advertising of Christian morals as a control over society...Take one opponent and make it look evil, it still goes on in politics today!

cool quote:
Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is....
Mohandas Gandhi

They also did things like making mass similer to Pagan ritual by "drinking Christs blood" so as to make people who were used to the Pagan rituals more comfortable with the Christian concept. I believe rituals such as this are merely an aspect of the fasion of the time from people who took the teachings too literally when there was still alot of myth attatched to daily events they would draw comfort from ritual...oh yeah, they also did things like..planting ewe trees in church yards and that, so the Pagans who worshipped nature could do it in the confines of Christianism and so gradually change doctrines.

Again, there is absolutely no ANCIENT archaeological, pictorial or scriptural evidence to support this Renaissance era mythology of Satan resembling Pan. All depictions of Satan in ancient times is simply a huge, terrifying serpent or dragon. Ancient pagan imagery became popular again in rennaissance times, and people also began to question the Church with new scientific discoveries such as those of Galieo and Copernicus. The Satyr look of Satan was actually a more sympathetic one, expected in the age of enlightenment.

maybe

See the TURTLE of enormous GIRTH
On his SHELL he holds the EARTH

Stephen King. "IT". Heck yeah.

The ancient greeks worshiped Lucifer as the Morning Star long before the biblical texts were written. Artifacts such as amphora depicting Anthena riding a goat across the sky, led by the Morning Star are common.
I tend to agree with SC, what better way to convert the 'heathen pagan masses' than to use the image of the God as the source of evil?
IMO the 'look' the devil has now is a conflatation of Anthena's goat and the description of the God in His form of Pan.

Many cultures worshipped the Morning Star, but they did not worship Lucifer. Lucifer is a latin word which Greeks as well as hebrews never knew. . There are dozens of scholarly works that state that verse has nothing to do with fallen angels, just two very real political enemies of ancient Israel. But this invented fallen angel is very important to Christian theology to justify their dualistic departure from Old Testament theology.

As I said before, there is absolutely no evidence of Satan being depicted as anything but a serpent or dragon in all ancient texts and artwork, and we see this dragon imagery for Satan in both Jewish and Christian contexts.

As for Athena, there is no depiction of her riding a Goat in her temple, the Parthenon. But at her side is an enormous guardian serpent to signify her wisdom, and even the Bible speaks of the wisdom of these heavenly serpent dragons. That is why they judge and consume the wicked in early Christian theology, and why Jesus implored his disciples to be "as wise and serpents, meaning the heavenly kind, and not pea-brained snakes of the natural world.

I will say it again, the Satyr depiction of Satan is from the Renaissance. No one has yet provided any evidence to dispute this.

OOOPS! I meant Aphrodite, NOT Athena.
Athena is shown with a serpent - her son Erichthonius.(And an owl).

when did people start claiming he took on the form of a snake and what not?
like from the adam and eve thing?

Yep, although his wings and feet were supposedly taken as a punishment.

Then there is the Red Dragon of Revelation and the dragon commanded by God to swallow Moses.

But these are the ONLY descriptions of Satan in ancient times, no doubt then he is one of the Seraphim/flying serpents, highest ranked of heavenly creatures. No goat feet or pitchforks or black business suits -- all much later inventions. Its hard to make a devil costume if he is only a huge dragon, so these later versions became more popular. This why how he "took" Jesus and placed him on the temple pinacle. Only a huge creature, or cartoon superhero could do such things, and the dragon description is the only one in the Bible.

The look comes from pagan belief. It doesn't say what he looks like in the Bible.

so he looked like a dragon?

And they say I'm not photogenic!

the Iroquois native creation story has earth on a turtles back.

he once was a beautiful angel, but i believe when he was judged by God he lost his looks, which were very important to him. it's interesting that vanity existed before humans were created. he can take many forms now and often appears as an angel of light, and i've heard he likes to appear is a little child, or in a navy suit. i do think his physical form now though is a red dragon.

Iroquois Creation Myth

He is beautiful....... but still evil in the bible it states that hes one of the most beautiful angels and remains beautiful which he uses to decive others

Hogwash. Show us where it says "Satan was once a beautiful angel" in the Bible. It is not there. This is just more Christian mythology that has no basis in the Biblical scripture.

The Prince of Tyre is described as being beautiful, but this is not Satan, and Lucifer is a Christian invention from hundreds of years after Jesus.. Don't you think the Jews would know if the Bible ever described Satan as an angel? They do not believe in Lucifer either becasue this is a nonsensical Christian invention to make the Old Testament seem more like the zoroastrian dualistic religion they imitated which required an "Evil opponent to God", hence the need to invent Lucifier from a verse about a phoenecian prince.

Satan was always a Seraph dragon. These were the first sentient creatures created by God. We know this becauee he is the dragon in the Garden of Eden in the original stories the Bible tried to imitate, only these were preserved on tablets buried over 1000 years before the Hebrews begun to write the Bible.

lucifer n satan are in this way in contrary: lucifer is the morningstar the light of realization, he is the all-knowledge, but he had to fall from heaven, cause of his vanity, because he got joy out the I am, so he didn't enjoy all the pleasures but he enjoyed the fact of being aware of himself, and there's was no place in heaven for the one who makes himself two;
and satan is everything that has been, all ideas and images of the world, the one in u who uses everything for his own purposes, so if you realize what you're doing u re already in his hands, thats why he is the great dragon cause he's the world, everythin that is, like goethes faust: mephisto got him if he says: moment please stay u were so wonderful, like jesus said: there is nothing what is good besides god ;
there is one: god and he has an enemy, it's his own judgment or reflection, so the whole game is actually only between god's beeing and his thinking, so the ultimate day of god would have been when the logos, the morningstar cuts the silver string of reason, and dies and then would god appear the eternal joy of all the realzation in the universe without the thoughts of them, so much about plan a

Draconic Chronicler I respect your knowledge on these things immensly, however I would not trust any Christian or Biblicly based evidence from back in a time when the Church leaders had more say than the Nations leaders. Absolute power breeds corruption and it was certainly rife back in the good old days amongst the church/es of State.


How did they destroy the Druids power?

They also outlawed the use of Tarot cards amongst the people in that region, because they could be and were apparently used to tell stories about legends and Gods. The Tarot infact can be used to tell the story of the search for the holy grail. And there is no evidence to state that the search for the Holy Grail is a Christian based story where they look for the blood of Christ. That concept was introduced after the fact. This was because of refrences to people who bore similar resembelance to John the Baptist and Jesus. Infact historically it appears that the original King Arthur may well have been Italian, with Arthur translating as Rex or King or King of Kings. But the stone where the sword was pulled out is said to be in Italy and that it may well have been just a dagger that was removed by in Italian soldier. Still gossip gets out and a legend blossomed oddly enough on a completely different Island to where it originated.

Why do you think they outlawed both the Roman God and the Celtic one? Was it becuase they both depicted a vision of what the Devil had become associated with? For the people of Brittany who didn't get out much and where not overly educated, outlawing there God or a main god and beliefs would have been a very effective way to make the "transition " process simpler.

You COULD have put a bra on, GW! How do you fit those horns of yours into your insect of a car?



I think I just broke my sense of comprehension trying to decipher this.


The ideas "borrowed" by the writers of Judaic dogma have been identified time and again, as have the (in)justices these people took. As such, we can look at any religion to be a mingling of thoughts, whether good or bad, distorted into a body that claims to be original and authentic. Throughout time, the specifics of any story will be blurred into something other than the "truth". Thus, the characteristics ascribed to any figure of religous doctrine cannot be viewed literally or earnestly.

The Roman Army invaded their island stronghold and slaughtered most of the druids, all they could find.

The grail legends date to the Middle ages, long after the Roman period.

The Christians, once in power forbade all other religions, because they sincerely believed all other religions were false, and the work of the Devil. The irony of it all is if they actually read the old Testament, they would know, as the Jews did, that Satan works of God, not against him. But Christian dogma is more closely related to Persian Zoroastrianism, with good and evil dieties locked in an eternal struggle, then an all powerful creator responsible for good as well as evil (as the Bible actually says - but when did that matter?)

The word angel actually means messenger.

There are three types of angels referred to biblically.

The first is the one we recognise as most common. This messenger comes sometimes as a column of fire, sometimes as a person indistinguishable from mortal man. They can take whatever form is necessary to effectively deliver the message. They include lucifer/satan who led a rebellion in heaven and took one third of the angels with him. This is clearly biblical, even if a mix of old and new testament.

Of course if you think the bible was just an extended compilation of earlier legends and morality tales, this is irrelevant anyway, but having met a couple of these guys personally gives one a different perspective.

The second is human. One or two humans are referred to in the bible as angels because of their special role in delivering a particular message from god.

The third is jesus. While a little contentious, it is pretty clear that the arch angel Michael was actually jesus in an angelic guise. The evidence for this comes in several ways, but the clearest is that Michael is the only angel to be accorded worship and referred to as holy. The language of the bible used in talking about him is much closer to the language used to describe jesus than that used to describe "ordinary' angels. His powers and role are much more akin to a part of the god head than any other angels.

Generally angels are a part of the heavenly kingdom, along with other inhabitants outlined in the bible. The fall of lucifer and the ongoing battle between god and these angels led by lucifer, including its final outcome, is one of the more prominent threads running through the tapestry which is the bible.

A careful read of the last book of the bible will help one unravel this thread, but for most it probably will require help from either bible scholars or from some of the numerous writings on this book.

Yep. angels are "messengers" and Seraphim, who are of higher status, are fiery flying serpents. So what is that all about, or you just pretend it isn't in the Bible?

Well, if any of "those guys" said Lucifer was real, you were probably hallucinating, for most serious Biblical scholars know there is no such thing as a fallen angel named Lucifer. He is never acknowlged by the ancient Jews or Jesus. He is only a Christian mistranslation by Christians desperate to find Old Testament evidence of their pagan, dualistic beliefs imitated from persian Zoroastrianism. And please tell us where in the Bible it says Satan was ever an angel, fallen or otherwise. The only description of him is a serpent or dragon, and this is consistent with the ancient Rabbis own translation of the word seraphim to drakon, the highest of heavnly creatures and the only ones described with wings..

Drakonic chronicler, My point about the angels was in response to your apparent belief that the bible is simply a reconstruction from earlier tales with cuturally relevant alterations.

I see the bible differently. Having been visited by angels in a number of guises (who were too busy redirecting my life and the surrounding physical world in order to bring me comfort, and save my life, to engage in theological discussions on their nature), I tend to see the bible as written by people who had similar real occurences, and therefore understand the real and physical nature of these angels.

It also brings you to a different perspective on the bible.

Now, it is quite possible that these people confused this aspect of heaven with some other of the heavenly inhabitants, but i do not think they were simply engaging in "reconstruction" of earlier tales.

I will try to find you some of the relevant texts asap, but if you see the bible as a real and coherent story of real events, then the clear story is of an angel, lucifer, also known as satan (and by many other names) engaging in revolt for political or personal reasons with the creator of all things. Many angels followed his lead and were banished from heaven. They continue to try to decieve the people of earth, but will finally be defeated in a great battle, left on a scorched earth for 1000 years and finally destroyed when the heavenly city descends with all the resurrected souls, to restablish heaven on earth. This is a brief and perhaps too concise explanation.

Because the humans of earth chose to follow Lucifer they lost their immortality and relationship to god, while all the other inhabited worlds watch on to see what will happen. Earth was the only world accessible to the angels expelled from heaven. None of this is non biblical, although admittedly there are few specific references, they are spread out through the bible, and you have to read and understand the bible contextually to pick out this important thread from the many others woven through it.

An understanding of Revelation, its symbology and connection with genesis, to complete the story begun there, helps one understand and appreciate this aspect of the bible.

PS. If an entity we know as lucifer/satan did not tempt Jesus while he was in the wilderness, and ask him to acknowledge that entity as his "master" then what do you see this entity as being? Certainly jesus not only acknowledged this entity, but engaged in a testing battle of strength and wills with it, suggesting a being, both of considerable strength/power, and one at odds with god and his plan for our planet and his people.

You keep throwing in that Lucifer, but there is no lucifer. Google the words "Lucifer is a mistranslation" and up will pop a dozen scholarly articles that proves this.

I didn't say the Bible was just a rehash of older beliefs, I said the stories in the book of Genesis are, and we have undiniable proof of that. The fiery flying serpents that surround the throne of God in Isaiah are the fiery flying mushushu dragons that surround the throne of God in the orignal Sumerian version, complete with a Garden of Eden, called the GARDEN of EDEN, a wise talking dragon that lived there, a guy named adam tricked out of eternal life by the dragon, his brother, another dragon who floods the earth, except for one good man who builds a boat for his famility and animals, the Tower of Babel, etc. Are you trying to tell me this is all a coincidence? These stories were ALL written down and buried over 1000 years before the Bible was started to be written.

I never said the Bible was fake, if I did it would throw out the whole story about why there are dragons. I am saying that the oldest, Sumerian version of "the Bible" is going to be more accurate, than a much later version, vinally written down after these stories were embellished and changed by oral tradition.

In the real Old Tstament endorsed by Jesus, Satan is a trusted servant to God, and called one of the Sons of God. The war in heaven and satan's rebellion are nonsense stolen from the Persian Zoroastrian religion, they have the exact same story, only the dragon's name is Ahriman, and it is at least 500 years older than the New Testamet. This is why Christians needed to invent Lucifer and say he was the original Satan.

Satan did not tempt Jesus. He offered to make Jesus the Messiah of the Jews that he was prophesized to be. Satan turned them down, becasue in order to make Jesus Messiah, Satan would have killed millions of pagans to gain their submission. That is why Jesus is mankind's savior. Not becasue of some intangible nonsense that he sacrified himself in horrible death to please his Father. Oh wait, you say he is his father too. Wouldn't he make the rules then and NOT have to kill himself. Why not just wave his hand and say "your sins are forgiven" and not die a painful death? See, none of it makes sense, until you accept the real version untainted by the Persian mythology of a devil which Christianity sadly has embraced. Well, not all Christians.

And no, you will find no passage in the Bible that says Satan was once a beautiful angel. There is one in which he is counted among the "Sons of Elohim" but this is another term for the Seraphim dragons, of which Yahweh, his brother, was one as well. This is in part of the Bible, they never told you about in Sunday School.

They are "contrary" because Lucifer is simply an inept Christian mistranslation of a scripture about the Prince of Tyre, a powerful Phoenecian city state and rival to Israel. Serious Biblcial scholars all know this. Google the words, Lucifer and Mistranslation and you will find scholarly articles that explain this, many written by Christians.

Satan is the "great dragon" just like all the rest of the Seraphim. That's what the word Seraphim means. But in the only Bible Jeuss ever endorsed (the Holy Torah), Satan works for God. The New Testament story of Satan being Gods enemy is a Zoroastrian Persian Fairytale that the Christians like, and added to their theology. But it contradicts what Jesus said was the only word of God. Go figure.

I seem to remember (I could be mistaken) something in the New Testament about Satan tempting Jesus in the desert. He took Jesus to the top of a mountain and showed him all the world's kingdoms below and said he would give them all to Jesus if he (Jesus) got on his knees and worshipped him.
Does anyone else know this reference?

This has been misunderstood to be a "temptation" by mainstream Chrisitianity. But in reality, Satan offered to conquer the world for Jesus to fulfill the prophecies that the Messiah would destroy the enemies of the Jews. I suspect the Gospel writers misinterpreted the meeting, becasue their notion of Satan did not come from the Old Testament, where Satan is the obedient servant of God, but from the Devil dragon Ahriman of Perisan Zoroastrianism. In order for Jesus to become Messiah, and king of the world, the empires ofRome, Persia, China and the rest would all have to submit, and millions of people would have died. This is probably why Jesus disdained becoming the Messiah of "this" world.

Jesus was tempted by the devil and Jesus was never trying to become King of the World i have no idea where you got that idea from he was the son of God in my OPINION (I respect all other opinions on the subject)

Adcox, Jesus was Jewish, Hebrew to be more accurate, and to the Hebrew their Messiah, must force others to follow, Jesus refused this position and hence you get the Temptation. Now Jesus, being a true messiah, would have had to become the King of Kings, being that he is the son of God, some now refer to Jesus as the King of Kings.

Yes i know he was jewish and the whole king of the world thing i said is that he did not try to take over the world and become the one king. yes he was the king of kings i believe but just the post i replied to stated something of him controlling countries or something

Thank you greatly for having posted excatly what I was going to post glad to see someone else who knows the background to it ect.

anyways yes "satan" was originally a pagan deity, pan. and no pan wasnt evil. But Christians felt to get more belivers that the best way to do that was to take one of the local believe system's diety and basterdize it to a evil version and so get members to follow our of fear and so on.

Where do you get this stuff? There is NOTHING in the Bible that remotely suggests "Satan is Pan". Nobody in ancient times ever came to that conclusion. The ONLY "look" Satan EVER had in ancient times is a serpent and dragon. As I said before, someone please show us an Ancient depiction of Satan in which he looks like Pan. You cannot because this idea did not come about until the Renaissance.

If you actuallly read the Bible you would find that Satan is the prosecutor of mankind in God's heavenly court, with NOTHING abut him opposing God. And there is NOTHING tin the Bible that suggests Satan has anything to do with pagan latin Gods like "Pan". No Hebrews in in Old Testament times knew anything at all about Pan or any other Roman Gods. There was no Rome yet!

None of you who have spouted this nonsense has provided a single bit of evidence from ancient times to support your claims.. If you really want to go back to pagan dieties, then Satan can be traced directly to the Dragon who created the Garden of Eden in the stories the Hebrews imitated from Sumeria that became the book of Genesis. His name is Enki, the brother to the dragon who flooded the world, Enlil, who would be renamed Yahweh by the Hebrews. This may be why Satan and Yahweh are such good buddies in the Old Testament. Christianity's devil was stolen from Pagan Zoroastrian dualism of Persia, becasue there is no "evil Satan" in the Old Testament endorsed by Jesus, just the obedient satan. If you actually READ the Old Testament you would probably be very surprised as to what it really says about Satan. Nothing bad at all, and nothing to do with Pan.

Has anyone ever thought that Satan and this is what i believe looks just like a normal man he does not look like a dragon or anything maybe he's said to look like a dragon or demon looking t have people fear him. but really we shouldn't fear him. Anyways i believe he was or is a angel that maybe betrayed God so was sent to Hell or God apponted him to watch over hell or something, personally i think he was a angel who betrayed God because you hear of possesions things people suggest the "devil" is responsible for which i believe. but i believe he looks like a normal man or woman you never know

Sataniel, was doing as God had Commanded him to do when he asked Jesus if he would him to conquer the world, Jesus obviously said no, and in doing so show that the God he believed in was more compassionate than that, something we seem to have forgotten was a Key thing.

Besides when did Christians start saying God loves everyone, and in the same breath say except these groups, and you know what I speak of. Preach Tolerance of Difference, and then practice some form hatred bred of prejudice.