Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Apostle

Bible Questions

481 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Paranoid Android
Satan is a Christian concept.

.....

Need more?

If Satan is a Christian concept, then why is Satan mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures?

Going by the links you provided, I think you meant to say that Satan in the Tanakh is not synonymous with the "Devil" in the New Testament scriptures. Since I agree with the basics of what you quoted, I don't see an issue. However, I must say my view of Satan is much closer to the Hebrew view than many mainstream Christian views. You would be surprised by the amount of Christians that don't view Satan as a "fallen angel", and don't see him as the "embodiment of evil", as your links put it. The New Testament does not set up Satan in this way, and indeed two of the three quotes used to justify the war in heaven/fallen angel story both come from the Tanakh.

Back to the original discussion we were having, as I said before, when I made that previous post it was late at night and I mistook the Lucifer/Satan argument and thought of it in terms of Satan/Devil. An easy mistake to make when it's late at night and you've just finished work. So there really is no further point in arguing this point further, since we basically agree with each other on key issues. If you have any further questions (perhaps about the relationship between the Tanakh and New Testament Satan/Devil) I would be more than happy to answer. But I have no desire to engage in an argument on what is essentially a non-issue. All the best.

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
zandore
people used to believe the earth was flat , in unicorns and cyclops' too. believing something doesn't make it real.

Not believing doesn't make it false either.

FACT: Pandas, Mountain Gorillas, and a few other animals were considered to be mythological creatures until the late 1700s and early 1800s.

NO FACTS: God

If Satan is a Christian concept, then why is Satan mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures?

"Satan" in the Christian concept?

Among those books of the Hebrew Scriptures written before 300 BCE, the term "satan" (root word "s'tn") appears often. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb "satan" which means "to oppose." The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was widely used in the early Christian church. They translated "satan" as "diaboloc" from which we derive our English term "devil" and "diabolic."

There are no passages within the older parts of the Hebrew Scriptures where Satan is portrayed as an evil devil - the arch enemy of God and of humanity. At most, he is described as a henchman who carries out God's evil instructions. There is no dualism here between two powerful supernatural entities: an all-good God and an all-evil Satan. God is portrayed as performing, directly and indirectly, both kind and evil deeds. When:

plagues are to be sent, or

a great genocidal flood is created to kill off almost all of humanity, except for Noah and his family, or

Onan was killed because he practiced an elementary form of birth control, in violation of a cultural tradition, or

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because its residents were abusive to the needy and to strangers, or

Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt because she looked the wrong way,

it is God who does it. In essence, the ancient writers of the early Hebrew Scriptures looked upon Jehovah as performing both good and evil deeds. A good indication of this is found in:

SOURCE

Satan in the OT (Hebrew Scriptures) was not evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enigma wrapped in a puzzle
Actually, you are WAY off base with the Tower Of Babel story (Genesis 11)...

That's an explanation of how languages were formed and people started to gather with others that spoke the same language. The tower NEVER fell to all ends of the earth, and I'm not sure where you got that from, but its NOT in the Bible. The people were scattered.

Its not clear in the English version, but in the Hebrew translation, its clear that the people were of one language and wanted to become gods. It wasn't just a tall tower that God destroyed. He destroyed it because they entertained the FALSE idea that they could ascend to heaven and become gods.

Languages and races are lumped together in the same genre. Caucasion Americans speak American, African speak African, Asian speak Chinese, Japanese ect.....

The point is its ****g ridiculous for this to be a rational explanation for anything! No one ever built a huge tower to try and be gods and "God" never destroyed this supposade tower. If this were the case I am sure there would be some remains of this massive skyscraper.

And don't pull the "bible is not suppose to be Literall" crap because if that was the case then throw them in the trash. The bible has been and is being taken literall from its birth until present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
Not believing doesn't make it false either.

FACT: Pandas, Mountain Gorillas, and a few other animals were considered to be mythological creatures until the late 1700s and early 1800s.

yes, not believing doesnt make it false or incorrect.

but you always bring up this irrelavent point.

as ive stated before, youre comparing a type of primate (we have primates on earth) to a 2000 year old book about burning bushes that talk, seniors building arks, parting a sea, a cosmic zombie jew and an invisible entity on the clouds.

i see a problem here.

Proof lies in interpretation of the evidence. What is proof to me, may not be proof to you. Life is proof to me that there is a God. To some people it isn't. Its all the proof I need, so it just depends on how you choose to view the evidence.

i totally disagree. life is proof that youre alive. thats all. it doesnt prove a god of anything sort. if you had never heard of the god you believe, you wouldnt be atrributing the fact that life is here to your gods doing. thats how it works.

Any PROOF that they were designed by man and not inspired by God?

just proof that man designed it.

Edited by Agent. Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
Satan in the OT (Hebrew Scriptures) was not evil.
It's obvious you are more interested in "winning" this argument than in truly listening to what I have to say. Had you read what I wrote, you would not have made this statement, for I fully agree. However, I would submit that Satan in the New Testament is not evil either. Indeed he is a prosecuting angel against humanity, doing the will of God (surprise, surprise - just like the Tanakh). I do acknowledge that many Christians would not necessarily uphold that view, but the New Testament certainly does. Satan is not "evil", nor is he somehow an arch-nemesis of God.

Gideon Mage once told me an old Jewish parable that explains the issue. He said that there was once a very wise King who was preparing his Son to rule his Kingdom. He told his son that he would inherit his Kingdom IF he remained celibate until he took over his father's reign. The son agreed to these terms and went about his life. To test his son to see if he would remain Faithful to his promise, God enlists a beautiful prostitute to seduce his son. Though the prostitute dearly loved the King and worshipped him, because she was a loyal subject, she reluctantly agreed to this and tempted the son.

Gideon never did tell me the ending to this parable, but I think it rather unimportant - the King represents God, the son represents us as inheritors of God's Kingdom, and the prostitute represents Satan. This view DOES NOT violate the New Testament view. Perhaps the only major difference is whether Satan enjoys his work. The parable Gideon gave me implies that Satan is a "reluctant tempter", whereas the New Testament implies that Satan enjoys what he does. His enjoyment does not take away from the fact that he is still doing God's will - for lack of a better phrase, it seems that Satan's job is also his hobby.

As noted, I realise many Christians won't agree with what I have said, but you would be surprised by the amount that do. What you are quoting in your links is the stereotypical Christian view based on what is perceived as the belief of many Christians (stemming from Catholicism, but also largely influenced by Hollywood's description of Satan as a beast with a pitchfork and horns - just like stating that all Christians believe in hell as a place of fiery torture, so is this a gross generalisation based on a lack of understanding of differing views of Christianity).

Just a thought.

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
Languages and races are lumped together in the same genre. Caucasion Americans speak American, African speak African, Asian speak Chinese, Japanese ect.....

The point is its ****g ridiculous for this to be a rational explanation for anything! No one ever built a huge tower to try and be gods and "God" never destroyed this supposade tower. If this were the case I am sure there would be some remains of this massive skyscraper.

And don't pull the "bible is not suppose to be Literall" crap because if that was the case then throw them in the trash. The bible has been and is being taken literall from its birth until present.

Hi Enigma,

Have you considered dealing with your anger-issues against Christianity? You seem abnormally antagonistic to the Bible, and seem intent on trying to make anyone who sees otherwise out to be a fool (eg, "it's ****g ridiculous", or referring to an argument as "crap"). Have you considered that some might see your views as just as unlikely.

That said, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, so please don't leap to that conclusion before reading the rest of my post. Allow me a slightly different understanding of the Babel story for you to consider - The Tower of Babel represents the last story in a special section of the Bible. Genesis 1-11 is written in a distinctly different style of writing compared to the rest of Genesis. Chapters 1-11 are written in a unique writing style that most closely resembles a form of poetic narrative (not poetry, that is different). Chapters 12-50 drastically change style from poetic narrative to historical narrative. The figurative language used throughout Genesis 1-11 present the possibility that these are not necessarily a literal account of how God created the earth, but rather it is a theological discourse into why God created (chapter 1-3) and documents humanity's slide into sin (4-11). Using this view based on solid reading of the poetic indicators, chapter 11 therefore describes the height of humanity's disobedience. No longer are they simply content to just disobey God, as they did in the time of Noah (Genesis 6-7), and neither is it like Cain and Abel before that in chapter 4 when it was just one man who sinned, but they have now taken the next step and actually want to become gods themselves through the building of a tower that they believe will reach to the heavens.

As noted, chapters 12-50 contain no such poetic indicators, and as such I have no problem with stating that I agree with the rest of Genesis as a literally historical account. Chapter 12 moves on from the depravity of chapters 4-11 to signal a new beginning, the first step in humanity's return to God. So this is not a case of pulling a "bible is not supposed to be literal" crap, but rather using the text as the indicators allow. I don't say it is all literal, or all poetic. It is wrong to speak in absolutes such as this, and it is a measure of our society's misunderstanding of a text as large as the Bible that we must either take it all 100% literal or we must take it all 100% figurative (however, in saying this I am not saying we can make the Bible say anything we want it to - it must be done within the context of the passage you are reading; if the context does not support your interpretation, then your interpretation is faulty). Yes, I do realise that people have been using these passages as literal, but I am simply pointing out that there are strong textual indicators to suggest otherwise (I'm happy to share some of these with you if you are interested). That is not to say though that Genesis 1-11 is "make-believe" like poetry might be. It is not written as poetry, but rather poetic narrative. It is entirely possible that there were real figures on whom the stories of chapters 1-11 were based. There may have been a tower made by humans that was supposed to be the highest ever to rival god, but somehow the tower's planning went awry. The point of Genesis 1-11 is not historical but theological, and needs to be considered in that context.

On a personal note, assuming the Tower of Babel was a literal piece of history, I still see the same theological reasons. The story had nothing to do with explaining away the many languages we have in our world. That is not indicated at all. What it does show is that humanity wanted to build a tower and through doing this believing themselves gods on earth. As such, God intervened.

Sorry for the long post, but this is not a short issue to deal with. I hope you have had a chance to read this far through my post, and I hope I have perhaps given you something to mull over and respond to beyond the antagonistic responses I have seen from you so far. All the best, Enigma :tu:

Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.