UC Professor. No evidence in the Bible attributing Satan as being evil.

A Vestigial Mote · Jan 9, 2018

Enoch07 said:
It's not about what I accept as evidence or not.

I am questioning what you consider evidence. Because typically as you admitted you don't consider it as evidence. But all the sudden you want to use it as evidence. This is intellectually dishonest. Either you accept it as evidence or you do not. If you do, then present it.

It is not I who is being dishonest here, I assure you. If you believe some area of thought to be true, are you saying I can't use the "supposed" facts presented within that area of thought to attempt to display areas of contention in your own testimony? That's ludicrous.

For example, let's say that you believe that the Earth is flat. You probably don't (do you?), but if you did, then I could easily shore up my defenses of a round Earth by pointing at specific facts that would have to hold true in your chosen scenario (flat Earth), and that you would have to accept given the case of a flat Earth - facts that simply aren't the case in reality. Here, I am supposing the Earth is flat, as you would, but then I use the reality of such conditions to try and make you see that you must be incorrect. For example, I might say:

"Okay - given a flat Earth, the sun would either be shining on ALL of one side of this flatness or not. Meaning we would have no more than 2 time zones, and we could not have so many people on Earth experiencing various amounts of daylight as is the case in reality."

Is this "intellectually dishonest" or do you merely like throwing that term around when things get tough for you? Again... I am probably going to go with the latter, based on how things have been going so far.

Ingledsva · Jan 9, 2018

Rough Beast Sloucher said:
In that religion, Jesus died intentionally and came back again. It was not a punishment. Satan gets thrown into the fire forever. Punishment.

Only in a later new religion's ideas about the Jewish Satan. That is not in Tanakh, where Satan is a servant of YHVH.

*

A Vestigial Mote · Jan 9, 2018

Ingledsva said:
Since you are calling me "intellectually dishonest" you had damn well better come up with a valid reason for saying so!

I was also called "intellectually dishonest" by @Enoch07 just now in this thread as well. Which I think is quite ironic, considering another poster in a different thread just today pointed me to this website as a joke description of reasons for another poster's behavior:

How to "Win" Arguments and Infuriate Opponents (with examples!) by Louis Brandy

Basically a joke page on how to troll your opponent into submission. As a "Bonus tip" under the section on how to effectively use the "Strawman", he writes this:

"Bonus tip: If you ever feel like you are [losing], accuse your opponent of using a strawman. Tell him he's being intellectually dishonest. It's pretty much a get out of jail free card."

Ingledsva · Jan 9, 2018

Rough Beast Sloucher said:
Points to consider.

The devil is Satan. Matthew says the devil tempted Jesus. Jesus addresses the devil as Satan.
Matthew 4:1-11
Mark agrees with this identity
Mark 1:13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan.

Satan is the prince of demons
Matthew 12:22-28
The Gospels have many instances of demons causing pain and misery in the world.
Satan (the devil) is their prince and is responsible for this.

The. devil (Satan) is the enemy who sows evil in the world
Matthew 13:36-39
Satan takes away the word of God from people
Mark 4:13-15
Likewise in Luke
Luke 8:12

There are many instances of Satan being the tempter and obstacle and deceiver as he appears in the OT.
A few examples: 1 Corinthians 7:5 , 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 , 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Yet Satan in the NT cannot be merely one who tests people. If he were why then is he going to be punished?

The devil (Satan) and his angels (presumably demons) will be punished in eternal fire,
Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

This passage needs careful examination.

Revelation 12
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Is this war in heaven in the future or is it in the past? If it is in the future, then who are the demons that Satan is prince of in the present? If they are the angels of Satan, and they are doing nasty things on earth now and are afraid of Jesus, then the war must have been in the past. If the demons are not the angels of Satan, who are they and why is Satan their prince?

Satan is referred to as ‘that ancient serpent … who leads the whole world astray’ Are there any ancient serpents who led anyone astray? Other than the Eden incident, that is. It seems that the serpent who tempted Eve may very well be Satan after all.

OTOH if the war is in the future that would be in accord with subsequent verses in Revelation 12:10-17. References to the testimony and sacrifice of Jesus and the woman who had given birth as events that had already happened when the devil is hurled to earth. Also the devil knows his time is short.

IMO the question of whether Satan is a ‘good guy’, a tempter ultimately working for God, or a ‘bad guy’, an active opponent of God, is not so simple. And again IMO, resolving the conundrum of Revelation 12 and relating it to other parts of the NT is necessary.

These are LATER Christian ideas ADDED-ON-TO a Hebrew servant of YHVH called Satan.

*

Rough Beast Sloucher · Jan 9, 2018

Ingledsva said:
No, - Satan is from Tanakh. What Jewish scholars say about their Satan is thus correct about that character.

Later additions are just that, additions.

Christianity mistranslates/misquotes a lot of Tanakh texts, - and then just runs with them.

ALL NT texts were written after Jesus was dead. Thus no proof he said anything in it.

You can say, - "the NT says this." That is fine.

Where you get into trouble is when you erroneously take from another religious text and claim your ideas about it are right, and the Jewish scholars and Rabbis are wrong.

Christians are trying to use Tanakh Genesis accounts of a NACHASH/serpent, and claim it is actually Satan, and then add on the idea that this serpent-now-Satan is also autonomous and evil. Tanakh does NOT say that.

*

The character of Satan evolved over time. In between the Tanakh and the NT there was the Apocrypha.

"The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael. It is difficult to identify Satan in any other passages of the Apocrypha, since the originals in which his name occurred have been lost, and the translations employ various equivalents. An "argumentum a silentio" can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort (comp. Demonology, and Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," Index)."
SATAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

References to Satan in the NT greatly outnumber those in the Tanakh. They can be seen to draw on the Apocrypha. This is especially the case with Revelation. Notice in the above quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia that in the Book of Wisdom Satan is portrayed as the author of all evil and apparently is the serpent in Eden.

Wisdom 2
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.
The Apocrypha: Wisdom: Wisdom Chapter 2

Also from the above quote
"it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort"

The 'later additions' you mention are Jewish additions.

Rough Beast Sloucher · Jan 9, 2018

Ingledsva said:
These are LATER Christian ideas ADDED-ON-TO a Hebrew servant of YHVH called Satan.

*

As I showed in my previous post, they are Jewish add-ons.

You seem to want to say that the Bible consists of only the Tanakh. The Bible discussed in the OP includes the NT

Enoch07 · Jan 9, 2018

A Vestigial Mote said:
It is not I who is being dishonest here, I assure you.

I doubt that. You admit you don't believe the Bible to be evidence then want to use it as evidence to make an argument. That is intellectually dishonest. No matter how you try to justify it.

Enoch07 · Jan 9, 2018

Ingledsva said:
LOL! Not a member of the religions' of Abraham.

Exactly

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia

An exert:

Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

You are failing to do this.

1. The serpent speaks to Adam and Eve. You cited in your own post.

2. You the say it means a literal snake.

You are twisting the word to say it means a literal snake. If you believe this, then you must also believes snakes speak. So either you have a weird view of reality, or you are being dishonest. I am going with dishonest.

If you were truly unbiased then it wouldn't matter to you would it?

Grandliseur · Jan 9, 2018

ADigitalArtist said:
Repeating this won't make it more convincing. I look at the bible and I see egotism, anger, homophobia, sexism, racism and injustice. I do not see fairness and impartiality, I do not see justified rules.

And, I see a way out of the problems facing us, global warming, the destruction of our habitat, of animal habitats, of an end to the tyrannical rule we see in democracy in many places not to forget other kinds of rulership, a way out of the awful individual inevitable consequences of a very few decades of life filled with hardship and illness, with a final few years of extreme trouble.

Each to his own.

Grandliseur · Jan 9, 2018

Father Heathen said:
But "Revelation" itself is just another example of some goofy mortal presuming to speak for god.

Funny.

Many people say what you do.
The conundrum is - how do you write something specific which if understood by all could only be interpreted as truly being God's prophecy?!
Thus, it has been veiled with a kind of a key, or even keys, perhaps.

At least, it has provided much entertainment in books and given some unbelievers a bit of fun. Even now, it is the cause of some extraordinary denominational beliefs. So, on the fun part, it is a hit.

Grandliseur · Jan 9, 2018

Rough Beast Sloucher said:
Jesus did not use the name Beelzebul. The Pharisees did. This name of a moldy old Philistine god was used by Jews to indicate a major demon. Jesus refers to him as Satan. A definite article is used indicating a definite thing being called Satan and not the literal generic meaning of 'adversary'. Jesus calls Satan a major demon.

Well, that is debatable.

Matthew 10:
24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.

Matthew 12: 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

As may be seen here, Jesus responded to people saying his miracles were by the power of Beelzebul. By saying this, Jesus acknowledges and simultaneously uses this moniker for satan. So, while you have a small point, it is nullified by Jesus using it in his answer.

It is hard to remember exactly what is said all places; so, I take your correction in the spirit it was given. Hope in return you can accept scripture and ordinary logic.

Grandliseur · Jan 9, 2018

Ingledsva said:
You DON'T know that Jesus called him that.

All you have is a collection of writings written when Jesus was dead, - and couldn't challenge them.

*

When studying a literary work in which various people act out their lives in either word or action - it is a bit strange to deny what one of these literary individuals say or do - when the literary work spells is out.

Here we have a 'you say, I say' type of situation. You say it is fiction, I say it isn't. In either case the fictional character Jesus did say it (in your case), and in my case, the real live person, Jesus, said it. In both cases, Jesus said it - whether he was fictional or real.

I don't know what you use when you need to shed a tear over a subject, but go have a drop of it.

Grandliseur · Jan 9, 2018

Ingledsva said:
It also says the Eden serpent is condemned to crawl forever on his belly = a real serpent. - Thus obviously NOT Satan.

So, you take a story where the serpent can 1. talk, now eats 2. dust, and will in however many generations later be killed by a child born of woman, a promised 3. seed. The account even specifies the gender of the serpent as 4. male. I have never ever been able to tell the gender of a snake or serpent by looking at it. Can you? It is now supposed to be the 5. enemy of the woman, but not of the man (Adam)

Your skills at reading and understanding ancient text are beyond astounding, especially considering the rest of the scriptural information given about this beast who survives on eating dust and lives longer than a generation of humans who had lifespans of more than 900 years individually.

Your conclusions should be published. We would all get a bellyache from laughing, I am sure.

Enoch07 · Jan 9, 2018

A Vestigial Mote said:
I was also called "intellectually dishonest" by @Enoch07 just now in this thread as well. Which I think is quite ironic, considering another poster in a different thread just today pointed me to this website as a joke description of reasons for another poster's behavior:

How to "Win" Arguments and Infuriate Opponents (with examples!) by Louis Brandy

Basically a joke page on how to troll your opponent into submission. As a "Bonus tip" under the section on how to effectively use the "Strawman", he writes this:

"Bonus tip: If you ever feel like you are [losing], accuse your opponent of using a strawman. Tell him he's being intellectually dishonest. It's pretty much a get out of jail free card."

I exposed how you was being dishonest. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and now your trying to cover up for it. Tsk tsk.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jan 9, 2018

Enoch07 said:
This Professor must be illiterate or morally bankrupt.

By which, apparently, you mean he doesn't read only what you read, or believe only what you believe? Does this make you inconceivably rich in literacy and riches?

Enoch07 · Jan 9, 2018

Evangelicalhumanist said:
By which, apparently, you mean he doesn't read only what you read, or believe only what you believe? Does this make you inconceivably rich in literacy and riches?

Nope, it means exactly what I said it means.

He either doesn't understand the written language.

Or he is morally bankrupt, because he does not consider murder and lies as traits of evil.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Although I might add a 3rd option. He is a liar himself. This could be true as well.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jan 9, 2018

Enoch07 said:
Consider the source. Jesus is speaking in John 8:44.

Now someone can debate what Satan is or is not all day. I've got no problem with that.

But the Bible clearly says he is evil as shown in John 8:44. So this Professor doesn't know what he is talking about as far as the Bible not portraying Satan as evil.

I think it important to point out, as well, that nothing in John 8 is supported by the other 3 Gospels. One has to wonder, when John was "witnessing" all this that he claims Jesus was saying, were the other Apostles out hiding behind the barn having a toke?

Evangelicalhumanist · Jan 9, 2018

Enoch07 said:
Nope, it means exactly what I said it means.

He either doesn't understand the written language.

Or he is morally bankrupt, because he does not consider murder and lies and traits of an evil.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Although I might add a 3rd option. He is a liar himself. This could be true as well.

You fail to perceive my meaning (unsurprisingly). See my immediately preceding post for clarification.

It is often amazing to bible readers that other people actually don't see it as the hand-written, inerrant, unmistakable, actual perfect "word of God," but rather, as something written by humans. And therefore entitled to all of the same respect or criticism (neither more not less) than any other piece of human writing.

Enoch07 · Jan 9, 2018

Evangelicalhumanist said:
One has to wonder, when John was "witnessing" all this that he claims Jesus was saying, were the other Apostles out hiding behind the barn having a toke?

Do you have evidence to support your theory?

Enoch07 · Jan 9, 2018

Evangelicalhumanist said:
You fail to perceive my meaning (unsurprisingly). See my immediately preceding post for clarification.

No, your reading in between the lines and deciphering meaning that is not there. Which is why I responded the way I did.

Evangelicalhumanist said:
It is often amazing to bible readers that other people actually don't see it as the hand-written, inerrant, unmistakable, actual perfect "word of God," but rather, as something written by humans. And therefore entitled to all of the same respect or criticism (neither more not less) than any other piece of human writing.

That is nonsensical as it gets. How did you arrive at this conclusion? LoLz

UC Professor. No evidence in the Bible attributing Satan as being evil.

Well-Known Member

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Well-Known Member

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

"Truth" isn't a thing...

It's all a sick freaking joke.

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

It's all a sick freaking joke.

It's all a sick freaking joke.