How can we be possibly be happy in Heaven?

It is my understanding that the "Angel of the Lord" may or may not be the Angel that is walking around on the earth in the book of Job, and challenges God to test Job's faith(many christians believe this angel to be the devil or Satan; meaning accuser in hebrew), but my reading of Jewish religious history, tells me that the ancient Jews believed that God had a special angel who was specifically commissioned to punish, destroy, test, etc. In other words Satan was God's hitman! He worked for God. I think a careful reading of God's commands to Satan in Job will show this. But I am not sure that "Angel of the Lord" and the accuser of Job are the same.My theory is that some Jews(i.e. Essenes, etc.) during the intertestament period decided to make God and Satan enemies, so in some sense the Judeo-Christian-Islamic World has always had two or more gods. What do you think?...By the way, what does this have to do with being happy in heaven?![This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003]

Readings on Satan and Lucifer (note: Not the same thing!) in the bible are quite interesting to study. Here's a little test for xians: Search the bible for the word Satan, and look at the first match. Note that you'll need to use a more literal bible, bibles that twist the words heavily to make it more consistant, less contradictory, and more acceptable to a modern audience (like NIV) may not work (never use NIV when studying the texts, it's awful). New Living is generally pretty good; ones with the Hebrew associated with the text are best (although there are actually multiple "originals" for most sections of the bible, and they often have slight contradictions).What do you find? You find a reference in 1st Chronicles. "Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the Israelites." However, if you'll recall, this part of the bible is another version of the events of 2nd Samuel. What is the corresponding line in 2nd Samuel? "Once again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he caused David to harm them by taking a census."Strange, isn't it? What could cause this? Only one major event occurred between 2nd Samuel and 1st Chronicles: Israel was enslaved by Babylon. In Babylon, they were exposed to the polytheism of the Babylonians. In Babylonian mythology, there were all kinds of lesser gods and demigods who served greater gods. There were gods that were good, gods that were evil, and everything in between. All of the sudden, the story is changed - no longer is God doing the tempting of earlier books, but now, *Satan* is doing the bad things."Satan" means something to the effect of "the accuser" - and yet, while he is portrayed as doing evil and tempting, after his introduction in the Early bible he is still portrayed as being one of God's servants. God still is a wrathful being at times, but seldom from here on is God the one who actually *does* the wrath himself. Note that the state of "God alone" was itself a change from the earlier, more primative form, in which God speaks in plurals, other Gods do miracles (just not as great miracles as YHVH), etc - they developed from polytheistic to a monotheistic world view, only to have polytheism creep back in in a time where their faith was undoubtedly deeply tested.From Chronicles onward, there is God, and all of his angels, but they are all his servants. They still have their "one God" after their enslavement, but he now has created a number of lesser beings to do his bidding. In the beginning, Satan like all angels is portrayed as an independent being, but one who still serves God, who is one of God's angels. Satan takes the role of, to borrow the term, the "attorney general". He seeks constantly to prove weakness in man, to expose men who will fail in their faith of God. Yet, God himself did this before in the bible; Satan merely took over this aspect of God. Of course, as time progressed, it was only natural to expect (especially with the advent of the polarities in the later-arisen Zoroastrianism) that, playing this Role, Satan would become seen as "the enemy of God".Of course, Lucifer is something completely different ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-12-2003]

Hey Rei, that is all intensely interesting because I remember reading some material along the same lines, although I can't remember where. I'll have to look thru my small library at home to see if I can find it. Your comparison of 1st Chronicles and 2nd Samuel which obviously equates Satan and the LORD, I believe is astonishingly accurate! How do the fundamentalists respond to this?? You have also confirmed my suspicion that the Jews of the Babylonian exile were heavily influenced by Babylonian and Persian religion! Please provide some extra-biblical documentation on what you have written, as this is fascinating, and may prove helpful in the Planetwide Mission to Deprogram Fundamentalists (PMDF). By the way, explain why Lucifer is something completely different?[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-13-2003]

Actually, the word 'angel' appears only once in the book of Job (4:18). Strangely enough, and I may have to split hairs for truthlover over this, Satan was apparently, in the book of Job, counted among the sons of god. Actually, 'devil' and 'satan' have very different meanings. 'Devil' is given for a Hebrew word for 'goat' (in reference to the LORD's-goat and the scape-goat sacrificed in Jewish rituals) and is literally translated as 'hairy one'. Indeed. Four gods if you buy into the trinity. The fourth being Satan, the god of evil. Perhaps nothing. On the other hand, I am wondering which of these gods, if any, are going to be there to greet you? Perhaps none of them. Perhaps the entire scenario is a fantasy based upon a misunderstanding of scripture. That is my opinion; and it seems to me that this would seriously impact one's "happiness in heaven."------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

Try not to let the topic drift guys.AdminBrian

Well then, if it's the devil that greets us in heaven, then by your reckoning, we will all have goats to sacrifice daily!! On the other hand, if it's Satan, then heaven is really hell because that's where christian theology puts Satan in the end anyway, then again it could be Yahweh(or Yehwah, or Yohwuh, or...) and we will all fight in ancient Jewish wars, kill our own people for eating lobster, etc., make our little boys scream in pain, and fall down in terror at the feet of a Volcano! Then of course there's the trinity, by which the "church" didn't fully acknowledge or teach about until after the Arian Controversy( that's another subject), AND the trinity is a serious case of multiple personality disorder. No, we won't be happy in heaven regardless of where our loved ones are.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-13-2003]

Not if you are only "listening" to science as a Unitarian would have spoke Newton of at necessarily (we can do better than this today) say on "Joel" acting in "The sun shall be turned into darkness,and the moon to blood" after "And I shall shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire and pillars of smoke."I noticed an incidence of GOUld and Matchette on word "sun" and now that we have a visual medium and not a sound telephone only it may be time to understand this simply even if we never make it there (heaven).

It's pretty well accepted that in 586 BC, the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem and enslaved the residents; they had been expanding in the region for a number of years. In 539, however, the Babylonians were defeated by the Persians under Cyrus the Great, and many of the Babylonians' slaves were freed. Biblical Archaeology Review has pictures of a number of the artifacts that discuss the fall of Jerusalem - check out The Fury of Babylon, Caught Between the Great Powers, and The Babylonian Gap. It's actually a rather interesting series of military campaigns (and military blunders); it's good to learn more about than just the general "they were conquered and enslaved". In actuality, their enemies (both the Assyrians and Egyptians) managed to stall the conquest of their cities, despite the stupidity of Josiah (the king of Judah at the time) in attacking the Egyptian troops on their way to fight Nebuchadnezzar's troops.The religion of Babylon included a whole pantheon - Anu, the sky God, the wise son of Apsu (God of the underworld sea) and Tiamat ("chaos"). The earth God Enlil switched between being benevolent and wrathful - he was responsible for order and harmony, but also was a god of storms. Ea, the water god, was the benefactor of mankind; he granted wisdom, magic, art, and science. There was the moon god Sin and the sun god Shamash (btw, it's interesting to note the similarity of Arabic words to the names of the babylonian gods... moon is "sin", sun is "shams", etc). Later, Marduk, an omniscient god, took over the pantheon, only to be replaced by Ashur, an Assyrian god who was the god of war. Of course, there were many, many minor gods and godesses.Zoroastrianism was a religion of polarities, developed among sedentary tribes in Iran. Even when zoroastrianism began to incorporate the Persian pantheon, it divided them into those which were good, and those which were evil. There were two types of people - the people of righteousness (asha) and those of lies (druj). Zoroastrianism became the dominant world religion between 559 BC and 651 AD), largely due to the influence of Persia.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Thanks, Rei, for relating some of the religious history and cultures that the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity were exposed to. It reminds me of some of the stuff I had read years ago in the religion section of the local library. I'll have to get those books again and review them as we all tend to forget things in light of more immediate and pressing needs; like finding work and getting married. I'll get back to you when I cooberate what you've said with my own research! PM PS. I'm aready "Happy in Heaven" thanks to my wife!!!
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-15-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-15-2003]

"By their fruits ye shall know them". Hmmm... Isn't that inconsistent with "Judge not, lest ye are judged"??

Notice that it doesn't say "Judge not." It says, "Judge not, lest ye are judged". It doesn't say not to judge; it says don't be a hypocrite.The biggest problem with Joralex's answer is it's a non-answer.How will he judge the relationship? He'll judge the relationship "by his fruits". Ummmmm...and...HOW will he judge the fruits?[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-30-2003]

Dear Brian,What do you believe? It is best to be scientific about these things nowadays.Have you ever tried communicating with God? By going into a deep trance telepathy with God may be possible. It is worth a try. If you can communicate with God then I am sure He will realise that your argument is a good one, and He may change the system.

Zhimbo writes:

quote:

---

Notice that it doesn't say "Judge not." It says, "Judge not, lest ye are judged". It doesn't say not to judge; it says don't be a hypocrite.

---

No, not quite. Here's the full context:Matthew 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.And similarly:Luke 6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
6:38: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.In other words, it isn't about being a hypocrite but rather about focusing upon your own behaviour. Even if you aren't guilty of doing what the other person is doing, if you condemn them for it you will receive the same punishment you give out to them. All that "do unto others" stuff.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thankyou profusely my dear sir for defending my most humble interp. of these simply understood passages! It does appear that we have a philosophically blatant inconstency between these two sets of the sayings of Jesus. Since I believe that Jesus was a corporeal person, then I may have two(or more?) choices about him. Either he was utterly and irreducably MAAADD, or he did not quite say what was written. If one does not believe Jesus to have been insane, then one may choose which philosophy he really espoused to.: "Do not judge, or you will be judged", OR "You shall know them by their fruits." Hmmm... It seems very plain to me that WHEN "you shall know them by their fruits", THEN you have just made a judgement call. That, sir, is my judgement call![This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-01-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-01-2003]

quote:

---

Answer this : do you truly think that any of us, no matter how many IQ points we may have, could hope to understand the purpose of a Being that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient?

---

More than that, I don't think any of us can hope to actually know that such a being exists or not.That's why I'm an Agnostic