Many Atheists or Satanists would claim that God and Satan are the same, leading many Christians to be offended unnecessarily. As always, I seek to find a middle ground and look at the issue from both sides, and as historically as I can, because I have been there and understand how blindsided you can be when you want to believe something that everyone else does.
Christians need to know a few things though. You cannot fight your "spiritual battles" against "the lies of Satan" by burying your head in the sand and not learning about the opposition's argument least you come "under the spell" of it. You need to be able to ":study to show thyself approved unto God", right? So here are some key verses that are used to "prove" Satan and God are one, to the mind of many non-religious people:
"AND Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (I Chronicles 21:1)Christians need to know a few things though. You cannot fight your "spiritual battles" against "the lies of Satan" by burying your head in the sand and not learning about the opposition's argument least you come "under the spell" of it. You need to be able to ":study to show thyself approved unto God", right? So here are some key verses that are used to "prove" Satan and God are one, to the mind of many non-religious people:
"AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (II Samuel 24:1)
Now my rebuttal: This discrepancy can be explained, not in the typical way that all the rest of the numerous names for God are, (as discussed in my last post: Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10) but by a proper understanding of the original language and the history of Satan.
The term satan is used when someone plays the role of an adversary, or judge. This word was always in reference to the role, whether it was used in place of a spiritual being or human.
Just as often as it was used for a spiritual being though, satan is used as referring to the actions of a human adversary in the Old Testament. Examples of this use of satan, with their proper translation of "adversary" in the English are:
- Numbers 22:22,32 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
- 32 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
- 1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
- 2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
- 1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent."
- 1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite"
- 1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
- 25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"
At the time of the writing and compiling of the New Testament, an emerging idealism about God being perfect, all powerful, and being able to control everything, was coming up against much criticism. . . because as Christian people struggle with today, that idea obviously doesn't fit with our imperfect, chaotic world, where bad things happen to good people. So the ancients had to make peace with that contradiction in some way.
So in-between the time of the writing of the Old and New Testament an idea evolved. It started with a verb, and by the time the canon was formed, powerful people had made it into a noun. Turning a term into a title, "a satan" became "THE SATAN". A previously unheard of character came into being.
If you were to go with the thought that Satan was still real, and not made up in necessity because of a bad doctrine about God to start with, you will want to hear all about why he was in the form of a serpent in the Garden, the one who tormented Job, and the angel who fell from Heaven and was previously called Lucifer, because surely those are proof that there was a real character who was while being a satan, also was Satan. So, then let's look at the origin of those thoughts and verses. . .
No other animal within ancient civilizations was more prominent or as important... than the SNAKE. The snake is just one among many other symbols of the Brotherhood. The snake is also a symbol used within Freemasonry. These may lead some to think Devil worship or cults, but they are actually the bloodline from the gods of old. So if anything, snakes would be an idol similar to the statues of Jesus and Mary that the Catholics venerate. . . that can also be traced back to more ancient symbolism representing what some would think of as pagan gods. . .
If anything, the snake was used as a symbol for health, healing, or sometimes the spine. This is still seen today in old symbols for healthcare. In no case that I am aware of does the snake show up as anything but a symbol or allegory in the ancient times, even though it is seen often, and usually with a stick or tree.
If it was talking about a real snake, being possessed by Satan, this would be a first. . .but we'll just look at the evidence for that now.
In Genesis 3:14 we read:
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
As you can see, only the Serpent is cursed for his trickery to Eve. . .and Satan seems to get off almost Scott free! The serpent has to crawl on it's belly forever and "eat dust". Metaphorically of course.. that is, his proximity is so close to the ground that dirt cannot help but get into his mouth. I think it's fair to call this one a metaphor.
So when the snake was cursed it is presumed by Christians that it is a just punishment from God, and a sensible one too. . .and yet, the only logical thought about Satan being the serpent, is that he simply possessed the innocent serpent. So any punishment for a poor dumb animal seems harsh and pointless!
If on the other hand, one Snake was suppose to embody Satan for all time, the punishment may have been somewhat appropriate for his descendants . .yet we know that isn't the case, because after the curse we see that Satan isn't later crawling around on his belly forever.
We read in Job 1:7:"
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
So, did the Bible make a mistake? Or is something sounding fishy? Oh, but the rest of the curse was for Satan no doubt, and his partner in crime was just getting a "slap on the wrist" to be without any appendages. . .
The next part of the curse goes like this:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
So, was Satan in the Garden as a serpent?
If anything, the snake was used as a symbol for health, healing, or sometimes the spine. This is still seen today in old symbols for healthcare. In no case that I am aware of does the snake show up as anything but a symbol or allegory in the ancient times, even though it is seen often, and usually with a stick or tree.If it was talking about a real snake, being possessed by Satan, this would be a first. . .but we'll just look at the evidence for that now.
In Genesis 3:14 we read:
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
As you can see, only the Serpent is cursed for his trickery to Eve. . .and Satan seems to get off almost Scott free! The serpent has to crawl on it's belly forever and "eat dust". Metaphorically of course.. that is, his proximity is so close to the ground that dirt cannot help but get into his mouth. I think it's fair to call this one a metaphor.
So when the snake was cursed it is presumed by Christians that it is a just punishment from God, and a sensible one too. . .and yet, the only logical thought about Satan being the serpent, is that he simply possessed the innocent serpent. So any punishment for a poor dumb animal seems harsh and pointless!
If on the other hand, one Snake was suppose to embody Satan for all time, the punishment may have been somewhat appropriate for his descendants . .yet we know that isn't the case, because after the curse we see that Satan isn't later crawling around on his belly forever.
We read in Job 1:7:"
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
So, did the Bible make a mistake? Or is something sounding fishy? Oh, but the rest of the curse was for Satan no doubt, and his partner in crime was just getting a "slap on the wrist" to be without any appendages. . .
The next part of the curse goes like this:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
So let's just say that I wasn't desperately looking backwards hundreds of years to justify my present belief, and wishfully thinking about Jesus being the salvation from oppression. . .would any logical reading of that even hint to a savior? It makes a lot more sense to read it straight and see that it is right. Woman, and humans in general hate snakes, and when a snake goes around biting heels, humans crush their heads in return. There may be a deeper meaning I'm not aware of, but one thing I'm sure of, and that is that the Christians prediction of Jesus dying to crush satan's head in those verses has no bearing in reality.
Of course, these aren't the only verses in the Bible about Satan that are associated with a snake, or vise versa, there are quite a number of places that associate the snake as Satan. We do know however that when the new testament came along, the writers injected their own culture's ideas about what they thought they were reading in the Old Testament, and brought their own biases and agendas into their writings as well.
Many religious folks today simply assume that the serpent is Satan, without much investigation. It truly doesn't add up. I challenge those that are skeptical: DON'T take my word for it, study it out for yourself! It will simply blow you away at how much your church simply isn't telling you. In fact, they can't. Most of them don't know either.
What about the verses about Satan in Job?
We read in Job that satan is a member of the Divine Council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is actually seen to be charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. He is not cast down from Heaven, or rejected, as he was going back and forth regularly, and on good speaking terms with "God" and a council of gods. . .of which he was a part.
So, while this particular god/Angel in the original story was certainly put in a position of A satan, he didn't fit the bill for THE Satan which followed in the New Testament. Anymore then the real St. Nicholas would fit with the conjured up new version of Santa Claus. This "god" or Angel went through an evolution that was similar. Thanks in part to the association of Satan with Lucifer. . .
So let's discuss where the term Lucifer came from. . .
We read in Job that satan is a member of the Divine Council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is actually seen to be charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. He is not cast down from Heaven, or rejected, as he was going back and forth regularly, and on good speaking terms with "God" and a council of gods. . .of which he was a part.
So, while this particular god/Angel in the original story was certainly put in a position of A satan, he didn't fit the bill for THE Satan which followed in the New Testament. Anymore then the real St. Nicholas would fit with the conjured up new version of Santa Claus. This "god" or Angel went through an evolution that was similar. Thanks in part to the association of Satan with Lucifer. . .
So let's discuss where the term Lucifer came from. . .
The name Lucifer (commonly believed to be another name for Satan) means light bearer, or morning star, as seen in this verse: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer to the ground..." (Isaiah 14:12)
John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains about the historical Lucifer:
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else. The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript? 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."
In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the context of the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!" After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:
"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (The origin of "the pit" for "Hell") Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"
J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man. (who may have evolved into a god in mythology as all the rest of the ancient aliens though mind you. . .)
For the unnamed "king of Babylon" a wide range of identifications have been proposed. They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began, or Nabonidus, and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib. Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers. (The elite bloodline perhaps?)
In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the original name given to the "morning star" (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). In Babylonian mythology numerous "myths" were connected to this story, some of which involve Ishtar, who is also like Baal associated with Venus. Perhaps the many deities were all associated with Venus because they came from there originally? Whatever the case though, we know now that the King James version of the story is simply a fragmented, made up invention of a fallen Angel, and not from the more original Hebrew account.
The concept of a powerful and wicked Angel thrown out of Heaven, and wishing to overtake the throne was apparently still a new thought, and the translators, wishing to expand on that doctrine, (as it only makes sense when you have the doctrine of an Omnipotent and good God) took this opportunity to demonize and embellish on the newly realized and personified "Satan" with the story of a king of the past.
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else. The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript? 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."
In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the context of the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!" After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:
"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (The origin of "the pit" for "Hell") Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"
J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man. (who may have evolved into a god in mythology as all the rest of the ancient aliens though mind you. . .)
For the unnamed "king of Babylon" a wide range of identifications have been proposed. They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began, or Nabonidus, and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib. Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers. (The elite bloodline perhaps?)
In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the original name given to the "morning star" (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). In Babylonian mythology numerous "myths" were connected to this story, some of which involve Ishtar, who is also like Baal associated with Venus. Perhaps the many deities were all associated with Venus because they came from there originally? Whatever the case though, we know now that the King James version of the story is simply a fragmented, made up invention of a fallen Angel, and not from the more original Hebrew account.
The concept of a powerful and wicked Angel thrown out of Heaven, and wishing to overtake the throne was apparently still a new thought, and the translators, wishing to expand on that doctrine, (as it only makes sense when you have the doctrine of an Omnipotent and good God) took this opportunity to demonize and embellish on the newly realized and personified "Satan" with the story of a king of the past.
Even the early church authorities knew about the mistranslation and invention though. For instance, John Calvin said: “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.” Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil, but advocates of the "King James only" silenced both of their voices.
The association of Isaiah 14:12-15 then with "the Devil" had actually developed in the period between the writing of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and was very instrumental in the writing of other later New testament texts. . . As an example, it is commonly believed that the "War in Heaven" theme of Revelation, in which the dragon "who is called the devil and Satan … was thrown down to the earth", derives from the passage in Isaiah 14. It is the only book to also mention the connection of Satan with the serpent in the garden. By the time of the writing of Revelation, the belief in an evil deity was fully realized, and soon after the affects of that belief were made manifest in the inquisition, the witch hunts and even the crusades, in the era known as the dark ages. One of the hallmarks of the enlightenment that followed though was a much lessened belief in Satan. He became a joke for a time, and even a sexual hero for a while too!
Source
There is a similar story as the Babylonian king being identified with Satan (and Satan/or the king being identified with Jesus) as there is for the connection of Satan to Beelzebub. It is originally the name of a Philistine "god".
The name is a form of Baal, the compound name: Ba‘al Zebûb, lit. "Lord of Flies"
Interestingly, the Bible reveals this same "Bright and morning star" title of Lucifer for Jesus throughout it's pages as well. One of which is here: "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Rev. 22:16 It seems that this is also a key point for Atheists wishing to prove that Jesus and Satan are one and the same. As I mentioned before though, not only was Lucifer a Babylonian king, and no Satan, but the term was associated with Venus, and many gods from that same bloodline would have inevitably been associated with Venus because of their tie with it in the ancient past. (Presuming you already know of the Ancient alien evidence, discussed in my previous posts of this series.) Jesus was most likely no average man, and was a direct, (probably genetically modified and implanted) seed of the pure alien creation bloodline into Mary. Which would make him become associated with Venus, just as his predecessor "gods". So no shock that a King from the same royal line, and Jesus would both have the name. . .
The name is a form of Baal, the compound name: Ba‘al Zebûb, lit. "Lord of Flies"
As I discussed in my last post, Baal is associated with just about every "false god" in the Bible, and it is also a name equated with the many names for the "One true God". It was originally very likely an Ancient alien's name, but later became known as a generic term for the family line.
What about the term Devil? Where did that come from?
In the Septuagint the Hebrew ha-Satan is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament is the English word devil. So the person who slanders would be known as a Devil, in a similar way that a person who accuses would have been known as a satan. Again, not a title, but a verb.
"In mainstream Judaism (From which the other religions of the world sprang) there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. Texts make no direct link between the serpent that tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden from Genesis and references to a Satan in the first book of Chronicles and in Job. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (השָׂטָן) means "the adversary" or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge). As much as the Devil exists in any form of Judaism, his role is as an adversary and an accuser which is assigned (by "God") rather than assumed."
Source
While all these points do not show that God and Satan are the same, much to the chagrin of some,(hopefully the title wasn't too misleading. . .) they nonetheless certainly discredit all the major supportive verses on Satan. . . but if you still want to believe that Satan is real, then you should know that some Satanist cults use the same Bible as the Christians.
Besides that, considering the connection to "pagan" worship that words like: Amen, Bible, Church, Cross, Easter, Ghost, Glory, Holy, Testament, and all of the names for God have, (as discussed in my last post) to use them at all should be considered Satan worship to your enlightened mind now. Because if you still believe in Satan, you must now believe that those words all originated from a false god concocted by Satan for sure!
What about the term Devil? Where did that come from?
In the Septuagint the Hebrew ha-Satan is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament is the English word devil. So the person who slanders would be known as a Devil, in a similar way that a person who accuses would have been known as a satan. Again, not a title, but a verb.
"In mainstream Judaism (From which the other religions of the world sprang) there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. Texts make no direct link between the serpent that tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden from Genesis and references to a Satan in the first book of Chronicles and in Job. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (השָׂטָן) means "the adversary" or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge). As much as the Devil exists in any form of Judaism, his role is as an adversary and an accuser which is assigned (by "God") rather than assumed."
Source
While all these points do not show that God and Satan are the same, much to the chagrin of some,(hopefully the title wasn't too misleading. . .) they nonetheless certainly discredit all the major supportive verses on Satan. . . but if you still want to believe that Satan is real, then you should know that some Satanist cults use the same Bible as the Christians.
Besides that, considering the connection to "pagan" worship that words like: Amen, Bible, Church, Cross, Easter, Ghost, Glory, Holy, Testament, and all of the names for God have, (as discussed in my last post) to use them at all should be considered Satan worship to your enlightened mind now. Because if you still believe in Satan, you must now believe that those words all originated from a false god concocted by Satan for sure!
No comments:
Post a Comment