I suggest you read up on Judaism and ancient history. The Christian idea of Satan does not appear in the Tanakh. The Tanakh's HaSatan is Jahwehs sevant. One task is to test men's faith in Jahweh. Not to lead them astray. He tested Job and Jesus and both passed the test. The supposed testing of Jesus is quite in line with Tanakh teaching. It is Christianity that translates HaSatan - gods servant - into Satan - the enemy of god. Isaiah 14:4 shows us that the 'morning star' refers to a Babylonian ruler. The Tanakh makes no reference to Lucifer - who doesn't appear until a Christian father uses the name 800 years later.
The second thing we read is that Adam thinks animals were created AFTER himself, which is not true. Hence we know this is about Adam and his thinking, as read about his psyche:
Satan is man's enemy. Satan is an intellect, as the great Jewish sage explained to way back: "Maimonides meticulously classifies angelic rankings in his rationalistic system, wherein Maimonides equates them with the Aristotelian "intelligences" that mediate between the spheres. As such they are conscious and govern the spheres in their motion. But in his Aristotelian context Maimonides is saying they are forms of natural causation rather than supernatural beings. He also expands his definition to include natural phenomenon and even human psychology when he refers to the libidinous impulse as the "angel of lust".
What has this to do with it. ? No-one denies this. That doesn't mean that HaSatan was evil. If you take the Christian misinterpretation that's your choice. I see no reason to believe it myself. In fact, I'm agnostic.
Parallels are drawn to the passage in Isaiah 14:4-17 that mentions the "son of the morning" that had "fallen from heaven" and was "cast down to the earth". In verse 12 of this passage, the Hebrew word that referred to the morning star was translated into Latin as Lucifer. With the application to the Devil of the morning star story, "Lucifer" was then applied to him as a proper name. The name Lucifer, the Latin name (literally "Light-Bearer" or "Light-Bringer") for the morning star (the planet Venus in its morning appearances), is often given to the Devil in these stories. The brilliancy of the morning star—which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night—may be what gave rise to myths such as the Babylonian story of Ethana and Zu, who was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (an image present also in Ezekiel 28:14), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were then regarded as living celestial beings. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the myth concerning the Morning star was transferred to Satan by the first century before the Common Era, citing in support of this view the Life of Adam and Eve and the Slavonic Book of Enoch 29:4, 31:4, where Satan-Sataniel is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high", Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss. According to Jewish thought, the passage in Isaiah was used to prophesy the fate of the King of Babylon, who is described as aiming to rival God. Dead Sea Scrolls The Fall of the Rebel Angels, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder Some scholars discern the concept of a war in heaven in certain Dead Sea Scrolls, namely, the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, also known as the War Scroll (1QM and 4Q491-497), the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Song 5 (4Q402), and the Melchizedek document (11Q13). In the War Scroll, according to Menahem Mansoor, the angels of light, who are identified with Michael, the prince of light, will fight in heaven against the angels of darkness, who are identified with Belial, while the Sons of Light fight the Sons of Darkness on earth, and during the last of the seven battles described in the scroll will come and help the Sons of Light win the final victory. _________ Are we talking about prescribed doctrine that changes with time and what you selectively believe? Or are we talking about the contents of the christian bible which lay the basis for their belief? Do you believe in the rapture? That wasn't added until 1830 by John Darby. Revelations wasnt even written by THE John. So do you believe in the last judgment? What about the fact that most of the bible was written 100 years AFTER Jesus died? What's the credibility in hear say?
One word, translated by the KJV, one time into Lucifer, but "Venus" works just as well. No. Satan tempted Jesus in the Wilderness. Only on a B-Theory of time. In an A-Theory of time, there is no contradiction between free will and omniscience. B-Theory is much more compatible with Newtonian Physics and Newtonian Physics is good stuff, we went to the moon on Newtonian physics. A-Theory is much more consistent with Einsteinian Physics and the Christian doctrines of freewill and the nature of God's knowledge. That's Santa Clause.
You say "Christian" misconception as if you are not a Christian yourself. This thread is about Christian belief. In case that you didn't know.
Although evidently widely known during the development of the Hebrew Bible canon, 1 Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the typical canon of the Septuagint and therefore, also from the writings known today as the Deuterocanon.[7][8] One possible reason for Jewish rejection of the book might be the textual nature of several early sections of the book that make use of material from the Torah; for example, 1 En 1 is a midrash of Deuteronomy 33.[9][10] The content, particularly detailed descriptions of fallen angels, would also be a reason for rejection from the Hebrew canon at this period – as illustrated by the comments of Trypho the Jew when debating with Justin Martyr on this subject. Trypho: "The utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; nay, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God."
? YOU criticize Maimonides,... ... in his rationalistic system that equates human psychology to the libidinous impulse as the "angel of lust," or the Libido, itself???
...but the Jewish version of the Book of Revelation refers to this too: Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:
So in a way god is a vegan and satan taught us to kill so we couldn't eat meat before him ? i suddently like him alot more
So you don't see Satan as the ancient way of recognizing what Freud explained in 1920 as the Libido,... inside us??
I could care a less about Maimonides. Satan - at least not the Satan of the OT- does not refer to sexual libido. You keep desperately looking for something to justify your anti sex theory. Look somewhere else.
...me? I just said the greatest and most revered Jewish authority said the same thing. YOU seem to answer against the Bible as if your "feelings" are dead right, in spite of these other ideas. Nevertheless,... others need examine whether the seven Freudian archetypes are what scripture called the seven spirits before God.
Really, because I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the story, it seems GOD found out later what Adam and Eve did.
I've always though of god as the thing that created everything, and satan as gods critic. As a thing that is the product of this creation, should we like what created us or the thing that thinks we should never have existed?
I was referring to the legend of the war in heaven and all the stories assigned to this thing called God. Part of my point was to believers and what they believe. They trust a God who with full knowledge created a being that they are told is evil personified. These same believers want to go heaven but as the story goes heaven was a very dangerous place with a lot of fighting and discord. Why would anyone want to go to an unsafe place ruled by a despotic being who creates other evil beings? Believers are fools.
You're in the realms of Jewish story telling. Not reality. A dragon whose tail was so large it cast stars upon the earth? Stars are suns that would have engulfed the earth, not fallen upon it. - - - Updated - - - OK. Got your drift. - - - Updated - - - OK. Got your drift.
It is part of the story, i.e.; that God said don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad. Intuition is the use of the process of accepting what appears to be "good," while ignoring what we assume is "bad."
1) Isn't the Bible,... Jewish storytelling...? The issue seems to be a consistent failure, for anyone,... i.e.; church, synagogue, mosque,... to interpret the Bible story. And, it is we who make up our stories, about what we think the Bible is saying. 2) What might appear to you as nonsense story telling is really the use of the same symbols we use today. They seem strange to us, because the man in Gen 2 represents Libido, while the woman represents Anima. In Revelation, the stars are tiny dots in the sky called Planets. The Planets represented the gods. It makes sense, that the these "gods" inside our mind,... i.e.; heaven,... are archetypes. They can be thrown down as social behaviors, too. But that is just my story about the story found in the Revelation.
Right. No one would want to go to such a place. So the Bible can't be describing such an environment as a heaven
Go read the story of Job - one of the only places in the OT where Satan makes an appearance. The story has zero to do with libido. The Serpent, Tree of life and Tree of knowledge can all be taken as analogies for various Gods or "Sons of God". The punished serpent of Genesis and the Son of God in Job are not the same entities. The relationship between God and Satan in Job is that between Father and Son. Satan is not some worm who crawls on belly and is forced to eat dirt for all his days. Satan has God-like powers in Job. Unfortunately you do not quote from Maimonides. Given your tendency to add meaning to writings that does not exist in those writings - I am skeptical that Maimonides even made such a comparison. Regardless, the dude was living in the 10th century just after the time when Jewish scholars were heavily editing the OT - especially in relation to removing references the Israelite belief in a divine council.
Yeah ok, that's not what you'll be saying once your down there with him. But just keep telling yourself that.
Given that god was omniniscient he already knew that they would eat the fruit ergo it was entrapment too.
