The Rise / Fall of Gods first Archangle Light Bearer Lucifer — Why Did he actually fall?

[Abramelin]

It's interesting to note that there is a people, the Yezidis, who have a quite different idea about Satan or Lucifer. They claim their religion far antedates the Abrahamic religions, although that was and is contested.

Their name for Satan is Melek Ta'us, or the Peacock Angel:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/index.htm

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Abramelin

[+Hammerclaw]

19 minutes ago, SHaYap said:

Meh... 

Mom or Mommy, the wind cries Mary

~

 

Christianity is a tale that grew in the telling....

[+Hammerclaw]

27 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Is this a Seventh Day Adventist approach to Job? 

The Book Of Job – Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church (saccentral.org)

[SHaYap]

18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Christianity is a tale that grew in the telling....

What's more telling, truth be told, is what was forbidden to tell... 

Quote

There were many councils in the ancient world and dispute about some of them being "ecumenical". The Eastern Orthodox churches hold to seven ecumenical councils. The Oriental Orthodox churches hold to just the first three councils. And the Roman Catholic church holds to twenty-one councils, and counting.14 Sept 2021

https://lifepacific.libguides.com › c....

CHURCH HISTORY: Ecumenical Councils - LibGuides at Life ...

~

 

[+Hammerclaw]

8 minutes ago, SHaYap said:

What's more telling, truth be told, is what was forbidden to tell... 

~

 

I wouldn't know (save for looking it up) for as Protestants, the only council we're beholden to is that of Nicaea, in 325 A.D.

[+and-then]

On 12/24/2021 at 5:54 AM, Manwon Lender said:

Hey this Jesus is for you!!

        Happy 2022 to Buddha buddies everywhere  

 

[+Sherapy]

Bingo, it looks as if MW’s take is right from the pages of The SDA approach.
 

https://absg.adventist.org/pdf.php?file=2016:4Q:SE:PDFs:EAQ416_13.pdf

Edited December 28, 2021 by Sherapy

[Grim Reaper 6]

44 minutes ago, and then said:

        Happy 2022 to Buddha buddies everywhere  

 

Well thank you!

Peace

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

Actually, that would be a great topic, but the current topic turns on a long, long evolution from a Hebrew original concept, through an "intertestamentary" period where Jews and then Christians shared and clashed over new ideas, onto a Christian orthodoxy which got codified just in time for Islam to mine the tailings, and then finally on into early modern times where some Protestants decided that Revelation was to be taken literally, in an imaginatively figurative kind of way.

That is one long intellectual journey Satan has undergone. The whole magilah, not just the most recent bit, is on-topic here.

The other way around. Lucifer is an obvious Latinism, and first appears in Bible translations long after the character Satan was already in play. Your new friends the Catholics who do, after all, know something about Latin, are happy to credit their cleric Jerome (340's-420 CE) or his workshop with the innovation.

No, Isaiah's having a flield day with the divine titles that ancient pagan Near Eastern kings typically lavished upon themselves.

Actually, it's God who directs Satan's attention to Job. Satan merely points out a gap in God's logic that would have been obvious to any "other beings" who might have been listening. Satan says aloud what anybody would be thinking, assuming they're allowed to think.

Now, there's no question that God comes off as a dick in Job, and cuts the bet short when the character Job is about to stand up for himself, but none of that is Satan's doing.

Yes, there certainly are other logical difficulties in the war-in-heaven scenario besides its timing being irreconcilable with the canonical Job, unless somebody writes off Job as allegorical. But Biblical literalists don't have that option, do they?

Yes, I especially admire how modern atheist Isaiah phrases it, at 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

We (ie you and I ) were discussing the christian variant and theology.

I made that clear from  the start  I accept the Jewish variant although it is not as clear cut as it seems on the surface.

jewish theologians have varying opinions on satan,  from a non existent being who is  a metaphor for human evi,l through a servant of god, to the adversary of god

  The jewish interpretation of job doesn't vary too much from  the christian.

 Ie  inbothits clear that satan did the dirty work and god did not prevent him. The critical point here is the audience and WHY god allowed Satan to make job suffer

Satan challenged  god before an audience of clearly significant beings (or the y would not be part of the story )  Unless you think god set the whole thing up making him evil (which he is not in either Jewish or christian theology  then Satan was trying to make god look like a weak leader, who didn't understand his followers,  in front of that audience  

No the language used in Isiah is only used for divine beings not human kings (according to exerts on language and text deconstruction)   While the king of tyre  was referenced  he was only a metaphor  for Lucifer 

lol no god never appears as a dick in job 

First reason the writer would never have considered or allowed his god to be presented in tha t light 

second, modern people judge the deaths of jobs wife and children  as evil 

However in those times wives and children were chattels or possessions 

to the writer and the audience of the time who were used to women and children dying all the time , god made everything right when he gave back  similar "chattels" to job 

Third, the narrative is a teaching tale (I dont believe any of it to be true and many Jewish theologians do not either)  Morality tales' are dependent on the values and morals of the audience of their time  

In this story god is portrayed  as all powerful, just, and wise   but  the writers of such a teaching tale would never portray their god as evil cruel or stupid  (to their specific audience ) That perception only evolves as humanity's values and ethics change 

ps job was never about to abandon god He questioned why he was suffering when he knew he had done no wrong, but he never questioned gods right to treat  him as god willed 

in other words jobs love of god was not bought by material things, comfort or prosperity    but by a spiritual connection, faith or belief 

And that is its message to ordinary people of the time.

Your   material possessions, even your wives and children, are not as important as your faith.

It's a value that  even christ mentions 

lol again, yes  that quote about creating all things is often used to claim that god caused evil or does evil things  yet it doesn't fit into the context of either Jewish or christian theology or the rest of the bible 

Basically all it is saying is that god is the creator (of everything)  Thus where evil exists it flows from his creation  Neither good nor evil would exist without god, in this narrative 

It does NOT mean that  god created evil or does evil things .  Again the writers of the time would not have meant to give that impression  They were promoters of god,  not critics in any way. 

Basically the general argument is tha t god gave its creations free will (not to d so for beings with self  awareness  would have been truly evil and eventhe writers of the time would have realised this )

It has always been the choices of those beings  (angels and humans) which has created evil.

A person who loves god, walks in its light, and follows its precepts,  will not cause evil.

Evil is always a choice by self  aware beings 

[jmccr8]

51 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Evil is always a choice by self  aware beings 

Hi Walker

So believers are not self aware?

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

jewish theologians have varying opinions on satan,  from a non existent being who is  a metaphor for human evi,l through a servant of god, to the adversary of god

Yes, as already discussed, Jewish literature featuring the character of Satan spans millennia. We were discussing Job, a relatively early scripture, certainly early compared with the letters of Paul, a noted Jewish religious author of the First Century of our era.

Quote

Satan challenged  god

As has already been discussed, God raises the subject of Job with Satan. Satan asks God to consider whether Job's religious piety is attributable to God's unusual generosity and blessings toward him, And then, gasp, Satan offers an independent thought, a hypothetical prediction of what would happen if God harried Job. Not a suggestion that God actually do so.

That is God's idea, but Satan is no saint. He goes along with his boss. Oh wait, that is sainthood.

Another poster has asked why I describe the God-Satan relationship in Job as "cozy." They're in this together. It's not all Satan's idea and it's not all God's idea. They are moral equals, if not equal in power. The murder of Job's family and his utter abasement while being deprived of the mercy of a quick death is their joint project.

In conclusion on this line of inquiry

Like everybody else, the SDA's are entitled to their reading of Job. I set out to comment on the false claim that the SDA-style reading was the unique traditional reading of Job, its God and its Satan. I've said my piece, and you've had your rebuttal.

Next case.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by eight bits

[eight bits]

19 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Their name for Satan is Melek Ta'us, or the Peacock Angel:

So, back to the OP problem. And before we begin, Yezidi people have been killed hideously for what's in the quote box, and the persecution of the Yezidi as devil worshippers continues to this day. Melek Taus is not Satan. Melek Taus and Satan are different characters behaving differently in related myths (like Noah from the Jewish Bible and Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh, who are both "flood heroes" in related myths from neighboring peoples, but different characters).

The common mythologem is where a creator commands a created celestial being to pay reverence to Adam, and the created being refuses.

With that element in common, myths vary as to (1) why the command, (2) why the refusal, and (3) what happens next.

The Islamic myth of Iblis-Shaitan is that Allah commanded something so (1)'s why he did is irrelevant; just do it. (2) is a bit fuzzy and Islam doesn't have a Pope to pick one: prideful insubordination is popular or (as mentioned in an earlier post) too much love for Allah to revere anyone else. Regardless, (3) is punishment coupled with resentment of the human species. Islam is also vague about what Iblis is, angel or jinn. Generally speaking, Islamic angels lack free will, so to have a choice, Iblis is sometimes described as a jinn (mortal beings with free will and superpowers).

In the Yezidi version, there is a set-up motif: the earlier inconsistent command (a staple of story telling, down to Dr Strangelove in modern times - the pilot has been told to nuke the Commies, and refuses to obey new orders to stand down). God tells Melek Taus to bow to no created being. Then on with the show, and now it's bow to Adam. No way.

So: (1) God is testing Melek Taus ... if God were serious about the bowing, then he could make Melek comply, but doesn't; (2) Melek has a choice between commands, and is justified to go with the first (as the Dr Strangelove pilot is justified because he has been trained to ignore recall orders), and (3) he is rewarded with dominion over the Earth for passing the test. (That a version of the Jewish Satan supposedly has dominion on Earth is attested in the Christian canon - an odd sort of punishment, but let's not digress.)

I'd be interested to know what the OP makes of this. I think the thread so far has established that the character we know as Satan has existed in many versions, even within the single "family tree" of the world Abrahamic religions (Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam, and all three of them developing and changing as time progresses - maybe even converging in our time on a consensus Prince of Evil).

Here's a different living tradition altogether, although it may have been assembled cafeteria style from the Abrahamic stories. If the mythologem is older than any living variant, then it's about something very subtle, right and wrong more than good and evil.

All that, and the "bow to Adam" stories are only one stream contributing to the river that is the modern Satan.

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

50 minutes ago, eight bits said:

So, back to the OP problem. And before we begin, Yezidi people have been killed hideously for what's in the quote box, and the persecution of the Yezidi as devil worshippers continues to this day. Melek Taus is not Satan. Melek Taus and Satan are different characters behaving differently in related myths (like Noah from the Jewish Bible and Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh, who are both "flood heroes" in related myths from neighboring peoples, but different characters).

The common mythologem is where a creator commands a created celestial being to pay reverence to Adam, and the created being refuses.

With that element in common, myths vary as to (1) why the command, (2) why the refusal, and (3) what happens next.

The Islamic myth of Iblis-Shaitan is that Allah commanded something so (1)'s why he did is irrelevant; just do it. (2) is a bit fuzzy and Islam doesn't have a Pope to pick one: prideful insubordination is popular or (as mentioned in an earlier post) too much love for Allah to revere anyone else. Regardless, (3) is punishment coupled with resentment of the human species. Islam is also vague about what Iblis is, angel or jinn. Generally speaking, Islamic angels lack free will, so to have a choice, Iblis is sometimes described as a jinn (mortal beings with free will and superpowers).

In the Yezidi version, there is a set-up motif: the earlier inconsistent command (a staple of story telling, down to Dr Strangelove in modern times - the pilot has been told to nuke the Commies, and refuses to obey new orders to stand down). God tells Melek Taus to bow to no created being. Then on with the show, and now it's bow to Adam. No way.

So: (1) God is testing Melek Taus ... if God were serious about the bowing, then he could make Melek comply, but doesn't; (2) Melek has a choice between commands, and is justified to go with the first (as the Dr Strangelove pilot is justified because he has been trained to ignore recall orders), and (3) he is rewarded with dominion over the Earth for passing the test. (That a version of the Jewish Satan supposedly has dominion on Earth is attested in the Christian canon - an odd sort of punishment, but let's not digress.)

I'd be interested to know what the OP makes of this. I think the thread so far has established that the character we know as Satan has existed in many versions, even within the single "family tree" of the world Abrahamic religions (Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam, and all three of them developing and changing as time progresses - maybe even converging in our time on a consensus Prince of Evil).

Here's a different living tradition altogether, although it may have been assembled cafeteria style from the Abrahamic stories. If the mythologem is older than any living variant, then it's about something very subtle, right and wrong more than good and evil.

All that, and the "bow to Adam" stories are only one stream contributing to the river that is the modern Satan.

 

I have some catching up to do, I will start in the morning and when l finish I will post my comments.

Thanks to everyone for keeping this going 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/29/2021 at 11:11 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

So believers are not self aware?

Believers still believe doing  evil is a choice  as is doing good .

Unless they don't believe that humans  have free will. 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/29/2021 at 12:36 PM, eight bits said:

Yes, as already discussed, Jewish literature featuring the character of Satan spans millennia. We were discussing Job, a relatively early scripture, certainly early compared with the letters of Paul, a noted Jewish religious author of the First Century of our era.

As has already been discussed, God raises the subject of Job with Satan. Satan asks God to consider whether Job's religious piety is attributable to God's unusual generosity and blessings toward him, And then, gasp, Satan offers an independent thought, a hypothetical prediction of what would happen if God harried Job. Not a suggestion that God actually do so.

That is God's idea, but Satan is no saint. He goes along with his boss. Oh wait, that is sainthood.

Another poster has asked why I describe the God-Satan relationship in Job as "cozy." They're in this together. It's not all Satan's idea and it's not all God's idea. They are moral equals, if not equal in power. The murder of Job's family and his utter abasement while being deprived of the mercy of a quick death is their joint project.

In conclusion on this line of inquiry

Like everybody else, the SDA's are entitled to their reading of Job. I set out to comment on the false claim that the SDA-style reading was the unique traditional reading of Job, its God and its Satan. I've said my piece, and you've had your rebuttal.

Next case.

 

 

As I said tha t is your belief because, while you dont even believe in god you need to feel that god is capable of evil 

It is NOT the view of Christian theology nor of some Jewish theologians, who see satan as the adversary of god

The only question ( in the narrative)  is why god doesn't simply finish Satan off, or stop him behaving as he does. 

There are several logical, hypothetical ,and theological reasons given for this 

Ps that isn't just the SDA reading of   job. It is also that of every mainline christian faith, including Catholics. 

Satan is challenging the power, form of governance, and authority of god, before an audience.

  Your pov fits some Jewish theology, although not all. It doesn't fit ANY  Christian theology that I know of. .

In all christian  theology, ,after the fall, satan is the enemy and adversary of god . 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

On 12/29/2021 at 4:03 AM, Sherapy said:

Bingo, it looks as if MW’s take is right from the pages of The SDA approach.
 

https://absg.adventist.org/pdf.php?file=2016:4Q:SE:PDFs:EAQ416_13.pdf

Perhaps but SDA theology here is mainstream This is what Catholics and all protestant groups believe ie tha t satan is the adversary of god and in job is seeking to undermine gods authority with other beings in heaven. Pretty much all christian groups see Satan as Lucifer, a fallen angel who went to war with god (because that  is in the bible )

iI is hard presenting biblical theology to people who haven't ever read it, and have no idea of mainstream christian theology.   some Jewish theologians presents satan  as a servant  of god but many jewish theologians see satan as an adversary but subordinate to god (Which is also what Christians believe ie Satan cant win any battle with god)) 

Here's the catholic teaching on job  

quote

The prologue introduces us to the characters and summarizes the theme of the book. Job, a pious and blameless man, is perfectly happy and contented. The adversary (Satan) insinuates himself among the angels of God’s court and argues that Job’s virtue is not genuine. So God permits Job to be tested. Blow after blow falls on Job, depriving him of his possessions and of his children. But Job remains faithful and then is attacked personally; he becomes gravely ill and disfigured. He accepts with resignation the physical evil which God sends him, just as he had previously accepted the contentment he enjoyed.

Such is Job’s faith that Satan is defeated. But Job’s suffering is so deep that he utters a cry of lamentation—not of despair—when his three friends seek to console him after his being plunged into silence for seven days.

After addressing himself to divine wisdom, confident that God will hear him (chap. 28), Job appeals to the Supreme Judge, who is the only one who can give him justice and declare his innocence. God hears him, and he uses Elihu, a young man who up to this has not taken part in the dialogue, to come in on Job’s side. To everyone’s surprise he says something entirely new: Job should not be saying that God has condemned him, because the reason God sends evils and sufferings is not only to punish people. Their primary purpose is to purify man of his faults and prevent him from committing worse sins. By saying this Elihu consoles Job. He argues that Job is blameless, and he also shows him why he has had to suffer in this way. Finally, Yahweh himself enters into the discussion, on Job’s side.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/job

 

 and here is a Jewish explanation

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-book-of-job-a-whirlwind-of-confusion/

In God We Trust

Most interpreters agree that the ultimate theme of the book is the nature of the righteous man’s faith in God. As Leon Roth states, “The book of Job turns on the question of the nature of religion: Can man serve God for naught?…When Job says, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in Him’ (13:15) [The second half of this verse may also be rendered, “yet will I argue with him.”.ed.], he vindicates both himself and God.”

The book reaffirms Job’s trust in God‑-and God’s trust in Job. In teaching that piety must be unselfish and that the righteous sufferer is assured not of tangible reward but of fellowship with God, biblical thought about justice, retribution, and providence reaches a climax‑-and a limit.

One alternative that the author of Job did not consider was that the sufferings of the innocent might be compensated in a future life. The problem of theodicy is resolved through just this means in post-biblical Judaism.

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Believers still believe doing  evil is a choice  as is doing good .

Unless they don't believe that humans  have free will. 

Hi Walker

I was just having fun with the way you worded it

[eight bits]

It is such a treat seeing @Mr Walker seek affirmation among Catholics, whom he has often treated as something to be scraped off the sole of his pioneer boots. I hesitate to interrupt this novel love fest, but two points arise:

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Here's the catholic teaching on job  

You have a persistent problem with the definite article, the. It is used when there is one thing of its kind, or as part of a proper noun phrase. That's how I got into this thumb-wrestle with you, your false claim of unique traditional status for what is actually a revisionist interpretation, albeit an old one that survives to this day.

Nobody disputes that the Christian character Satan is popular among Christians. Nobody disputes that Christianities have been around for a long time. An individual Christian, in this case a Catholic writer, takes on the challenge of retrofitting Job into the Christian comic book fantasy villiain Satan. That's fine, but it is also not the Catholic teaching on anything; it is a Catholic's mental gymanstics to fit their faith to what's on the page.

Remember to use The only when there is only one; A(n) whenever there is or may be another.

On to something more substantially discussable:

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Which is also what Christians believe ie Satan cant win any battle with god.

So why, then, does he supposedly fight? Is he stupider than two billion Christians, each of whom knows he can't win, but he doesn't? Throw in a billion or so Muslims, who know the same as their Christian brothers and sisters in Abraham. Bingo, we've almost reached the median human being, and Satan is apparently stupider than the middle ranks of humanity.

This is a serious problem, not only for the storybook character, but also for the human beings who think there is some ontological reality behind the story.

Trial attorneys, ordinary mortals all, occasionally suffer the occupational hazard of finding themselves with an unwinnable case. What do they do? They seek a settlement. In case Satan is too stupid to figure that move out for himself, you'd think by now he'd have learned about the strategy by observing examples of it.

Even if the problem is that God won't settle (and after all, in the same storybook as read by many Christians, he's condemned an entire species because two kids swiped some fruit from his orchard hundreds of thousands of years ago), humans have a strategy for dealing with obstinate management. They strike.

Satan wants to get God's pantyhose in a knot? Then just stop. God has a weakness for tests (apparently some insecurity about whether he's loved, but the topic is Satan). Job presents the model of a good working relationship to satisfy the demand of management for testing, and fair compensation with good working conditions for the skilled tester.

Again, if Satan is too stupid to figure this out for himself, then he ought to have learned the strategy by observing mere human collective bargaining examples. Plus, if the problem is memory, and he forgets the way things used to be before the Christians split from other Jews, then he can always refresh his recollection by reading Job.

Edited December 31, 2021 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

24 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You have a persistent problem with the definite article, the. It is used when there is one thing of its kind, or as part of a proper noun phrase. That's how I got into this thumb-wrestle with you, your false claim of unique traditional status for what is actually a revisionist interpretation, albeit an old one that survives to this day.

English isn't his native language, lying is. 

~

[Grim Reaper 6]

@Mr Walker I always thought you were joking Mr. Walker, until I found this in my mail box!!

[Abramelin]

3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I was just having fun with the way you worded it

How to word...

The Jews liked gematria.

 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/natash.html

Definition

to leave, permit, forsake, cast off or away, reject, suffer, join, spread out or abroad, be loosed, cease, abandon, quit, hang loose, CAST DOWN, make a raid, lie fallow, let fall, forge, draw

 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/satan-2.html

Definition

adversary, one who withstands

adversary (in general - personal or national)

superhuman adversary

Satan (as noun pr)

 

Satan, name and title:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/satan.html

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ps that isn't just the SDA reading of   job. It is also that of every mainline christian faith, including Catholics. 

Satan is challenging the power, form of governance, and authority of god, before an audience.

In what verses will we find where Satan is challenging the power and especially 'form of governance' of God in Job?  His role in Job is actually very limited and he is rarely mentioned after the initial challenge and his torturing of Job.  Although I'd guess that some of the attention it gets is because we have a rare cameo of Satan the bulk of the text is about the relationship between God and Job, not God and Satan.

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

while you dont even believe in god you need to feel that god is capable of evil 

Job is a good example actually of this capability.  As enjoyable as scraping painful sores with a broken piece of pottery sounds, God is still responsible for everything that happens to Job; Satan doesn't bring up Job, God does, and this test is God's idea not Satan's.  I at least have no reservations about what to call torturing someone as part of a bet, especially when it's done by a supreme being who seems to have self-confidence issues: evil.

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

So why, then, does he supposedly fight?

Excellent question. I don't even see it as a 'fight' nor anything that would be subject to a 'settlement', neither Satan nor God have been wronged or lost anything here.  Satan is almost more like an internet troll here, he just seems to be poking.

[Will Due]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Satan is too stupid to figure this out

 

Lots of good questions 8.

From my usual point of view, he was created as a superhuman being of "brilliant light" who lives on continuously, even being the "prince of the world" who sometime in the past when everything with him was of good standing, assumed responsibility for the world's welfare and guidance. Thus, he most certainly would not have been a stupid person. 

So what happened to him? What's at the heart of his problem?

This is my interpretation. It's because of his decision to be in "open and persistent defiance of recognized reality" that his mind has "never since been able fully to regain its equilibrium" which causes still, the loss of his ability to "refresh his recollection".

 

 

[Crazy Horse]

On 12/28/2021 at 4:28 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Christianity is a tale that grew in the telling....

Christianity is a tale that diminished in the telling..

Honestly, I feel that if Christ was around to-day, he might have a thing or two to say about the Church, and its leaders..