Poor Satan, so misunderstood.

wrong serpent. i'll give you a hint, look for the older serpent, the one before the garden, before mankind. he -- they're -- in genesis 1."and god created the great serpents."these are livyatanim, dragons. legend holds that there were two, a male and a female, and god killed one to feed his new favourite children, mankind (psalm 74). the remaining one vows vengeance on god. a very poetic discription of him appears in the book of job.the livyatan is tied to the ancestral chaos serpent in sumerian and ugaritic myths. when john of patmos looks for an image represent the devil, he picks the leviathan, the crooked piercing serpent. you can see the commonalities between job's leviathan and john's great red serpent.now, the serpent in genesis was written as an animal. it draws from some earlier imagery that regarded serpents as unclean spirits, but this kind of idea seems to have been anathema to the authors of the torah. instead, the snake is another of god's creations, created with intelligence, who leads god's human children astray, and is punished for it. and his punishments are very literally the defining features of a snake.however, the idea that this serpent was an unclean spirit (THE unclean spirit) quickly worked its way back into tradition in the pseudepigraphical books of adam and eve, and similar non-canonical texts, due to the similarity to zoroastrian beliefs regarding serpents. but we're not looking at those, are we? we're looking at john's imagery, drawing from leviathan in very metaphorical ways, and the text of the hebrew bible.notice that john's serpent shows up in job as a completely separate figure from ha-satan, who also shows up in job? john revises the story a little. he begins with the traditional jewish satan, an angel of the lord, who during the end times rebels and leads a war on heaven. this is not contradictory to the jewish depiction, mind you.this idea becomes distorted through time. it gets convoluted with enoch's fall of azazel (circa noah), and all of the various semi-related aspects (zoroastrian evil spirits to pseudepigraphical serpent-satan, leviathan, nebuchadnezzar's tower of babel, etc) and get's transported back in time to the beginning of it all by milton in paradise lost. but this is an idea that came about gradually, through the evolution of ideas and philosophies.when you say "the devil is the ancient serpent" you mean something very different than john of patmos meant, and he meant something very different than the pseudepigraphical authors meant, and they meant something very different than the authors of the torah. the new testament is a collection of semi-biographical gospels, one history, a bunch of epistles (very much like oral law or talmud), and one book of apocalyptic prophecy. one might consider the prophets to be "oracles" but revelation is really the only bit of prophecy.

---

i've discussed this with you before. the hebrew does not support it. period. in fact, the hebrew is arranged so that the first three verses are one continuous thought, and the first verse is a dependent clause. the book necessarily starts at the beginning of creation.the fact that some small minority of people who are capable of reading hebrew misunderstand does not make any kind of legitimate point. that's like saying creationist quotemines are legitimate demonstrations of the intent of scientific dissertations because creationists can read english. the obvious response is "not very well, evidently."and don't mistake qabala (such as the book of zohar) as mainstream jewish thought. it's mysticisms, and frankly most of the stuff in those books would shock the living daylights out of you. this is utterly missing the point. what the serpent told eve was the truth. completely the truth, too. the god of the torah continually poses tough questions to his followers, and this is the first of many tests. do i follow god, who created me? or the serpent who makes a convincing argument? god indicates (in the hebrew) that eating will directly cause immediate death. either in the form of punishment, or implying that it's poison. neither of these things happen. though it's perfectly reasonable to assume he meant it as punishment, and commuted the sentance to exile and eventual death (without the tree of life). it's called a metaphor. ezekiel uses the imagery of several influential figures in jewish folk history, charged with protection. he compares the king of tyre to the cherubim set to guard eden, as well as a few other similar things (such as aaron the cheif priest of levi). he means to say that the king of tyre is charged with the protection of his people, and has betrayed that trust.have you honestly read any ezekiel? did you not understand that part about the bones coming back life, either? ezekiel commonly writes in metaphor, relying on the power of imagery over just saying rather boring stuff like "king of tyre, you suck" or "judah will return from exile."

---

again, wrong serpent. what i'm trying to say is that the mythology of the devil has more to do with the leviathan than it does with the garden snake in genesis, who is rather explicitly just an animal. well, this is where we get into "making stuff up" territory. the "pre-adamic history" you're almost certainly thinking of is the one found in paradise lost. not the bible, and not the inter-testemental books. genesis draws images from the ugaritic lotan, enemy of ba'al hadad, but completely deprives it of spiritual significance. this is a reflection on the philosophy of it's authors: god is almighty, and who could even challenge him? the image is further appropriated by job, who places lotan (leviathan) as the mightiest of beast, but still one of god's creations and completely at the mercy of the lord. however, the mythology stuck around in the non-biblical arena, and found outlets in the psalms.the idea of the serpent in the garden is a completely separate source, also intentionally deprived of its spiritual significance. whereas in zoroastrianism, snakes represent unclean spirits, in judaism, the snake is just one of god's creations.the idea here is, "our god is mightier than anyone, especially your gods." ascribing spiritual significance to these representations of other gods is, in essence, a return to polytheistic sources they come from, and a violation of the first (or second) of the ten commandments. yes, you most certainly do. because the imagery john is referring to is that of leviathan, and not a rather commonplace garden-variety snake. your view is entirely anachronistic, drawing more from milton than your bible, even if you're reading backwards as you so often like to do. this is just a very, very poor reading of the bible. the opposition god's people faced throughout the bible was almost always their own. "stiff-necked people" and such. they were stubborn and eager to follow other gods, and that's why god punished them so frequently. or at least, this is the logic of the vast majority of the prophets. satan, on the other hand, makes very select few appearances -- and when he finally DOES show up, in the book of job, he is neither the serpent, nor god's enemy. he is job's prosecution. in other words, you're sticking your fingers in your ears, and insisting on your backwards and anachronistic reading of the text. because what you're insisting on isn't even reading genesis in light of revelation. it's reading genesis in light of paradise lost and our more recent cultural folk tales. revelation does not talk of snakes, it talks of dragons. i'm sorry, you get these rules from where? sin is in man's nature. having a free will of our own, we stray from god's will. this, in fact, the very first thing that man does. why, pray tell, would god need assistance? satan accuses man before god because that's his function. his very name, given to him by god, is "the accuser." his function is to test the merit of man. you might call what satan does more along the lines of "entrapment." that does seem to involve testing faith, yes. but technically, the prosecution and defense attorneys are both employed by the state.

---

er, no. they don't. that's exactly the point i'm trying to make. if you read the bible, front to back, you do not come to these conclusions. if you read it back to front, you can only mistakenly come to them by misinterpretting references.and you misinterpret those references because it's common cultural knowledge that the serpent in the garden was satan. it's common cultural knowledge because of milton. whether or not you think you're discussing paradise lost, you are. that's the place where this story first appears -- not the bible. and flawed. once again, you are making entirely the wrong comparisons. ezekiel 28 describes the cherubim in the garden. the only cherubim in the book of genesis are the ones god places there to keep adam and eve out: they protect the garden. that theme fits with the message of ezekiel 28: someone trusted to protect something. you, instead, concentrate on the betray, and draw on milton's story which connects the serpent (who betrays neither man nor god any more than man himself does) with the devil.the same with isaiah 14, which is directed at a king of babylon -- one known historically for building towers -- who thinks he can sit in the heavens as god. the obvious biblical image is the tower of babel, where the citizens of babylon build a tower to reach the heavens. it's only reading it backwards using milton's name for the devil "lucifer" and a mangled translation that one comes to your conclusion.in other words, you're talking about milton. not the bible. in fact, your little war on heaven on story plainly contradicts the bible in a few places, such as the book of revelation, which is prophetic future. neither have i. but you picked the story up from somewhere, the same as we learn about "adam's apple." and the source is not the bible -- it's background cultural mythology.

---

in other words, from some people's interpretation of the bible. what a shitty saviour you must have. here he is, supposedly saving us from... what, exactly? and not even succeding? you sir are claiming that christ died in vain, and the devil has power over our lives. you might want to rethink that position, and re-read the gospel. yes, your ex-girlfriend was possesed by the devil. and we wonder why people think fundamentalist christianity is a cult. look, jay, think about it like this.your ex-girlfriend is a person. not the enemy. maybe you should have read that as a sign that you were supposed to show her a better way. did you ever stop to think of that? evangelism doesn't work via the cold shoulder.jesus told us to love and have compassion on the people around us who needed our help, and to share the good news. not hide it, and stay away from the outside world. even if that outside world is rife with sin -- jesus himself certain knew it was, yet there is the commandment to go out into it. perhaps you won't listen to me from my own experience, but i'll tell you anyways. it's in your head. satan doesn't need to tempt mankind. in his absence, we'd invent him anyways. as he have done, over and over. the moment you drop the paranoia, it all goes away. the moment you actually trust in your savious, it all goes away.the battle has already been won. you can put down your spiritual guns now.

---

and "no other gods." and "no idols." and "no polyester." etc. they're all lines in the sand, all 613 of 'em. we break every one. you break them. i break them. we are not god -- we cannot be god. and god understands this. because the lord is loving and wise, he forgives us. er, no, by most peoples' counts (excluding jar) eating of the tree was sin in the first place. in other words, for man to disobey god, he had to already have been capable of sin. but satan just isn't in the story. their's a rather intelligent serpent, but no satan. in fact, it seems like the snake had probably already eaten of the tree. and we can't even say that was wrong of him. we don't know if god commanded him not to. but apparently telling man about it was the line for him. "it's lonely at the top."look, i'm not disagreeing with you. but as the point stands, satan is merely the prosecution. and man currently falls very, very short of god. but... try going back and reading genesis in light of god wanting a companion, and see if you don't come to different conclusions abotu certain stories. did god really want blind obediend from abraham regarding isaac? or did he want to know if abraham had the balls to stand up to up him when we demanded something outrageous? did god want adam's obedience with the tree? or did he want to know if adam would choose knowledge over ignorance?remember job -- satan accuses job of being god's fairweather friend. but who claims responsibility at the end? it isn't satan. try again: "lucifer, latin: bearer of light." or as a proper noun, "the planet venus." compare this with the rather banal sounding hebrew, hillel, which simply means "glorious." actually, that's the name of the jewish student union on my university campus. maybe i should point out that their name means "the devil." or... maybe it doesn't mean "the devil" at all. but there is no biblical story of the rebellion of satan, except the one in revelation. and THAT one occurs at the end of times. what we do have, however, is that precise story in paradise lost. oh, and the book of mormon. it's there too. just not the bible. job was not a witness. job has on trial. perhaps unfairly, but that happens. the circumstances of the dispute required job's blessings to removed and reversed, to see if he was honest. do you have another way that should be tested?

---

yes, now the trick is to put it out of your head, and read the bible as if paradise lost had never been written. because when john of patmos was writting, it hadn't.now, if you want to claim that paradise lost (or perhaps the book of mormon) is inspired scripture and god's holy word...

---

you missed my point. we are given those laws. it's all sin. man strayed from god's will -- this is simply one example where he jumped at the chance to do so. the bible, btw, is filled with examples, from start to finish. so eating of the tree -- disobeying god -- itself was not a sin? it seems to me that man had the capacity to deviate from god's will before he ate from the tree. otherwise, he would have obeyed god and not eaten from the tree. right? you are misrepresenting the apostle paul. he is contrasting adam's effect on mankind with christ's. and to be fair to adam everything else about mankind entered the world through him too, didn't it? the point i mean to make is that the tree did not give adam free will, nor did it give him sin. adam sinned when he ate it, because he disobeyed god. and he had to have had that capacity to disobey god all along. any other view really needlessly complicates the story. er, no, it was adam who opposed the will of god. you have clearly misunderstood the very purpose of the story! read it again more closely. god asks adam if he ate of the tree, and adam says "the woman you put here made me do it." god goes to the woman and asks her, and she says "the snake tricked me!"see, the will of god here, which he so plainly expressed, was that adam was not allowed to eat of the tree. adam broke that rule, not the serpent, and adam is punished along with the serpent and the woman. "the devil made me do it" just does not cut it with god -- that's the moral here. adam is responsible for his own actions. why not? it's just pure dogma that it was anything else. look again at the punishment he's given:

quote:

---

upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

---

slithers along its belly, licks the ground. gosh, that sounds like a snake doesn't it? it doesn't talk about casting demons into hellfire, or falling from heaven, or any of that sort of thing. it talks about the qualities that define a snake. perhap it means a snake. wait, let's review that last one. satan entered into judas to... ensure that christ was crucified, sealing his own fate? wow, this satan guy must be a real idiot. if i were him, i woulda tried to keep christ alive, and not turn him into a ready sacrifice that would mean i would be completely powerless from then on. ah, another case of the "not quite inspired enough" bible, is it then? they meant to say this rather important point, they just forgot? er, but you see, your own logic betrays you. the mosaic covenant was not given to adam. he was given one or two things to follow, and that was pretty much it. adam himself was not held to laws he was not given, correct? those laws were moses' people and time. it's not like this is stuff we were supposed to know, and it applied to adam too.why, if something was important to the story of adam, would it be left out? heck, when milton goes to tell the same story, he makes it very very clear who he thinks the serpent is. yes, we'll keep coming back to paradise lost. because that's where this information is revealed. right -- in order. there were no ten commandments and no levites in adam's time. but if there was a devil, and one who rather significantly impacts the story, wouldn't it be nice if it said "the devil" instead of "snake"? i mean, that's one word not 613 individual laws that would take several books to fill in. look, you keep bringing these up. those just aren't about satan. period. you'll know something in the bible is about satan when it uses the name "satan." sounds simple enough, but seems to be pretty hard to stick to. do i really need to break down isaiah 14 and ezekiel 28 again, and point out what they're really referring to? the rudimentary foundations of trinitarian belief are only barely expressed in the new testament, and certainly are not in the old. like it or not, this is a new idea, and it's a mistake to pin the god depicted in the old testament with the personality and motivations of the god of the new. it's probably even a mistake to do it across textual sources within the old testament, actually. there are many different interpretations of that, and quite a lot of them are consistent with the jewish idea of one and only one god. they seem to get along rather cordially in job. you know, the book that's in the bible, as opposed to the stories you make up in your head. i can't say i've watched perry mason, but i don't imagine that if he ran into the other attornery on the street, they'd knife each other. you have zero biblical evidence for any of this. none that satan was against god's throne (except in the future tense), and none that he would have harmed job in hatred. yes, he probably would have -- remember here that he struck down job's children with god's blessing. still, no biblical evidence. revelation reports that satan will rebell during the end of times, if you take it literally. ....er, no. read it again. satan says that job fears god "for nothing." that if god would take away all that job has, job would blaspheme. that's accusation on job's character, not god's. actually, the book is an argument against that belief. job's friends represent the wisdom movement, a philosophy that finds voice in books like jeremiah. and they are quite clearly wrong:

quote:

---

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: 'My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job hath.

​

Job 42:7

---

that doesn't sound like an answer to you? notice, btw, that after chapter 2, satan is no longer mentioned. god himself takes responsibility for job's suffering. so i think your idea of who's on what side might need a little rethinking.the classical hebrew understanding was that god created all things, all blessings and curses, and that satan was merely an angel (or one of the "sons of god" that job mentions) who carried out the task of testing men for god. you can find quite a lot of evidence for this point of view if you simply read the old testament a little more.

quote:

---

i form light, and i create darkness.
i make peace, and i create evil.
i am Yahweh: i do all these things.

​

isaiah 45:7

---

---

indeed. then you have to admit that man had the capacity to sin (ie: free will) before he ate of the tree. otherwise, he could have done no such thing. that is not the argument. the argument is that "sin entered into man when adam ate" doesn't quite mean what you think it means. that was, indeed, the first sin -- but it did not create the capacity to sin, or put sin in mankind's heart. it was already there from the beginning. we were created with the tendency to think on our own, and that sometimes leads us astray from god.there is no devil in genesis 3 that takes adam by the hand, and forces a piece of fruit down his throat. adam is aware of and responsible for his own actions. god gave him a direction, and a snake made an argument, and he chose to disobey god. the whole point of the story is that mankind is responsible for their actions, and cannot simply shift blame. by means of expulsion from the garden. don't forget that this is the specific punishment given to adam. he will die because he will no longer have access to the tree of life. we are subject to death because we are not in the garden. though you could argue, in a metaphorical sense, that christ is the tree of life. yes -- his eyes were openned, and he was like god. the bible, the serpent, and god all agree on this aspect. not sure how you could have missed that, or thought it meant something else. this is somewhat like the prometheus myth. man stole something that belonged to the gods, and made man more like gods than like animals.but the tree itself granted neither free will, nor sin, nor death. it simply granted knowledge. adam had the capacity to disobey, or he wouldn't have eaten. adam sinned when he ate it, not after. and adam's death came slowly, as a result of the tree of life being forbidden to him. this is simply not held up by the story itself. in fact, there is no such reference to satan disobeying god at all, in the old testament. and only one such reference (in future tense) in the new. there is some element of an angellic rebellion prior to the story of noah and the flood, but you'll find that all the explicit references are completely absent. why?because in hebrew mythology angels do not have free will. only man is granted with that. angels are extensions of god, his eyes, ears and hands on earth. they do what he says, and only what he says, because they can do nothing else. they are like puppets. there's probably a reason for that. have you ever considered that maybe you're just reading it wrong? shouldn't accuracy count for something? if we value this book so much, shouldn't we try to care about what it actually means, and not what we'd like it to mean? *rimshot* ...well, no. the serpent is a created creature, like all the others brought to adam. adam is older than the serpent. we are not told what instructions are given to the serpent, if any. though, it's safe to assume that none were. read the text very carefully -- adam is given dominion over all creatures. if the snake was smart to begin with, it seems like it was adam's job to tell it what to do, not vice-versa. not really. i mean, there was a tree of knowledge in the garden, wasn't there? the snake seems to be speaking from personal experience. yeah, it kind of does though. you say it doesn't, but it's still an excuse. and the same excuse that adam got an earful from god about. the devil cannot be blamed for man's problems. we are quite capable of screwing up on our own, and we have to take ultimate responsibility for our actions. no, there really isn't. that's sort of the point. i don't believe any devil is mentioned in that chapter of romans. paul is certainly not placing the blame there, not even enough to name him. he places it squarely on the shoulders of adam. just like genesis does. if it's divinely inspired, wouldn't it make more sense to actually pay attention to what it says, with meticulous attention to detail? as i've pointed out, even reading genesis in light of revelation, you're doing it wrong. you have to read genesis in light of the "divinely inspired" works of the books of adam and eve, paradise lost, or the book of mormon to get that the snake in the garden = satan = fallen angel.i've researched the history of thise idea in detail. those are the sources. though "adam and eve" is not quite the same. it says that the serpent began as an animal and became the devil. it's really, honestly, not until milton that your story comes up. and the book of mormon gets it from milton. and was one of those writers milton? no? just... do this one thing. try to forget everything you think you know about the book of genesis. find a good translation, and read it for the words on the page. literally. and ignore what you've learned in church about what it's supposed to say. when you're done with genesis, feel free to move on to other books of the bible. it is likely that they had portions of an already established canon, yes. i think you fundamentally misunderstand what the bible is. to begin with, it's hard call some of the things in the new testament "books." i think this very post is probably longer than galations, for instance. the appropriate term is "letter" or "epistle." evidently, you do not. the legitimate understanding of genesis is the one that is representative of the text itself, based solely upon the things that it says, regardless of time frame. we can look to interpretative works to see how other people understood the text, yes.your views regarding the personhood of the serpent are not representative of the text. they aren't even representative of the interpretative works you claim to base this conclusion upon. if we were discussing paradise lost, your conclusions would be correct. in that story, the serpent is indeed the devil. yes, it really will keep coming back to this book.now, since we are discussing biblical works, revelation points to a different serpent, and one that appears in genesis 1, not 2 and 3. that position is consistent with the imagery john of patmos uses, and the ideological history of the judeo-christian tradition up until about 300 ad. your position is consistent with judeo-christian tradition after about 1650 ad. now, if want to argue that god revealed his secrets to john milton in 1667, be my guest. but i don't think that's your position. the ancient serpent is the one older that mankind, created on the day before man:

quote:

---

‘ —, - ’—
v'y'bara elohim et-ha-taninm ha-gdolim

​

"and god created the great serpents."

​

genesis 1:21

---

but your bible probably says something different, so you've never noticed a great serpent in genesis 1. now look at revelation:

quote:

---

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

​

Revelation 12:9

---

a great serpent. from the greek megas. large, big, massive, huge. the hebrew gadol means the same thing. it's not talking about a garden snake, it's talking about a dragon. those details were not important to adam's story. if that serpent is the devil, that's pretty damned important. actually, the title of the book is b'reishit, "in the beginning." inventing stories that came before the beginning is to ignore the meaning of the text. there was nothing before the beginning, by definition. that's fine. it's just that the bible -- including the new testament -- does not say what you think it does. no, not judas. satan. what was his purpose in making judas betray christ? correct me if i'm wrong, but the standard christian teaching is that christ's sacrifice broke satan's hold over man. why would satan, being a subtle fellow, work actively towards his own end? meaning that however inspired you think the bible is, god apparently did a really rotten job of saying what he means. especially the bits about including important details about who the characters really are. on the contrary, quite a lot of your comments have been on paradise lost. perhaps you're not aware of that fact, as you have not read it. but i assure you, they are. even assuming that, wouldn't it be nice if some other book in the bible said that? that's really the problem here. it's not like the position is unsupported by just the book of genesis. it's unsupported by any book before 1667 that i can find. and i have looked, very very hard. i think you are perhaps misunderstanding the whole of the old testament here. don't feel bad, it's quite common. if there is one solid theme in the whole of the OT, it's that man wanders away from god. there need not be trickery involved, let alone any evil spirits. just someone who comes along with something new for the bored hebrews. the OT is very much about human nature, not divine influences. if we are to read genesis in light of those books, that's the reading we should head towards. i know what you think, but the bible does not support what you think. period.if we are to "interpret scripture with scripture" we should actually look at the events and imagery those verses reference. isaiah 14 talks about a king who want to sit in heaven. have we heard another story in the bible like this? i have, and it's in genesis 11. coincidentally, in the very same place. how about that.ezekiel 28 makes reference to a cherub in the garden of eden. was there a cherub in the story in genesis 3? yes! at least two of them, actually, and they're at the end. they guard eden from adam and eve. and that fits the protection theme that ezekiel 28 is talking about.look, it helps to have read and understood genesis before reading things that reference them. what you're doing is starting with the cultural knowledge of what milton said, reading the prophetic works and interpretting genesis with your flawed assumptions about them. in reality, you should read genesis first, and interpret the works that reference in light of genesis. not vice-versa. and leave milton's position right out of it. if you pay attention to the wording and event of the stories in genesis, the stuff after it makes a whole lot more sense. eh, no. like god has one name, satan has one name. there might be more cryptic ways of referring to him, and the NT does prefer the greek for "liar" yes. but in general, it's not a good idea to go looking for cryptic references and simply assume that they must be about satan. we've had threads on this before. it's just not. this is another case of you starting with a modern interpretation, reading backwards, and then pretending that because the text can be used to vaguely support your idea, that's what it MUST mean. that's what this was in reference to. there are at least a dozen different interpretations of why god sometimes speaks in plural. ...yeah, i meant the other way around. satan is remarkably friendly towards god. as i understand it, the christian method of interpretation seems to have a lot in common with divination, and generally very little in common with the text. i would highly suggest that if one is interested in interpretation, they should take an academic class on the bible, and not rely on the voice in their heads. because those voices... lie. yes. and i am asking you to re-examine your convictions. i understand that this is not an easy task. but if satan has a home today, it's in the minds of fundamentalist christians. they're the ones that speak his name more times in conversation than it is written total in the bible. they're the ones that look for him everywhere, and find him behind every corner and under every stone. "satan" is proclaimed from the christian pulpits, and used to instill fear in congregations.that's not christianity. it's not following christ who died so that we may live, and who told us to not be afraid. that's not even fear of god, that's fear of the devil. the greatest lie the devil ever told isn't that he doesn't exist, but that he is all-powerful. stop perpetuating this myth. if you truly believe you are saved by christ, then satan has been defeated and is powerless. it's not. it's from someone who has been in your position. i've been to many, many fundamentalist churches. i believed the whole spiritual warfare thing for a long, long time. i tell you as a brother in christ that it's in your head, and you are making it up. and your life will the simpler the moment you truly trust christ and stop paying satan your respects. and yet your points here regarding the personhood of the serpent are completely unsupported. you may not be entirely aware of it, but you are appealing to milton and hollywood. because that's the only place the story you tell can be found. take job. satan, with god's blessing, tried to lead job astray. that's his job. again, this is just not in the bible. or even in your own examples -- how does ensuring the sacrifice of christ oppose him? then i suppose christ preached satanism when he told us that god takes care of us? so maybe you shouldn't go looking for him everywhere you can find him in the bible. look, this is the kind of paranoia that i'm concerned about. especially this: i don't care what paul says. if you think he meant that satan is really god of anything you are in some serious trouble. no. other. gods. you, like many others, use passages like these to condemn others and hide from the outside world. neither of those the actions of christians -- and calling satan a god, even in lowercase, is ascribing him far more authority than he deserves. god has all the authority. all of it. none in heaven nor on earth have authority but through him. this is another excuse to ignore what the bible says. it's the "cracker jacks bible." you need the special decoder ring of the holy spirit, right? what an ineffective book, if you have to understand it before you read it. what's the point in even having it, then? i'm sorry, i'll just go on reading the words on the page, and assume that it means what it says and not something else that's "veiled" and only those special people with the gift of prophecy can read the words of the prophets.

---

you're still missing the point. no devil was needed to make him transgress. it was his own actions, of his own free will, and the responsibility fell squarely on his shoulders. the word "quite" was not there for sarcasm. there is a subtlety i think you are missing. the issue is not that you do not agree with me. it's that the bible does not agree with you. no, it doesn't. but you're reading a powerful and manipulative spiritual entity into a story that just doesn't need it. and doing so runs contrary to the message about human nature the bible is trying to teach. nor does it prove the nonexistance of invisible pink unicorns in genesis. genesis proves that, by not talking about invisible pink unicorns. or satan. it's not in the story, and you are reading it in where it does not fit. yes, and i never said otherwise. how do you know that? afterall, if satan's in the story but not written about, how many other things that the bible is equally silent about could be possible. suppose i say that there were other people, perhaps outside of the garden. i actually have a decent argument for that too, based on the text of the bible. but that's somewhat irrelevent -- because you can't actually prove that because genesis is silent on the matter, they didn't exist. noah is descended from adam and eve. there's a bottleneck there, isn't there? noah is also the father of all mankind. maybe the bit about eve being the mother of all relates to the author's time period (like, you know, everything else in genesis does), and it's through that bottleneck that it's technically correct. i agree, that's just a little silly, but it sure as hell solves the problem of who cain was worried about being killed by, and who he married. i'm not blaming paul. i'm blaming you for misinterpreting paul. no, because then you'd have to have read and carefully thought about genesis in meticulous detail, instead of trying to hammer a later reinterpretation into it. why, exactly, would there even be a tree of life in the garden if adam were born immortal? why would god be worried about adam becoming immortal if he already were? no other argument fits the story. adam wasn't created to die. he was created to have a choice. he chose knowledge over eternal life, even with the admonition of god against knowledge. again, please feel free to cite the verse in the book of genesis that says "satan." cause that's just not in my bible. mine says "snake." it is unknown whether the fruit of the tree of life was a one-time thing, or if you'd need to continually eat it all of your days to maintain immortality. that goes for "knowledge" too -- it's quite possible that the effects wore off. if i recall, one of those books that supports your snake = devil idea, the book of adam and eve, supports the notion that the effects of the tree knowledge wore off. but it's been a while since i've read it. didn't say you had. just that it's not a major conclusion that the tree fundamentally changed something about adam -- the text says so. what, however, is a rather strange conclusion is assuming it changed something else about him that the text does not say. and yet, there it is in print, in genesis 3: man steals something that god claims as his and only his. now, it is fine to interpret that had god not wanted to provide the choice, the tree wouldn't have been in the garden in the first place, and so on some level, the theft was "allowed" by god. just as god allows us the freedom to sin in other matters. so you're saying that you think the story in genesis 3 is a bit silly? because that's precisely what happens. it's not a direct parallel, but there are rather strong similarities in the stories. ah, the old "my book is true, yours is the distortion" canard. always a classic -- sheer opinion and faith. it certainly was not. if you pay attention to the details given in genesis, man dies explicitly because god curses him with it, and exiles him from the tree of life. the tree of knowledge is not the source of death -- god's punishments for adam's actions are. the tree itself simply granted knowledge of good and evil. i assure you, i have at least as much bible as you do. and considering the books i have containing portions of the DSS, and the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical and gnostic texts, and lost gospel that i have accessed online, i think "more" would be a safe bet. the difference is that i'm willing to break texts down and analyze them, in their component parts, in comparison with their sources, and think about how they fit the whole of the history of judeo-christian ideology. it's certainly not just looking at one part of it. indeed, it is looking at quite a lot more than you do, and studying how the parts form the whole.you simply lump it all together as if the bible were one singular book to be quote-mined at will, and chop it up into bite-sized lumps. you ignore socio-political context, historical context, authorship, timeframe, which particular philosophy a particular text comes out of or addresses. as i've stated before, it's a bit like taking a beautiful seven course meal, running it through a blender on "puree" and drinking it through a straw. it might be easier to chew, but it sure won't be as tasty as the individual dishes and it will lack the kind of relationships those dished would have had if enjoyed in the proper way. i think you haven't thought about these things clearly, and independent of religious input from culture or church. that much is evident by your completely flawed and anachronistic reading of the text, that draws more from the post-milton school of christian thought than it does from the words of the bible itself. you may done a task for 30 years, but that does not automatically mean that you have done it well, or that you have learned to do it the correct way. zechariah is a prophetic work. if i had to guess what this passage (chapter 3) is about, i would instantly relate it to king josiah, responsible for the cleansing of the preisthood in judah. joshua looks to serve god, and satan raises the accusation that he is unworthy (with his dirty garments). this is, afterall, satan's job. god then basically says to satan that his accusation is irrelevent, and the from this filth god will raise something better. and joshua is cleansed.i'm not sure what you think "rebuke" means. last i checked, zechariah is not in the new testament. further, this was a question about satan rebelling against god with a bunch of angels, and falling from heaven at the beginning of time. stories that fit (indeed, are part of) the jewish interpretation that simply does not include those bits don't count. chronicles, you say?

quote:

---

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

---

surely that couldn't have been accidental on your part. that is the only time he's mentioned in chronicles. and comparison with the book of samuel (on the same story) and presuming you accept both as true leaves only one possible conclusion. ...and you're still looking at the wrong evidence. that is what it says. i'm not sure we can actually connect lying spirits and evil spirits to the adversary, but i'll let that one go for now. yes. exactly. that is the only possible conclusion one can reach by actually analyzing the texts and how they relate. and it's not "amiable favors." it's his job. it's what he was created to do, as his name rather clearly demonstrates. er, maybe. job, apparently, does not blaspheme even though many of the things he says might be considered as such. there is an interesting reading of job -- that he is provoking god on purpose, and seeing how far he can push things. because he's apparently wrestling with his faith, as anyone who's lost everything is bound to do. some have suggested that job represents one of the earliest books that touches on atheism in parts, and he simply wants to get god to prove his existence. once god does so, job is appeased: at least someone is in charge. it's an interesting take.but it is clear that in the book of job, the blame as it were rests on god, for it is god who shows up to accept it. but that is, afterall, his right and his duty. the lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

---

i meant when he's talking to god. their wager seems rather friendly. yes, satan wants to get job to curse god -- that's the point. he's testing job's faith, and whether it is based solely on his blessings from god. in science, this is what we call "falsification." you take your idea, and you actively try to break it. that is satan's function. he tests people by trying to break them. that's a mighty technicality instead of a rebuttal. as ringo points out, you thump the bible more than you actually quote it. that's what a bible-thumper is -- someone who holds up their bible and hits it as justification, rather than studying it and quoting it in context. jay, this was not particularly addressed at you. in my past, i have belonged to several evangelical churches, and at least one pentecostal church. people their claimed to have visions and hear voices. this is not a mischaracterization.and when people here attempt to say that you need your holy spirit brand decoder rings to understand the text (instead of, i dunno, reading it), it seriously makes me wonder what exactly such a thing means. how, exactly, does your holy spirit impart you the correct reading, and one that runs contrary to what a careful academic reading says? clearly, a spirit that tells you things that are demonstrably untrue is not a holy one. if we're looking for devils... that was not what i mean. and i'm fairly certain that you understood that. you misunderstand the implication. supposing that satan did not exist, christians would invent him. if satan has authority, it's because christians say he does. if you're convictions are the gospel, believe the christ of the gospels who said that we are given power to overcome such spirits, and who died to that satan could no longer accuse us in front of god. it is neither an exageration, nor a lie. it is a conclusion i have come to in years of church-going, and listening to christian radio. it may not represent christianity as a whole, but it certainly represents fundamentalism. no. that's about the only sort of church i haven't been to. i went to an assembly of god church for a number of years, but also went around to various other denominations ranging from lutheran and methodist to calvary chapels and nameless store-front pentecostals. i am not eager to blame christians -- but i think that many of fundamentalist groups need a little re-direction. if anything, i am eager to help christians. welcome to joy and insult of being evangelized to. it's a generalized term these days, referring to podium or lectern a pastor generally speaks from. but in the loose colloquial sense (how i used it), "from the pulpit" means "in a sermon." i thought you liked the new testament. i think, judging from your references about "part of the bible" above, you think i'm jewish? i'm a christian. i assure you, i have read the new testament, and this part was specifically referring to it. you fail to understand that this is a wedge issue. you start thinking that satan has any power over your life, and that's dangerous. it's the foot in the door. he wants nothing more than that opportunity, and he'll work his way into your head, make you see him everywhere until you're so confused about who's running what that you'll be running yourself in circles. the whole time distracted from the real issues.you discussed an old girlfriend as a distraction sent by satan. you have been so blinded that you do not see that satan is the distraction from doing the things christ taught, helping those in need and spreading his love and compassion, and the good news. not sure where you got the "x" idea, jay. you're arguing with a brother in christ. nor have i. that is not the issue. the issue is that you've apparently got the wrong baby in the bath: "spiritual warfare" is a device that cults use to ensure continued membership by making their congregations scared of the outside world. if you are truly a disciple of jesus, you will follow his teachings and go out into the world making it a better place, and faith in the salvation he has given us. well let me ask you, if satan has been overcome, and you are saved... where's the war? i do not see how these two positions can be compatible. either satan is still on the loose, and his accusations have weight in the eyes of god -OR- we have been saved. you simply cannot have it both ways. we are either saved, or we are not.and i will not accept that we are not. evidently not, if the war is still being fought. nor am i, and i am not asking you to. i am asking you to read it responsibly and carefully, and not to use it as a weapon. i want you to study your bible a little harder, and try to ignore the sorts of messages you hear from church that abuse it. i want you to understand the details and implications and context and ideological history of the text. why? because i find it truly intriguing, and hate to see other people miss out on the stuff of real value in favor of the sermon of the week. i do believe i quoted it above? note that this is prophecy regarding the end times. if you'd like the debate that point, ie: that it's in the past, i'll be happy to entertain an argument and you may even convince me. it's probably even the way that milton (mis)understood it. but, the point stands, the cohesive story of lucifer's fall from heaven, and disguising himself as a snake in eden is literally straight out of milton, and is found in no earlier source. components of it are clearly older, and i'll be more than happy to point out which bits come from where. again, this does not seem to be referring to what you think it refers to. can you a find a direct reference? i was not arguing that. no, that was sarcasm. well, you've sure found him in some stange places. yes, i'm aware of that. and it is wrong to call satan a god of anything and mean it, as you seem to do. he deserves the same designation as a false god, called "a god" only because people worship him as such. any other use -- and to think paul meant something else -- is pretty close to being blasphemy. and if paul meant anything else, his letter should not be in the bible. so i don't think that's what he meant. ok, fair enough. but i would try avoid calling satan a "god" entirely. my point, as i have been trying to make all along, is that giving him any authority at all is a dangerous thing. you have to be kidding, right? this is precisely what i mean. you think that the father of lies is telling the truth here? seriously now. satan simply does not have the authority to give jesus rule of the world. only god has that authority. do not mistake my failure to see your points as valid as ignorance. believe me, i started out believing the same story you refer to. but upon reading the bible and failing to find any good evidence of it, i gave it up. my failure to agree is because the text disagrees, not because i am not aware of something.

---

indeed. i accepted jesus christ as my saviour almost 11 years ago now (i'm not very old), and have had a long and meandering spiritual journey since then. i have come to question many of the teachings of the various churches i went to, but have never lost my faith. you may consider that apostate, but that is hardly your place to judge. you profess to be a christian, and i don't walk around assuming everyone lies to me, like this: this is the sort of paranoia i'm talking about. it's dangerous, and it's offensive, and it's counter to any evangelical message you might espouse. it's amazing that you can post the whole thing, and miss the point of the last line. or perhaps not. it is not for the wheat to uproot the tares. because it is. you have totally missed the point i was getting at -- which is that if you have faith in christ, the battle has been won. if that sounds like the enemy speaking, well, you've completely lost sight of what it means to be a christian, and this is why we are having this discussion.you have been confused and confounded by people who speak the enemy's message of isolation, paranoia, and judgemental attitudes. satan wants you to see him everywhere, in your fellow christians, because that will drive you away from your brothers and sisters. do not listen to these people. i gathered. again, i'm telling you that there is nothing more frustrating for a growing christian than thinking there is a great war going on for his soul. and i tell you this from experience. trust god, and have faith in christ, and you are saved. there is no war; it has already been won. the end of your frustration is christ.why do you not understand what i am saying? has the enemy confused you so much that you see him in your fellow christians, or anyone who thinks a little differently?

---

considering that satan is the enemy, one wonders what jesus meant when he said "love your enemy"(jaywill, i'll get back to your posts in a bit)

---

in roman-occupied judea, the neighbour was often the enemy.

check the stats on getting sober and staying sober cold turkey v. w/ god (and 12 steps). you'll find both hover around 5%. i flipped a coin twice, and it came up heads both times! therefor the probability or a coin landing heads-up is 100% ...you need larger sample sizes to make a test valid.

---