Adam @ Eve, tricked by "Lucifer"?

[Heru]

This isnt a discussion wither it happen or didnt. So your off topic.

Satan means advisary in judaism. Catholic church stuck lucifer with the satan title.

From the book of Job satan doesnt seem to be an advisary of god but a advisary of man.

Maybe the snake was a satan(I dont think he was).

But from what ive read the fallen angels were put in the second heaven. I dont think this is the second heaven.

So I vote no on lucifer being the snake or the snak being a satan.

[GIDEON MAGE]

the actual hebrew term "Ha Satan" means adversary in the sense of prosecuting attorney, "accuser" don't any christians study at least a little hebrew?

[Ashley-Star*Child]

That's why no one can really lose their soul or sell it to the devil,

You're right. And, er, I can quote that satan has once said that himself. However, what defines free will is that whilst on Earth in mortal form, a human is tested on what they will do with that free will. Sure a angel can use free will but it's not what they were made for. It is humanity's reason fro being that free will as a test, or experiment on what a creation, or second kind of angel would do with that free will. Being able to reproduce doesn't have anything to do with it, I'm just stating the difference.

The angels of Enoch and any and all other angels which incarnated into human form, and there is reference of them if you request it, some for their own redemption, as the use of free will - ONLY granted to humans and human incarnation - is required for that redemption) have free will. In the case of Enoch's Watchers that is precisely why they did what they did. Part of having free will - and being able to make your own decisions - means you do NOT have direct commands and communication with God which angels DO have. When the Watc,ers were on Earth they really did not realize how deep they were diffing themselves into because they didn't have that direct communication and where, through that oath taking on mortal form, using free will as a human. And thus they were judged like them. It could be said, they got the worst judgement of any fallen angels, the ons who became the 'scapegoats' for the rest were for the duration of thir fall no longer to ascend to the Heavens. A portion of them by satan's request to God which was granted (he said to God, 'give a portion of them to me' and 'who will work for me?') were handed over to him to work for him as accusing angels.

the actual hebrew term "Ha Satan" means adversary in the sense of prosecuting attorney, "accuser" don't any christians study at least a little hebrew?

I have been practicing Judaism (with a mixture of Catholicism, and now excluded texts, etc) since I was 13, and I am also part Jewish. I'm quite aware of what 'Ha-Satan' means which you are correct in saying it means 'adversary'. He is prince of all accusing angels (angels who tempt and test for God as a test of your free wil and accuse you before God). However the original name was 'Satanail' which was shortened to 'satan', and like all angels of high rank he has many names (the highest have around 70, and he was THE highest and most powerful of all angels originally, God also have many names) a few being Mikael, Sammael, etc.

He is, like all other accusing angels quite literally the 'prosectuting attorney against mankind'. On death a set of twin (twin being plrual as there are like 7 rows of them and they are all identical, it was from this order the Watchers of Enoch - another term for them being 'Holy Watchers' a kind of Archangel, fell from and became 'the grigori')judgement angels called the Irin Qaddism present your case before God. One angels if for you as defense, and one angel against you as prosection. The latter is an accusing angel. If the good outweighs the bad, you make it, if however, the bad outweighs the good, except in very rare cirumstances, you don't. It is the Celestial court and no one wants the 'Go to directly jail and do not collect $200' card. That's what hell is (and it is acually called) a 'prisonhouse'. There are time limits on sentences however.

[TheEssenceofExcellence]

The angels of Enoch and any and all other angels which incarnated into human form, and there is reference of them if you request it, some for their own redemption, as the use of free will - ONLY granted to humans and human incarnation - is required for that redemption) have free will. .

849252[/snapback]

Yeah, but just the fact that the option that they can have free will by some means the way we do.....or the fact that they can act for themselves means they do have free will in some form or another which was the only point i'm trying to make.

But as far as God saying no one is at war with him or does not submit to his will.... (i'm sure you already understand it) but what is meant by that is not that no one (satan or otherwise) doesn't rebel or try to fight against him, against God's wishes. But that simply (wether they do wage war against him or not) they can't wage war against him. (let me clarify) A war is a dispute and conflict between two opposing groups....both groups have the possibility of defeating the other. But in the case of a war against God, it can't be a war, and even if you are trying to wage a war against him, you can't actually have a war against God because God cannot be defeated. God can't be hurt, he can't be out matched, he can't be bested. Simply put you can't win against or defeat God.....so, even if satan and others are trying to wage a war against him, they can't; because a war can't be won against God; and so a war, by the definition of one, can't be fought against God. And since you can't beat or hurt God, you obviously can't resist his will if he were to impose it on you. (after reading your post about that, I just started to think about it, and felt compelled to write about it, i'm not trying to say you didn't understand that quote or anything)

Ashley you have a lot of knowledge about biblical stuff, and I know you've read the book of Enoch (i've read it too), and I was just wondering if you've read anything else that you would recommend to read besides the Bible itself?

[seanph]

I'm not trying to get off topic (of the Catholic Bible), but there are people that insist that Lucifer and Satan are seperate beings.

They are.

Sorry to repost this. Thought it was appropriate in lieu of the posts above ...

Such stories--god (Yahweh) opposing god (Satan)--started as "combat myths" and have an extensive history that later influenced biblical writers. Dualism is also very important.

Combat myths .. One of the most famous myths is the Babylonian story Enuma Elish. Here Marduk must battle Tiamat .... The Egyptian epic centered around Apophis and Re ... The Canaanite god Baal, son of El, is forced to duke it out with Yamm (also called Lotan) and later Mot (Death) ... Zoroastrianism played the largest role and later influenced the Yahweh/Satan epic.

Anyway, it's quite fascinating. If interested, buy a copy of The River Of God by Gregory J. Riley, Professor of NT at Claremont School of Theology. Dr. Riley provides one of the best in-depth analysis of Christianity you will ever read. Absolutely terrific. Answered my every question.

Here's an interesting article 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 (Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University)

As for Lucifer ... Many believe Lucifer to be another name for Satan. It's not. Lucifer actually means "Morning Star" (mentioned above).

Here's an interesting article on Lucifer ...

]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.

For more ...

*History of Satan and Lucifer? (Discussion on the academic site EBLA)

http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=...highlight=#5932

Rebellion against god ... Satan can do nothing without God's permission. Satan is not all-powerful, nor a deity. He is an angel created by a perfect being. Perfect beings do not feel anger, resentment, hatred, nor anything else.

The Fall ... "In the Hebrew Bible, Satan plays only a minor role as an ambiguous figure in the heavenly court. In Job his function is described as a kind of public prosecutor for God, suggesting his role as adversary may have been in terms of jurisprudence. The transformation of Satan from subordinate official to independent adversary and rebellious angel occurred during the Jewish apocalyptic movement, which came under the influence of the dualistic cosmologies of the ancient Middle East. The New Testament, grown from the same soil, speaks of Satan as the author of all evil (Luke 10:19), the personal tempter of Jesus (Matt. 4), and the rebel cast to earth together with his angels (Rev. 12:7–9). But these and many other passages in the Bible said to allude to Satan were shaped into coherent theological narratives only over time, often in response to Christian heresies..."

See W. Woods, A History of the Devil (1974); J. B. Russell, Satan (1981); N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy (1987); E. Pagels, The Origin of Satan (1995).

In the Hebrew Bible

In in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is to be better understood as a "accuser" or "adversary" than as an embodiment of "evil." The term is applied both to divine and human beings.

Satan as an accuser

Where Satan does appear as an angel, he is clearly a member of God's court and plays the role of the Accuser, much like a prosecuting attorney for God. Such a view is found in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings, before God, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: "From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it" (Job 1:7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity with the purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor (a type of lawyer), who sees only iniquity. For example, in Job 2:3-5, after Job passes Satan's first test, Satan requests that Job be tested even further.

It is evident from the prologue in Job that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. Satan works in opposition to God, though not entirely able to take action without consent. This view is also retained in Zech. 3:1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the "angel of the Lord," who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Lord.

In 1 Chron. 21:1 Satan appears as one who is able to provoke David to number (or take a census of) Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan here as a more independent agent, a view which is at first glance striking since it would seem the source where he drew his account (2 Sam. 24:1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David to take the census. But after a more careful survey is taken of the situation, it is apparent that the circumstances were similar to that of Job: Satan is free to issue temptation with God's consent. Although the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (1 Sam. 16:14; 1 Kings 22:22; Isa. 45:7; etc.).--Wikipedia

Best books on the subject ...

Neil Forsyth, Professor of English Literature at the University of Lausanne, The Old Enemy. It traces the origins of satan beliefs to anceint Near easter combat myths, merging with biblical oracles against the nations (i.e, Isaiah's denunciations of Babylon), Persian dualism, and then into the Pseudepigrapha with rewritten bible stories etc.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...44/eblaforum-20

The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Here, Pagels charts the evolution of the Jewish and Christian concept of evil from Old Testament times to the present day (although the majority of the book deals with the New Testament era). She explains how 'Satan' didn't always refer to an evil being but was initially used to represent an obstacle. After that meaning, it evolved into a meaning which was used to unify your group against your enemies/adversaries or 'satan'. The Jews still don't, nor did they ever, believe in or create the Satan/Devil being/creature/character of Christian lore.

It wasn't until New Testament times and later that the concept of an evil being who is actually called 'Satan' or the 'Devil' or 'Lucifer' evolved. It is interesting to see how these concepts have continued to persist throughout religious and political history with groups stigmatizing others not in their group (whether it be religious, political, racial, etc.) as being 'of the devil'. Dictatorships and other authoritarian organizations always need an external enemy to bind their followers together.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...747237?v=glance

The River of God by Dr. Gregory Riley, Professor of NT at Claremont School of Theology, discusses the origins of Satan in depth. Very good.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006...3689962-2190351

Was it "Lucifer" in the Apocrypha that talked to Adam and Eve?

It was, indeed, a snake.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. (12) He said to the woman, "Did God say, ÔYou shall not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

"Later interpretations, both Jewish and Christian, identify the serpent with Satan, but the latter is a figure whom many scholars believe to have been introduced into Judaism at a comparatively late date."--Reading About the World, Volume 1, edited by Paul Brians

Sorry for the long post.

Respectfully,

Sean

Edited September 18, 2005 by seanph

[Heru]

Nice post. Verry nice

[777MileStare]

Was "Satan" the snake in Genesis possessed by the fallen angel "Lucifer" to speak to Eve of the apple that "God" had warned them both not to eat?

845564[/snapback]

No, he wasn't because it never happened.

849021[/snapback]

Meaning if it never happened, ( no not off topic ), your saying "Lucifer" didn't 'fall' at the time of Genesis?

That Lucifer fell after or before?

[Baku]

Was "Satan" the snake in Genesis possessed by the fallen angel "Lucifer" to speak to Eve of the apple that "God" had warned them both not to eat?

845564[/snapback]

Wasnt Satan still teh good guy back then?

[777MileStare]

Was "Satan" the snake in Genesis possessed by the fallen angel "Lucifer" to speak to Eve of the apple that "God" had warned them both not to eat?

845564[/snapback]

Wasnt Satan still teh good guy back then?

853133[/snapback]

"Satan" the primitve, unkowing serpent who doesn't trust anyone, except "Lucifer" the heavenly angel that fell from the same place where "God" comes from.

My question, is still this and I mean theoretically: Is "Satan" actually "Lucifer" in reality, since "Lucifer" had no other alternative to communicate with Adam/Eve in the first place?

IF so, it is a biblical "cover-up" since I know I wasn't taught much about "Lucifer" in any Catholic biblical way. So I assume that is how it worked. That "Lucifer" was trying to change the fate of Adam/Eve and had no other alternative, except to induce the ability for the "Serpent" to speak and to listen to a human being.

It is the point of my post, I just haven't gotten a clear cut answer, everyones going in all kinds of directions. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that and just stick with what I asked.

Someone Catholic say something..... for once....and if you could continue those of you who posted things I encourage you. But, if you could, please stay in the same "Universe" that I'm asking about.

Edited September 20, 2005 by PFlack

[draconic chronicler]

PF, perhaps you were frustrated by its length, but if you carefully read Sean's excellent and informative post, you will see irrefutable evidence that "Lucifer" has nothing to do with Satan, and originally the character was a Babylonian King or the Prince of the city State of Tyre, both secular rivals and enemies of ancient Israel, but entirely human.

The anonymous "trickster" serpent in the Garden of Eden is probably derived from a nearly identical serpent who in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamish also tricks that hero out of immortality. The snake has no name, for it is only a snake and nothing to do with a Heavenly servant of God. Satan is never an enemy or opponent of God until pagan, dualistic ideas influenced Judaism with Alexander the "Great's conquest of the region, bringing an an influx of Greek settlers and their culture. At the same time Asian religions like zorastrianism, complete with an evil and powerful dragon diety also influenced Jewish religious thought. This period, from around 300 BC until the time of Jesus, is the first time Bible stories begin in which they have Satan challenging God, and a war in heaven, and he is identified as the seducer of Eve. It is also the first time the entities known as demons become commonplace, and again, this is because of the demons in Greek and Asian religions.

As for Satan being a dragon like creature as you suggested, this could be entirely true, but does not automatically make him become "evil", for according to the Bible the "highest" heavenly creatures were not human-like angels, but creatures called Seraphim, fiery winged serpents with legs and arms which seems very much like the modern impression of a "dragon", and exactly such creatures do appear on one of the holiest Jewish temple ornaments further confirming this. Additional evidence that Satan may be one of these creatures, and not a regular, human-like angel is apparent when Jesus warned his disciples that Satan sought to "devour" them, and there are numerous accounts in ancient Jewish literature of dragon-serpents sent by God to devour his enemies. The creature that swallows Jonah is also one of these dragons, and not a fish or whale, as numerous ancient depictions verify. In this case of Jesus' statement about Satan, it was probably a warning of their fate if they were to return to a life of sin. One account in the Apocolypse of Baruch explains further that these dragons themselves are "Hell", stating their mission is to devour the wicked and implying then that they consume or confine the souls of the wicked for eternity. This is probably why "Hell" in early Christian art is depicted as the mouth and belly of a dragon. But these dragons reside in heaven, and not the invented Greek Hades-Hell. One interesting ancient church mosaic depicts God on a throne of two enormous dragon-serpents (called the Covering Cherubs) with Jesus on his lap and in the act of passing judgement on human souls before him. The wicked souls are not sent to a copy of an underground, fiery, Greek hades as most modern Christian religions preach, but instead are being swallowed up by the Cherub-dragons that make up the heavenly throne! Of course, you won't see that in your Sunday School books today, but like Sean said, the original Bible has been changed and manipulated over the centuries to suit each new generation's beliefs. It frankly amazes me how so many supposed "Christian scholars" cling to their very Pagan-like and even blasphemous ideas of Satan causing the fall of man and a war in heaven, the existence of demons, fiery Hell, etc, that simply cannot be supported by the "real" Bible (Old Testament), which Jesus endorsed as the authentic word of God. They have turned one of the world's great religions into a "voodoo circus" of demon chasing charlatan preachers who have driven their ignorant, superstitious and terrified followers to lengths that include drowning their own children with their ridiculous and totally unsubstantiated tales of an improbably evil Satan and nonsensical demons.

Edited September 21, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[seanph]

Thanks DC (nice post ) & Heru for your kind comments. And my apologies again for the length of my prior post. Answering a question as important as the one asked, is difficult to do with any brevity.

Kindly,

Sean

[777MileStare]

*Baffled*

[777MileStare]

I'm trying to make up for 20 something years now....after reading that....

It isn't easy when youve been taught so much....

I turned away from religion, and just had theories....

*Still baffled*

[draconic chronicler]

PF, I have just finished writing a book, and will also have a website that explains the "original" Old testament story of Satan and the other "dragons" of the Bible, using many other ancient Jewish and world religious texts and legends, with examples of ancient art and inscriptions that support the text. I will announce it here on UM when it is available. I think you will find it very interesting.

[777MileStare]

PF, I have just finished writing a book, and will also have a website that explains the "original" Old testament story of Satan and the other "dragons" of the Bible, using many other ancient Jewish and world religious texts and legends, with examples of ancient art and inscriptions that support the text. I will announce it here on UM when it is available. I think you will find it very interesting.

Thank you, I most certainly will be. I was still interested in the Islamic view of "Lucifer's" 'transformation into "Satan". But, for some reason that person neglected to get back to me on it.... (still waiting... I thought I was onto somethinng).

[draconic chronicler]

I don't think you will find much accurate information about that in Islamic texts. Apparently Mohammed was illiterate and the Koran was dictated to his followers on leaves, boards, anything they could find. Perhaps this is why there are so many differences in chronology, events, etc, with the Bible, verses may have been put out of place. Islam's close relation with Persian Zorastrianism suggest that Islam took some of its "Satan" ideas from the evil dragon God Ahriman of that religion. Like most Christians, and some Jews, they are unaware that the idea of religous dualism with an "Evil Satan" was a very late invention in Hellenistic Jewish and Christian relgious thought, but absent from the original books of the Old Testament endorsed by Jesus.

When Islam first began its conquests of Christian lands, many Christian theologians were certain he was the "anti-christ" of the book of Revelations. It is interesting that Mohammed received his instruction from the angel Gabriel in a cave on a remote mountain. Hmmm. That seems more like a dragon "hangout" than an angel's. Maybe it was a very dark cave and it was hard to tell if it was an angel or dragon actually doing the talking. But since they both worked for the same God, as the Old Testament confirms, maybe it really doesn't matter.

Edited September 22, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

I don't think you will find much accurate information about that in Islamic texts. Apparently Mohammed was illiterate and the Koran was dictated by his followers on leaves, boards, anything they could find. Perhaps this is why there is so many differences in chronology, events, etc, with the Bible, verses may have been put out of place. Islam's close relation with Persian Zorastrianism suggest that Islam took some of its "Satan" ideas from the evil dragon God Ahriman of that religion. Like most Christians, and some Jews, they are unaware that the idea of religous dualism with an "Evil Satan" was a very late invention in Hellenistic Jewish and Christian relgious thought, but absent from the original books of the Old Testament endorsed by Jesus.

When Islam first began its conquests of Christian lands, many Christian theologians were certain he was the "anti-christ" of the book of Revelations. It is interesting that Mohammed received his instruction from the angel Gabriel in a remote cave on a mountain. Hmmm. That seems more like an dragon hangout than an angel's. Maybe it was a very dark cave and it was hard to tell if it was an angel or dragon actually doing the talking.

Wow. Everything turns out to be a dragon with you. Hmm. Are aliens dragons too? Is bigfoot really a dragon?lol

[draconic chronicler]

Sorry Eric, but everything I post can be documented by ancient texts and scriptures as the footnotes in my book will confirm. "Dragons" have far more to do with many of the worlds great religions than you will ever know. But as people began to believe in them less and less, in our "Age of Enlightenment", there has been a tendency, even a conspiracy of sorts, to edit them out of many religious texts and doctrine. But they were always there in the beginning, in virtually every world religion, including Judasim and Christianity, whether you like it or not.

If all religion is "fake" then the dragons are probably fake too since the evidence suggests they must be more than normal animals. If only one religion is "real", in all liklihood it has dragons connected with it and this establishes the authenticity of dragons in general. Even if the God who may have created the dragons was not believed in worldwide, the dragons this God created were still apparently seen, believed in and reported virtually everywhere in the world. If you think about it, the nearly universal belief in dragons by every world culture, far exceeds the belief in ANY other Gods, Dieties, Heavenly Creatures, Saints, etc ever conceived by mankind. It is an indisputable fact.

Edited September 22, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[Claizen]

I thought that the snake WAS Satan and/or Lucifer.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

Yeah, but just the fact that the option that they can have free will by some means the way we do.....or the fact that they can act for themselves means they do have free will in some form or another which was the only point i'm trying to make.

But as far as God saying no one is at war with him or does not submit to his will.... (i'm sure you already understand it) but what is meant by that is not that no one (satan or otherwise) doesn't rebel or try to fight against him, against God's wishes. But that simply (wether they do wage war against him or not) they can't wage war against him. (let me clarify) A war is a dispute and conflict between two opposing groups....both groups have the possibility of defeating the other. But in the case of a war against God, it can't be a war, and even if you are trying to wage a war against him, you can't actually have a war against God because God cannot be defeated. God can't be hurt, he can't be out matched, he can't be bested. Simply put you can't win against or defeat God.....so, even if satan and others are trying to wage a war against him, they can't; because a war can't be won against God; and so a war, by the definition of one, can't be fought against God. And since you can't beat or hurt God, you obviously can't resist his will if he were to impose it on you. (after reading your post about that, I just started to think about it, and felt compelled to write about it, i'm not trying to say you didn't understand that quote or anything)

Ashley you have a lot of knowledge about biblical stuff, and I know you've read the book of Enoch (i've read it too), and I was just wondering if you've read anything else that you would recommend to read besides the Bible itself?

TheEssenceofExcellence,

This is really where it gets tricky. By rights an angel, who is created for servidtude to God and wasn't created to make the choice for that servitude doesn't have 'free will'. Humans were made for that reason, a second kind of angel (a fallen race at that) which could decide if they wanted to follow God or not. That's what free will is here.

The meaning of 'no one is at war with Me' etc can be taken to mean that no one can actually wage war against God. That is true. And that is exactly why no angel fallen or otherwise (satan included) would actually be stupid enough to even attempt to wage a war against God. Satan and all other fallen angels are fallen from grace their place in Heaven and ranking gone (at least for the time they are fallen) but they still work for God. They are still under God, and carry out is commands. What every fallen angel wants including satan, more than anything else is to back in the grace with God. Satan doesn't wage war with God, he wages war with humanity, wrking as an accusing angel under God as a test of humanity's free will. Essentially, when one's free will is being tested, God sends satan to cause all manner of discord (thereby his title of 'prince of this world') to see what that person will do. Will they still love God? That is the whole reason for human's being. This test or that, will they still, of their own free will choose God? An angel isn't made for this kind of testing. If and when they break the rules they become fallen punished and go to their respective hells. Even the angels of Enoch asked God to come to the Earth, like I've said before saying to God 'why did you create man, didn't we not tell you they would destroy th Earth, let us go down and sanctify Your name!' God said they'd be worse than man (in mortal form, with free will, etc), and indeed they were. The two angels having that conversation with God (there were a total of 200 in all by the time it finished which you probably already know) were A'siel and Shemhazai, the two angels, with Uzza, bound to the Earth and given full blame as a scapegoat for the other angels. It was their idea (except for Uzza, whose fall was because of his objection to Enoch's high rank when he became the angel Metatron, who was then bound with them. He also though, was one of the 200). Being bound to the Earth was one of the worst of all punishments, as they were the ONLY kind of fallen angel never able to ascend to the Heavens for the duration of their fall.

There are many books which I could recommend, Jubilees, Life of Adam and Eve, Testament of Solomon, Testament of Moses, etc. Depends what you're looking for though.

[blayloch65]

*Baffled*

I'm with you there.

First decide whether you take the bible as an historical account or a book full of stories. I would think that society today is much more logical than it was 2000 years ago. To them, a light bulb could be considered the work of the devil. To us, what was considered posession by a demon could be a seizure.

A lot of stuff in the bible just doesn't make sense. Don't you ever wonder why?

[draconic chronicler]

Claizen,

several posters have made the points that 1. Satan and Lucifer were not the same biblical characters to begin with. and 2. in the orignal hebrew texts there is no connection between the snake in Eden and a heavenly creature/seraphim called Satan. This should be very clear, for if Satan had actually deceived Eve, caused the downfall of man, war in heaven, etc. etc. as the early Christians concocted, then why is he still doing God's bidding in the book of Job and counted among the "sons of God".

The problem is that the New Testament was created by newly converted pagan greeks who filled it with their pagan greek beliefs as well as the beliefs of the popular Perisan Zorastrian religion of that day. I am not saying Jesus' teachinging were false, just that Pagans could not conceive the idea of one great God, but needed a dualistic religous doctrine with powerful good and evil gods at battle. So looking for a "bad god" thy found a perfect candidate in the Old Testament creature called Satan. He already was known as an accuser of mankind in God's heavenly "court", and that he was a dragon-like creature. The persians already had an evil dragon god in their dualistic religion that much of Christianity was based upon. So essentially, Satan was "framed" by the early Christian church to be the "bad God" in their new dualistic religion. Whether or not you believe any religion is true, this is what actually tanspired in the New Testament literature, and why Satan is now the "boogey man" of some, but certainly not all, Christian sects.

Edited September 23, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[777MileStare]

I thought that the snake WAS Satan and/or Lucifer.

Well, it is exactly my confusion, for which I am continually theorizing about over the years - the last decade or so - and I see that 'Draconic Chronicler' is very much trying to help me clear up ( and not doing too bad I must say, I am very impressed.). I grew up Catholic/Christian, and have since left it all behind in 1991, and to my dismay still have to celebrate Christmas with my family in spite of my confusions. Because I have a good heart, and I do love my family to an extent- I still feel guilty for not "participating" completely so to speak.

...And I hate being confused and somewhat guilty if I don't know at least 'something'...

Like in the book of Corinthians, it says you can't know 'everything'. Well, no kidding your not supposed to. I mean, I am a medium and I have studied the occult for years and came to conclusions. I have deciphered the code of the beast through studies, to some extents had thought I was being watched by Lucifer/Satan. So, over the years Ive tried to seperate them as beings, or at least differentiate them...

....which is ( I regret to say ) not easy..

[Pindra]

This is where I was going to ask you about 'transformation'. How is that 'transformation' outlined in Islamic?

Hi PFlack,

I'm really sorry it took me so long to reply.

As far as I know the Djin race is a shapeshifter, with Allah permission, they can change into something (snake, pig even human), they can also flow in human blood, and possessed people.

Cheers

Pindra

[777MileStare]

Hi PFlack,

I'm really sorry it took me so long to reply.

As far as I know the Djin race is a shapeshifter, with Allah permission, they can change into something (snake, pig even human), they can also flow in human blood, and possessed people.

Cheers

Pindra

Thank you.