THE GREATEST TRICK

[William]

There is a well-known saying often told by Christians... "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”

In the Old Testament, the figure of Lucifer or Ha-Satan (meaning "the accuser" or "adversary" in Hebrew) was not the rebellious, fallen angel or the source of all evil but rather a more ambiguous figure with roles that could be understood as part of God’s cosmic order. This character, in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures, was often an agent permitted by God to test or challenge individuals, as seen in the Book of Job. As Christianity spread and became influenced by various cultural and theological ideas—particularly through Hellenistic and later medieval thought—the figure of Satan was reimagined. It began to take on characteristics associated with ultimate evil, rebellion, and separation from God, evolving into a clear antagonist representing a cosmic duality.

SOURCE

The” trick” might well be how Cultural Christianity employs the concept in order to get folk to gravitate to the NT version/image of GOD, which itself may be false.

Q: How has Cultural Christianity's outspoken myth of Satan shaped our understanding of good, evil, and the divine and is the understanding itself, truthful?

(Cultural Christianity is defined as any who call themselves "Christian".)

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #19]

Your Argument
You assert that the shift in attribution from 2 Samuel 24:1-10 to 1 Chronicles 21:1-8 indicates a theological evolution in the depiction of Satan, influenced by cultural and historical factors such as exposure to Zoroastrian dualism. By presenting the Chronicler’s narrative as an intentional insertion of Satan as a distinct entity, you argue that this development reflects a broader shift in Jewish theology post-exile. Furthermore, you suggest that the absence of Satan in the Samuel account aligns with the thread’s theme—that Satan’s existence and role evolved gradually, supporting the idea that the concept of Satan as an autonomous antagonist was not present in earlier Israelite thought.

My Concern
While your argument effectively highlights the textual shift and its potential roots in cultural exchange, several points warrant further clarification and refinement:

Connection to the OP Topic
While the evolution of Satan in Chronicles aligns with the OP’s broader theme of theological development, you focus on textual differences without explicitly tying them to the claim that "Satan’s greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn’t exist." How does this textual evolution reflect Satan’s supposed strategy of obscurity or lack of direct attribution in earlier texts?

Authorial Intent vs. Theological Evolution
You argue that the Chronicler’s intent to insert Satan signifies a distinct theological evolution. However, this interpretation assumes that the Chronicler reflects broader theological consensus rather than a specific authorial agenda. Could this shift be less about a widespread evolution and more about the Chronicler’s unique narrative approach to explaining divined actions?

Zoroastrian Influence
While the influence of Zoroastrian dualism is plausible, this requires more textual substantiation. Isaiah 45:1 references Cyrus as Jehovah’s anointed but does not directly link to Satan’s evolving role. What specific features of Zoroastrian dualism (e.g., Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu) manifest in the Chronicler’s portrayal of Satan? The textual evidence needs clearer connections to support your claim.

Narrative Consistency
The Chronicler’s addition of Satan raises questions about its implications for divined justice and human responsibility. If Satan prompted David’s census, does this exonerate David or shift moral culpability? This tension complicates the narrative, especially if the Chronicler’s intent was to externalize responsibility for moral failings.

My Question to You
How does the Chronicler’s insertion of Satan align with your critique of demonic possession in earlier posts? Does this shift in attribution suggest a theological redefinition of Satan’s role as a strategic antagonist or as an external scapegoat for moral failings?
Can you provide additional textual or cultural evidence linking Zoroastrian dualism to the Chronicler’s portrayal of Satan? Specifically, what aspects of Zoroastrian theology parallel the depiction of Satan as seen in 1 Chronicles 21?

How do you reconcile the Chronicler’s portrayal of Satan with the broader biblical themes of divined sovereignty and human responsibility? Does the shift in agency from God’s anger to Satan dilute or reinforce these themes?

Relevance to the OP Topic
Your argument indirectly supports the OP’s theme by illustrating how Satan’s role evolved in Jewish theology over time, particularly in response to cultural and historical influences. However, to fully align with the claim that Satan’s "greatest trick" was obscuring his existence, the argument must establish a clearer link between this theological evolution and Satan’s supposed strategic objectives.

For example, does the lack of Satan’s attribution in Samuel reflect an intentional "hiding" of Satan’s influence, or is it simply a reflection of earlier Israelite theology that lacked a fully developed adversarial concept? Similarly, how does the Chronicler’s explicit attribution of Satan challenge or reinforce the idea of Satan as a deceiver or manipulator within the divined order?

Final Thoughts
Your argument presents a compelling case for the historical and cultural factors influencing Satan’s evolving role, particularly in the shift from Samuel to Chronicles. However, to strengthen the connection to the OP’s theme, a deeper exploration of how this evolution reflects Satan’s supposed strategy of obscurity or manipulation would be valuable. Additionally, situating this evolution within the broader narrative of divined justice and human culpability could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its theological significance.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #21

How does this textual evolution reflect Satan’s supposed strategy of obscurity or lack of direct attribution in earlier texts?

It doesn't. It reflects the adoption of Zoroastrian dualism into post-exilic Judaism.

For example, does the lack of Satan’s attribution in Samuel reflect an intentional "hiding" of Satan’s influence, or is it simply a reflection of earlier Israelite theology that lacked a fully developed adversarial concept?

The logical assumption is that the post-exile Chronicler bent the story toward Zoroastrian dualism.

What specific features of Zoroastrian dualism (e.g., Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu) manifest in the Chronicler’s portrayal of Satan?

The dualistic feature, which was not present in Judaism pre-exile.

Your argument presents a compelling case for the historical and cultural factors influencing Satan’s evolving role, particularly in the shift from Samuel to Chronicles. However, to strengthen the connection to the OP’s theme, a deeper exploration of how this evolution reflects Satan’s supposed strategy of obscurity or manipulation would be valuable. Additionally, situating this evolution within the broader narrative of divined justice and human culpability could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its theological significance.

Look, I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up. Okay?

[theophile]

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

I don't mind this quote at the end of your post. Is that from the bible?
Also, it feels like you're feeding information to a GenAI bot here. Are you?
There may also be some misunderstandings of what I'm saying which I'll try to clarify.
Then there is your return to the OP, where you're discussing cultural Christianity. I generally agree with the passage you cite there, and the conversation here should be relevant.

On this, cultural Christianity is pretty broad as you define it so pretty hard to give a clear, succinct answer. But if we're specifically talking the transition from the OT's satan to Satan in the NT due to Hellenistic influences per the OP, then I don't have a huge issue with this transition. I've already said I think there is a genealogical link because the evolution makes perfect sense and can be predicted from earlier texts, i.e., from good serpent in Genesis 3, to the satan / ambiguous adversarial role in the OT, to Satan, a personified spirit of pure evil and rebellion against God in the NT. We can see it developing across the biblical narrative, when God declares future enmity / adversity between human and serpent-kind, when in the book of Job we see the satan raising doubts about humankind, and in Revelation when there is full blown battle...

These transitions or developments in the character are all latent in earlier versions, and the genealogy itself helps us better understand the genealogy of good and evil, and what is often the moral ambiguity of our situation.

The main issue I would have with cultural Christianity more broadly are ideas it has about God, with Hellenistic influences there as well that make God into a perfectly almighty, omniscient and sovereign lord of all that is. Apart from being untrue, how this relates to our understanding of good and evil is that it can make us take them for granted, versus taking them in our own hands and deciding these things for ourselves. And then agreeing with God or Satan depending where we land. I think this is an important distinction and impact, not necessarily what good and evil are, but how we arrive at them and become personally invested in them and responsible.

As to your mis/understandings:

Appeal to Speculation

Your willingness to concede speculative elements is honest, but the reliance on them to "situate and strengthen" the argument leaves a gap. In the absence of textual evidence, the satan's supposed transitional role risks being more interpretive projection than grounded analysis.
While speculation can enrich interpretation, the weight of an argument in theology often hinges on textual fidelity. The claim of the satan transitioning from adversarial to appeased lacks explicit markers in Job beyond its silence post-prologue.

I agree with everything you say here. I'm not trying to prove the transitional nature of the satan based on the book of Job alone. It's a broader theory.

False Dichotomy

While you make a valid point about the stakes (e.g., Job’s and God’s reputations), dismissing alternative roles the satan could play as speculative undermines your openness to broader interpretive possibilities. For example, the satan might act as an agent testing human righteousness without personal enmity, consistent with ancient divined council frameworks.
Your emphasis on simplicity aligns with Occam's Razor but risks oversimplifying complex theological motifs.

I am happy to be open to other possibilities. Recall, you have chastised me for being speculative and open in the past. The funny thing is that you are now chastising me for not doing it here... So what is it, are we allowed to be speculative and open to interpretive possibilities or must we rigidly stick to the text?

Overreliance on Analogies

Your analogies (e.g., "winning a war") effectively contextualize a dynamic relationship between God and creation, but they anthropomorphize divined attributes. While passages like Genesis 6:6 (God regretting humanity) and Exodus 32 (God relenting to Moses) indicate responsiveness, they do not negate divined foreknowledge; rather, they reflect God’s interaction within human understanding.
The argument that Job’s testing becomes a "farce" under omniscience overlooks the possibility that God’s foreknowledge might coexist with testing to reveal or demonstrate truths to created beings rather than to the Creator.

This feels overwrought. i.e., these passages indicate responsiveness on God's part, full stop. Don't twist them with an argument that God is somehow beyond human understanding, and that's why it appears God's foreknowledge broke down. The text is explicit and we should adjust our understanding of what divine foreknowledge is. I would say it is less crystal ball prediction and more inferring from known conditions what is likely to happen.

Also, God is anthropomorphized throughout the bible. We are invited to anthropomorphize God in virtue of the fact we are explicitly made in God's image. Hence it seems reasonable to reverse engineer from what we are to what God is and to presume human-like qualities in God. Within reason of course.

Circular Reasoning

Your reasoning about the satan’s name is reasonable but incomplete. While "adversary" implies opposition, it does not necessarily denote personal dissatisfaction with humanity; it could signify a functional role within the divined council.
The claim remains logically plausible but would benefit from stronger textual substantiation or engagement with alternative readings, such as the satan as a neutral prosecutor.

You misread. I never said it implies dissatisfaction with humanity, only that it implies dissatisfaction and enmity. And that it begs the question who the satan is making accusations against and why. It is on us to answer that question because we are not explicitly told. I'm still open to other ideas versus what I have proposed here, i.e., that it is against humankind, and our worthiness to rule. Making the satan a neutral prosecutor like you suggest here accomplishes nothing apart from what I said before: it neuters the book as a whole and eliminates any real conflict or consequence in it apart from God's ego / Job's reputation.

Intertextual Overreach

Intertextual readings, while insightful, must be carefully bounded by the specific text in question. The satan in Job functions differently from the serpent in Genesis or Satan in Revelation, and conflating these figures risks anachronism.
Your approach is compelling for broader theological discussions but less suited to a strict exegetical reading of Job.

To be clear, I never conflated these characters. I linked them genealogically. They are different as different can be. i.e., there is no evil I can see in the serpent whatsoever.

Broader Themes of Divined Sovereignty and Omniscience

Your interpretation enriches the relational dynamics in biblical narratives but challenges classical theism. The view of God "winging it" prioritizes narrative coherence in Job at the expense of broader theological consistency with passages affirming God’s omniscience (e.g., Isaiah 46:10).
The idea of God tactically adapting aligns with open theism but requires a more explicit framework to reconcile it with traditional notions of divined omnipotence.

Yes, generally aligned with open theism. I don't think this move is at the expense of broader theological consistency but enriches theology across the board and, back to my own comments, the meaningfulness of our role in all this and responsibility we have in regard to good and evil and achieving God's ends.

Relevance to the Thread Question:

Exploration of Satan’s Role in Job
You challenge the Cultural Christian myth of Satan as a rebellious, independent antagonist by grounding his interpretation in Job, where the satan operates within divined authority. This critique aligns with the thread’s goal of reevaluating the accuracy of the Satan myth but does not directly explore its cultural implications.

Incorrect. I do not challenge the myth of Satan as a rebellious, independent antagonist. I do think the satan of Job operates within divine authority (which does not make the satan an employee of God by the way), but this doesn't mean Satan still does. Again, there is an evolution between the satan and Satan. From dissatisfaction and accusation to full blown rebellion. This doesn't happen in Job where I've suggested the satan is appeased based on the outcome we see in the epilogue, but again, is latent in the character and predicted by other texts like Genesis 3.

Divined Sovereignty and Omniscience
Your argument indirectly critiques Cultural Christianity’s portrayal of God as a sovereign judge in stark opposition to Satan, emphasizing instead a collaborative relationship between God and adversarial forces. However, it doesn’t explicitly tie this dynamic to the thread's cultural focus.

God and the satan are collaborative in the book of Job, absolutely. Again, I wouldn't jump to the satan being God's employee, but that doesn't mean God isn't collaborative with the satan. It also doesn't mean this collaboration holds for all adversarial figures, like Satan. If Satan is a figure in full rebellion against God, it leaves little room for collaboration... Again, the satan and Satan are different characters here even though genealogically linked. As different as such as, say, Jesus and Adam.

Cultural Christianity and Misrepresentation
You implicitly critiques Cultural Christianity for overemphasizing Satan's independence and rebellion, which distorts the Hebrew Bible’s depiction of adversarial figures. However, your response focuses more on biblical intertextuality than on evaluating the broader cultural or theological impacts.

Again, no. I have stated from the get-go that Satan is in full rebellion against God, which implies independence. My focus on intertextuality is because I've been focusing on the book of Job on what can be said about the satan / Satan, and branching out from there. I've commented on some of the broader cultural and theological impacts above.

Theological Implications of The Satan Myth
This perspective contrasts with the Cultural Christian framing of Satan as the source of evil and opposition to God. Your interpretation invites readers to rethink Satan’s role in shaping moral and theological frameworks but stops short of fully exploring how this affects modern perceptions of good, evil, and divined authority.

While you critique the evolution of Satan’s role, you don’t directly evaluate whether the modern myth is truthful. Instead, you focus on reconstructing the satan’s biblical role.

Your arguments about God’s adaptive, relational nature provide an alternative to the rigid theological constructs often associated with Cultural Christianity. This opens the door to a more nuanced understanding of divined action and morality. It aligns with the model (SGM) I follow.

I indicated some general thoughts on this in my opening remarks. Do I think the modern myth of Satan is truthful insofar as there is some actual being out there named Satan who is actively working against God? No - absolutely not. But I do think the genealogy of Satan that I laid out is truthful insofar as inherently good creatures can become twisted and perverted and can break into open rebellion against God, and that the primary driver of this is dissatisfaction with human rule.

This truthful genealogy should inform our view of the genealogy of good and evil. For instance, is Satan the SOURCE of evil as you say of cultural Christianity here? No - with my view, the source of evil is humankind, who is the base cause of dissatisfaction and any rebellion against God. So we should see evil in our own rule insofar as it departs or conflicts with God's broader plans as the primary evil. This should lead us to search ourselves for which side we're on and to take greater responsibility for how we conduct ourselves and the affairs of the earth more broadly. It should open our eyes to our responsibility and the possible consequences if we don't shape up and get things in order.

The Evolution of Satan’s Character in Light of Human Perception
I invite reflection on how the character of Satan has evolved alongside the development of Abrahamic religions and their historical contexts. This evolution mirrors broader theological and cultural dynamics, where religious entities adapted to their times, gaining influence and addressing new challenges to their authority and worldview. Similarly, this adaptive quality is seen in the evolving understanding of key figures, such as Jesus.

In the case of Jesus, his portrayal in the Gospels reflects a relatively consistent narrative of his teachings and actions during his ministry. However, the ongoing acts of the apostles expand and sometimes reinterpret his character and legacy. We encounter doctrines, practices, and interpretations attributed to Jesus' influence, which are not directly recorded in the Gospel accounts but emerge through the apostles’ understanding and their efforts to address the needs of the early church. This "reaching" represents an evolving theological comprehension that, while rooted in scripture, continues to develop beyond the immediate accounts.

This phenomenon extends to the figure of Satan. The satan of Job, a figure within divined permission who tests human righteousness, becomes over centuries the Satan of Christian theology: an ultimate rebel and the personification of evil. This transformation likely served practical purposes, such as framing cosmic dualism to address theodicy or creating a clear moral antagonist for human struggles. By the time we reach Revelation, Satan is depicted as the ultimate enemy, awaiting eschatological defeat—a stark contrast to his ambiguous and functional role in Job.

This historical evolution could be compared to the effects of altered states of consciousness or entheogenic experiences, where revelations appear vivid and final in the moment but lead to ongoing interpretations and debates as they are revisited in broader cultural and theological frameworks. The decision to "end" the evolving understanding with Revelation is reminiscent of this process, freezing the narrative and leaving subsequent generations grappling with its implications.

The result is a collective uncertainty—a world left “scratching their collective heads”.
This uncertainty can sometimes lead to the extremes of conflict or exclusion, as differences in interpretation become intractable. However, it also offers an opportunity for deeper engagement, encouraging us to revisit foundational texts, challenge assumptions, and explore the broader meanings of good, evil, and divined authority.

Ultimately, this evolving perception reflects not just the complexity of Satan’s character but the dynamism of human understanding itself—a process that is ongoing, reflective, and, ideally, open to growth.

Can't provide a fulsome response to this, but does Revelation 'end' anything? I would tend to disagree. It more paints the picture of the transition from this age to the next, and the beginning of the new age. But ultimately, in regards to any additions, evolutions, etc., to earlier biblical teachings, so long as the new ideas / writings maintain coherence with what came before - and generally I think they do - then fine by me. We absolutely should continue to elaborate and explore these concepts and take them to their ultimate conclusions and resolutions. Generally speaking, this is a good thing, I think, and reflects as you say the dynamism of human understanding itself.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to William in post #1]

"Q: How has Cultural Christianity's outspoken myth of Satan shaped our understanding of good, evil, and the divine and is the understanding itself, truthful?"

This is question begging, and who are you directing the question to?

Because obviously, no "Cultural Christian" would grant the idea that Satan is an outspoken myth.

So I guess this is a question for unbelievers?

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #22]

I understand that this discussion dives into complex theological and historical topics, and I appreciate your engagement with the ideas, even if it’s been a challenging thread to navigate.

Regarding your points:

Zoroastrian Dualism and Post-Exilic Judaism
You emphasize that the shift in the Chronicler’s narrative reflects the adoption of dualistic ideas from Zoroastrianism into Jewish theology. This is a valid perspective and highlights an important cultural exchange during the post-exilic period. However, the specific mechanisms by which Zoroastrianism may have influenced the Chronicler’s insertion of Satan remain underexplored. For instance, while the dualistic principle (good vs. evil) is clear, can we find more explicit parallels, such as Satan’s specific actions or motivations, that align with Angra Mainyu’s role in Zoroastrianism? This could further substantiate your argument.

Intentional "Hiding" of Satan in Samuel vs. Theological Absence
I agree that the absence of Satan in Samuel likely reflects a lack of developed adversarial theology rather than a deliberate "hiding." However, this raises another question: Does the Chronicler’s later attribution of the census to Satan reflect a shift in how moral agency and divined sovereignty were conceptualized? If so, how does this fit within the broader evolution of Jewish thought?

The OP’s Theme and Satan’s Strategic Obscurity
While you suggest that the Chronicler’s addition of Satan is more about dualism than obscurity, the broader OP’s theme of Satan’s "greatest trick" invites further speculation. Could Satan’s absence in earlier texts unintentionally contribute to this "trick" by leaving the role of evil ambiguous, allowing theological space for different interpretations? Your insight into the role of Zoroastrian dualism could help tie this idea to the Chronicler’s clearer delineation of Satan as a distinct adversary.

Frustration with the Discussion
It seems that this discussion has become more intense than you intended, and I want to acknowledge that. My goal here is not to press unnecessarily but to explore these ideas collaboratively. If there’s a way to simplify or redirect the conversation to a more specific aspect of the topic, I’d be happy to adapt.

Ultimately, your focus on Zoroastrian influence and the evolution of Jewish theology is compelling. If we can further clarify how this aligns with the OP’s theme or the broader narrative of divined justice and human responsibility, I think we can reach some valuable conclusions. Let me know how you’d prefer to proceed or if there’s a particular aspect of this discussion you’d like to revisit.



Zoroastrianism.

1. Different Name, Different Tradition
The Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) share the worship of a single deity whose identity is linked to YHWH, the God of the Hebrew Bible. While each tradition evolves the understanding of YHWH, they retain a continuous connection to this specific divined name and its associated theology.

In contrast, Ahura Mazda is entirely distinct, both in name and mythological context. For Christians, who carried forward the Jewish conception of God, any deity outside this tradition—regardless of monotheistic qualities—would traditionally be seen as "pagan."

2. Cultural and Religious Distance
Early Christians and Jews often categorized all non-Abrahamic religions as "pagan," whether they were polytheistic or monotheistic. The supreme god of Zoroastrianism, despite his moral and cosmic authority, would not have been seen as aligned with YHWH simply because of the differing theological and historical frameworks.

The name YHWH carried covenantal significance in Jewish tradition, making it central to their identity and religious evolution. For Christians, this was adapted into the Trinitarian concept of God, but the link to the Jewish deity was maintained.

3. Religious Identity and Exclusivity
Abrahamic traditions generally emphasize exclusivity in the worship of their God. Any supreme deity outside this covenantal framework—no matter how powerful or moral—was historically categorized as foreign, and thus "pagan" from the Abrahamic perspective.

This exclusivity extended not just to Ahura Mazda but also to other high gods in various non-Abrahamic systems, such as Zeus or Brahma, despite their prominence within their respective traditions.

Balancing Historical Context
While Zoroastrianism could be called "pagan" from a Christian or Jewish perspective due to the difference in deity names and frameworks, it’s important to note:

Theological Parallels: Zoroastrianism shares significant ideas with Abrahamic faiths, such as the cosmic battle between good and evil, final judgment, and an ultimate triumph of good.
Cultural Influence: Its theological and eschatological concepts may have influenced post-exilic Judaism, particularly during the Babylonian Exile.

Conclusion:
Zoroastrianism, despite being monotheistic and deeply ethical, would still be considered "pagan" by Christians on the grounds that Ahura Mazda is not YHWH. This distinction underscores the importance of divined identity and covenantal theology in defining religious categories within Abrahamic traditions. However, describing Zoroastrianism as "pagan" should also acknowledge its unique and sophisticated religious structure, which differentiates it from many polytheistic systems commonly labeled as pagan.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #25

It seems that this discussion has become more intense than you intended

It's become more pedantic than I intended. My foray into a Zoroastrian connection was a minor detour in response to a question you had put to another poster. I wasn't trying to connect it to the "greatest trick". I'm sure that there are plenty of scholarly sources which can go deeper into Zoroastrian influence than I can.

I'm more interested in whether or not anyone can rationalize why a Satan who didn't want his existence known would be so thoughtless as to make his existence obvious with possession.

[Difflugia]

Okay, but that then goes to my point as much as yours, right? So we should assume for now in the story that the satan is ambiguous as to being God's employee or not...

As far as grammar is concerned, yes.

Considering how formulaic the question and answer are (1:7 and 2:2 are nearly word-for-word), they seem much more like a ritual statement of the satan's position before Yahweh. The satan roves between the ends of the Earth, testing its inhabitants for disloyalty to the throne.

Again, maybe. It could also imply surprise on God's part and being caught unawares.

And I think there absolutely is something surprising about the satan's presence here. A whole new adversarial spirit coming out of seemingly nowhere in the bible. Concerning enough to warrant an address from God.

This is where we have to decide from what point of view we're working. Are we dealing with the text from a devotional or academic standpoint? When considering authorial intention, is the author a diaspora Jew of the Persian period or a timeless, the redactor of a collection of scripture, or a timeless god?

The scholarship is pretty unified that the divine organization as presented in Job is of a heavenly sovereign and His court, as also described in such places as Psalm 82. Since the debate question is about the "myth of Satan," I took that to mean that we're discussing the likely theology behind the text itself rather than its integration and harmonization with the rest of the collection. Instead of the satan coming out of nowhere, the satan is a main character of the story being introduced at its beginning. He would only appear to be surprising or out of place if we view the disparate books appearing earlier in our modern collection as being a legitimate prologue to Job. I don't think they reasonably can be.

I think it would be wrong to bring later theological baggage like omniscience, etc., to God. There is plenty of evidence that God is to a certain extent winging things as God goes here, and things don't always go as God plans. Like, surely God did not plan to have to flood the earth, and to regret making human beings like God says there. None of that lends itself to the kind of omniscience you're suggesting.

My discussion of omniscience was based on your earlier claim that Yahweh "presumably would have a good handle on" the satan and his dealings. I was perhaps reading more into Yahweh's handle on things than you intended, but it seems reasonable to me that a non-omniscient employer would ask an employee of their activities without us needing to infer surprise.

And I totally understand your reading of the text and agree it has basis. But let's be clear, we're both in a place where we're reading things back into it. The book of Job is notorious for that, i.e., it's ambiguity, and how it opens itself to interpretation. Just consider the multiple possible renderings of the pivotal verse 42:6 and how that can change the overall outcome of the story. Or the status of Elihu - was he right or wrong in what he said? Or why God speaks twice to Job from the whirlwind if the first speech properly chastised him. Etc, etc.

My only real beef with this is the extent to which lack of detail is often interpreted as genuine narrative ambiguity. Neither the rebellion of the satan nor of any other divine being is in view here. Taking only the story itself without introducing any wider context (whether theological or historical-critical), the satan has been travelling across the Earth and Yahweh asks him if he has thought about Job. The satan expresses skepticism that Job is as perfect as Yahweh let on, but that's the extent of it. Aside from the meaning of "the satan" itself, there's no reason explicitly given for his skepticism. This actually stands to reason, because the satan is himself merely a plot device in a story that is about Job and God.

I'm reminded of William M. Ramsay's nineteenth-century book, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Ramsay writes a whole chapter about a similar plot device found in Acts 12:13-15

And when [Peter] knocked at the door of the gate, a maid named Rhoda came to answer. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she didn't open the gate, but joyously ran and said that Peter stood before the gate. They said to her, "you're crazy." She kept insisting that it was so, however, but they kept saying, "It's his angel."

It's a colorful bit of story to be sure, but here are just the first two paragraphs of chapter 19 of the book:

The writer's view is that Luke has always a definite purpose in mentioning any individual—a purpose bearing on the plan of his history, and not a mere desire for literary effect. The case of the slave-girl Rhoda in chapter XII may seem to be an exception. It may be thought that the details of her action are recorded only for their picturesque and literary value. While Luke was certainly quite sensible of this value, he has another purpose in view. He knows the very inmost feelings in Rhoda's mind, her joy as she heard the voice of Peter, her fluttering eagerness which defeated her own desire by leaving Peter in the street in danger of discovery while she ran into the inner house to tell the news, her confidence that she was right while the others disbelieved her and thought she was mad. This is the way in which Luke intimates to us that he had himself talked to Rhoda, and had her own evidence to go upon. Only from her, or from some one who took a warm, personal interest in her, could he have learned these details; and there was no one who would interest himself in the; slave-girl's emotions, and treasure up such information to retail to Luke. We have here personal recollection, narrated to Luke by the maid herself, and caught by his sympathetic and appreciative mind. Incidentally, we notice here the close and friendly relation between the slave-girl and the family and its friends.

Rhoda knows Peter's voice, is full of joy at hearing it, forgets in her joy her duty as a servant, and runs in to impart the glad news to the family as a friend. She is in the most real sense a part of the household, fully sharing in the anxieties and the joys of the family, knowing the family's friends as her own friends. As has been said above, it is impossible to judge ancient society and life from the proper point of view, unless this unity of the household is fully appreciated.

This goes on for twelve pages. While the maid is, like the satan, little more than the personification of a MacGuffin, Ramsay manages to not only find a whole range of character motivation, but also evidence that Luke is intimately involved in the presumed history that he is writing. While comparing your theological musings to Ramsay's barely-bounded flight of fancy is definitely hyperbolic, I would at least present it as a cautionary tale in looking for too much character development in otherwise minor characters.

I can happily split the difference with you here. While I don't think the satan is an agent of God per se, I do think it is in God's good graces still, and generally on board with God's plans. But it does represent a real concern about humankind and our rule of the earth, and it brings this concern on its own accord. That's the important thing, because it sets up real conflict in the story, a conflict that wouldn't be nearly as pronounced or consequential if it was simply doing God's bidding all along.

All of the conflict is between, first, Job and his friends, then later, between Job and his god. The only conflict between the satan and Yahweh is the set of constraints on the testing of Job. God's concern for Job is limited, at best and the satan is just doing what his title suggests he ought to. If Job is acting independently of God's will, he's at least acting on God's dare or, perhaps, friendly wager.

More theological construction, I know, but I would trace the satan's genealogy between the serpent of Genesis 3 (i.e., a good creature on the earth with future enmity predicted between it and humankind), and Satan of the NT (i.e., the personification of a spirit in full rebellion against God). The satan of Job is the first voice of discontent and a genealogical step to the next level of perversion and rebellion. Hence again the pronounced conflict and consequences of the satan coming of its own accord and God addressing the satan's concern...

The serpent of the garden is another similar case and I don't think that the serpent of the Garden is Satan in any sense. It's been interpreted that way by later writers, but the details of the story sound much more to me like the rest of the folksy historical details present in the story. Childbearing is painful, lust and love are irrational, agriculture is difficult, and snakes don't have legs. That Paul found more theology than that says more about Paul than it does about the subtil serpent or the author of Genesis 3.

Anyways, good stuff. This is one of the greatest books ever written precisely because of discussions like this that it opens up.

I'm with you, here.

[Difflugia]

While Zoroastrian influence on Jewish theology is a plausible hypothesis, the connection between Ahriman and Satan remains speculative. The transition from the adversarial figure in Job to the rebellious Satan in the New Testament could equally result from internal theological evolution rather than direct borrowing. Additionally, Mark 3:12-13 refers to unclean spirits, not explicitly to Satan, which weakens your argument about continuity.

I was trying to figure out what you meant here about Mark, but that's my fault. The reference should be Mark 1:12-13 (immediately following the baptism/theophany) rather than chapter 3. Here's the pericope I intended:

Immediately, the Spirit casts him into the wilderness and he was in the wilderness for forty days being tested by Satan. He was with the wildlife and the angels were serving him.

The Spirit (of Yahweh, presumably) cast Jesus into the wild in order to be tested by Satan. This looks cooperative to me.

My Question to You:
How do you address the lack of direct evidence for Zoroastrian influence on the concept of Satan? Can you provide more robust textual or historical support for this connection, and how does Mark’s account fit into your broader argument?

I'm honestly not sure how much more robust one can get. If "internal theological evolution" is to blame, then it coincidentally occurred during the centuries that diaspora Jews were living in an area dominated by Persian culture. You'll have a much harder time demonstrating independence than I will justifying even a presumed syncretism.

First, it is exactly during the period of Persian cultural influence that God shifts from being the source of good and evil to God and Satan becoming a competing duo. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the first biblical mention of Satan as a personal name and an adversary to Yahweh appears in Zecharaiah, written less than fifty years after the Persian defeat of Babylon.

Second, we already have evidence of direct Persian influence on other aspects of the Bible. King Cyrus of the Persia is literally described as the instrument of Yahweh that brought Israel out of captivity and is one of only two people mentioned by name in biblical prophecy (Isaiah 44:28; King Josiah is the other). Nehemiah, first King of Israel after the captivity, was the wine steward of the Persian king Artaxerxes and Ezra was hand-picked by the same Persian king to "restore" the law of Yahweh

Third, the Bible shows an immense amount of Babylonian syncretism. If the Jewish exiles were going to keep themselves separate and subject only to internal theological evolution, then I would expect that they would do so with regard to enemies much more than they would against those that are spoken of in literally messianic terms (Isaiah 45:1). Genesis 1 is an obviously repackaged version of Marduk vs. Tiamat, the character names is Esther are all slightly modified names of Babylonian deities, and all of the Israelite magic numbers just happen to be from Babylonian astrology (5, 7, 12, and 60 are all Babylonian). If the Israelites-in-exile took so much from those they considered oppressors, it's difficult for me to take your assertion that the appearance of Persian syncretism is speculative.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #23]

Theophile, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful reply.
Your insights offer a rich foundation for exploring the interplay between the evolving roles of adversarial figures like the satan and broader theological themes of divined unity, human responsibility, and the creative tension inherent in existence. Below, I will respond to key points you’ve raised, identify areas of mutual understanding, and weave in how the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) contributes to this discussion. (Re post #13 of this thread)

Shared Understanding and Points of Alignment

1. The Genealogical Evolution of the Satan and Human Creativity
Your emphasis on the evolution of the satan from an ambiguous adversarial figure to the full rebellion of Satan aligns with the idea of “Satan’s Ape” representing humanity’s role as co-creators in the grand artwork of reality. In both views, the satan acts not simply as a foil but as a catalyst—challenging, testing, and inspiring growth.

This resonates with the SGM perspective, which frames humanity as active participants in shaping moral truths and reality. By engaging with both order (YHWH) and disruption (Satan), humans play a pivotal role in the Creator’s ongoing work. The satan’s function within the divined council mirrors humanity’s role in co-creating with GOD: a dynamic interplay between alignment and exploration, stability and transformation.

2. Morality and the Role of Icons
I appreciate your acknowledgment of the transitional role of mythological and intertextual constructs in the evolution of moral and theological understanding. Icons and narratives serve as stepping stones, helping humanity grasp the ungraspable. In SGM, these constructs are part of the co-creative process, enabling individuals to refine their moral frameworks and align with divined values.

However, like the figures walking the bridge in my imagery, (see my prior posts) these constructs must eventually give way to the recognition of reality itself as sacred. The SGM emphasis on subjective moral authority highlights the importance of moving beyond institutional or symbolic dependence, allowing individuals to directly experience divined presence in their lives.

3. Divined Duality and the Creative Tension
Your framing of YHWH and Satan as complementary forces within the Creator’s unified nature aligns with the SGM vision of reality as a dynamic and evolving masterpiece. In this view, YHWH provides the framework of order, while Satan introduces the spark of disruption, pushing the boundaries of creation.

The interplay between these aspects fosters growth, much like the artist’s use of both structured technique and spontaneous inspiration to shape a living work of art. In SGM, this creative tension reflects the inherent duality of human experience—balancing free will with accountability, individuality with interconnectedness, and order with innovation.

Areas of Clarification and Further Exploration

1. The Satan’s Role: Neutrality or Enmity?
Your critique of a purely neutral interpretation of the satan as a “prosecutor” raises an important point. While the satan’s functional role within the divined council is adversarial, does this necessarily imply personal dissatisfaction or rebellion? Could the satan’s actions reflect a form of alignment with the Creator’s intent—a necessary force for testing and refining human virtue?

The SGM approach to co-creation suggests that even disruptive forces can serve a divined purpose, fostering growth and alignment. From this perspective, the satan’s role in Job could embody a form of “tough love,” where challenges and adversity are essential components of the moral and spiritual journey.

2. Reconciling Textual Fidelity with Speculation
I appreciate your openness to speculative interpretation, particularly when intertextual readings offer insights into the broader narrative arc of adversarial figures. The genealogy of the satan, as you describe it, reflects the evolving human understanding of morality, agency, and the nature of divined authority.

In SGM, this evolutionary arc parallels humanity’s co-creative journey with GOD. Speculation is not merely an exercise in abstraction but a tool for deepening our relationship with the text, enabling us to revisit foundational myths with fresh eyes and uncover new layers of meaning.

Integrating the Subjective GOD Model (SGM)

1. Co-Creation as a Unifying Principle
The SGM perspective complements your focus on humanity’s role in moral and theological evolution. By framing morality as a co-creative, subjective process, SGM aligns with the idea that humanity’s struggles with good and evil are part of the Creator’s artistic vision. This co-creation is not limited to moral decisions but extends to shaping reality itself, echoing the interplay of YHWH and Satan as co-creators within the unified entity of the Creator.

2. Free Will and Human Accountability
SGM’s emphasis on free will as a pre-birth agreement to engage with human experience provides a deeper context for understanding the satan’s role as a tester of human virtue. Humanity’s freedom to act independently of divined alignment underscores the importance of accountability, both individually and collectively. This perspective harmonizes with your critique of cultural Christianity’s tendency to externalize evil, shifting the focus back to humanity’s role in moral and spiritual development.

3. Unity Through Interconnectedness
SGM’s recognition of the interconnectedness of all beings reinforces the idea that duality is a perception rather than an absolute reality. By embracing the unity of YHWH and Satan, order and chaos, creation and destruction, SGM invites a holistic understanding of the Creator as an integrated, subjective presence experienced within each individual.

A Unified Path Forward

Bridging Perspectives
Your insights into the evolving role of the satan and my interpretation of humanity’s co-creative journey find common ground in the recognition of divined duality. Both perspectives emphasize the importance of accountability, the sacredness of lived experience, and the dynamic interplay of forces that drive growth and transformation.

Questions for Further Reflection
How might the genealogical evolution of the satan inform a deeper understanding of humanity’s moral and spiritual trajectory?
Could the creative tension between YHWH and Satan, as dual aspects of the Creator, serve as a model for navigating personal and societal conflicts?

How can we integrate the lessons of mythological constructs and lived experience to foster greater alignment with divined values?

By revisiting these foundational themes and exploring the dynamic interplay of duality and unity, we can deepen our understanding of the Creator’s artistic vision and our role within it. Your contributions to this discussion have enriched my perspective, and I look forward to continuing this exploration with you.




The Bones of the Past as Inspiration
In this scene, the faint presence of the pterodactyl above the serene natural world acts as a silent reminder of a distant, prehistoric time. Its subtlety in the sky suggests that it is not part of the immediate reality but an influence lingering in memory or imagination—an echo of a world long gone. This ancient symbol, interpreted by the Jesus-like figure gazing upward, appears to prompt a theological and mythological response in the artist's depiction.

1. Ancient Influences on Contemporary Understanding
The Jesus-like figure's gaze upwards reflects the human tendency to draw meaning from traces of the past, whether fossils, symbols, or myths. The faint pterodactyl represents the continuity of time, connecting humanity to an era predating our existence. It reminds us of how ancient discoveries, such as the "bones of the earth" (fossils), have influenced mythological and theological narratives.

2. The Artist as Interpreter
The artist, positioned in the present, appears to extrapolate meaning from this scene, overlaying it with their Objective God Model (OGM)-based subjective interpretation. The canvas reveals layers of symbolism:

Mythological Figures: The serpent and Satan, among others, are likely drawn from OGM theological frameworks interpreting human struggles with morality and existence.

Divined Order and Chaos: The interplay between figures representing order (the Jesus-like figure) and rebellion (the demonic forms) reflects humanity’s grappling with dualistic interpretations of the universe.
The artist bridges the gap between the faint, ancient influence (the pterodactyl) and a contemporary mythological worldview, creating a work that captures both natural beauty and layered abstraction.

3. The Fusion of Past, Present, and Interpretation
This scene suggests that the past—both in its physical remnants (like fossils) and its conceptual echoes (myth and theology)—continuously shapes human interpretation of reality. The artist’s canvas symbolizes the human drive to fill gaps in understanding, creating narratives that align past influences with present experiences.

4. Humanity’s Ongoing Co-Creation
The image also resonates with the idea of co-creation. The faint image of the pterodactyl above could be interpreted as a divined nudge—a call for reflection on humanity’s place within the broader narrative of existence. The artist, in response, transforms this inspiration into a personal yet universal depiction, blending natural observation with subjective spiritual interpretation.

Final Thought
This interpretation beautifully encapsulates humanity's layered understanding of reality, where ancient symbols, theological frameworks, and present creativity intersect. The faint pterodactyl becomes not just a reminder of the distant past but a spark for new narratives—reflecting the ongoing dialogue between humanity and the divined influences shaping our perceptions.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #26]

Thanks for clarifying your focus, Athetotheist. I think you’ve raised an intriguing paradox: if Satan’s "greatest trick" is obscuring his existence, why would he allow demonic possession to make his presence so obvious? And why do these so-called “demons” seem to work with Jesus by revealing his divined identity? Let’s break this down.

1. The Purpose of Possession
One possibility is that demonic possession serves a tactical purpose despite its visibility. While possession undeniably reveals supernatural activity, it also creates fear, confusion, and chaos—diverting attention away from Satan’s broader, subtler work. By focusing human minds on the immediate drama of possession, Satan could obscure his larger-scale influences, such as temptation, corruption, and societal manipulation.

Could possession be a kind of misdirection? A way to distract humanity from his deeper, systemic efforts by anchoring their attention to the sensational?

2. Jesus’ Confrontation with Demons
The Gospels often show demons recognizing Jesus’ authority and identity, which can seem counterproductive to their cause. For example, in Mark 1:24, a demon cries out: “I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” This acknowledgment does more to affirm Jesus’ divined role than oppose it.

There are two possible readings of this dynamic:

Unintentional Validation: Demons might be compelled to reveal Jesus’ identity despite their rebellious nature, suggesting that their actions are ultimately subordinated to God’s sovereignty. In this view, their “cooperation” with Jesus is less a strategy and more an unintended consequence of divined power overriding their intent.

Desperation or Defiance: These declarations could be acts of defiance or desperation—an acknowledgment of Jesus’ authority in the hope of staving off judgment or provoking fear in bystanders.

3. Reconciling Satan’s Strategy with Possession
If Satan is working to remain hidden, possession could seem like a contradiction. However, it might fit into a layered strategy:

Diversionary Tactics: By focusing on the spectacle of possession, Satan could distract from his more pervasive, insidious activities, such as eroding moral and spiritual foundations.
Revealing the System, Not the Source: Possessions might expose individual demons while keeping Satan himself in the shadows, allowing him to remain elusive even as his agents act visibly.

Another angle is that Satan’s control over demons might not be absolute. Demons could act on their own chaotic impulses, resulting in behavior that runs counter to Satan’s supposed goals. If possession stems from their desperation or frustration, it could reflect the disarray of Satan’s ranks in the face of Jesus’ authority.

4. Demons Working with Jesus
The idea that demons appear to "work with" Jesus—by validating his divined identity and authority—is fascinating. In some ways, it underscores the theological principle of God’s sovereignty: even the actions of rebellious agents ultimately serve the divined purpose. This could align with the broader narrative of the Gospels, where Jesus’ encounters with demons highlight his role as the bringer of divined order, even as his adversaries attempt to resist him.

Could this also point to a deeper truth about the nature of evil in Christian theology? That evil, by its very nature, undermines itself and is ultimately subsumed into God’s redemptive plan?


The parallel between YHWH’s invisibility and Satan’s hidden workings offers a fascinating theological and narrative thread. Both figures operate primarily through intermediaries, influence, and indirect manifestations rather than overt physical appearances. Here’s how this parallel can be explored:

YHWH’s Invisible Guidance:

In biblical narratives, YHWH’s actions are often revealed through prophets, miracles, and the unfolding of history rather than direct physical presence. This emphasizes faith, trust, and recognition of divined sovereignty without requiring visible proof.

Satan’s Hidden Manipulations:

Similarly, Satan’s influence is typically subtle, manifesting through temptation, deceit, and corrupted systems. His presence is rarely explicit, relying on indirect mechanisms to achieve his goals.

Shared Operational Framework:

Both figures seem to influence humanity through an unseen hand, allowing for human agency and moral testing. This shared invisibility could reflect a structural similarity in their roles within the biblical narrative: one guiding toward divined purposes, the other attempting to subvert them.

Faith and Ambiguity:

The invisibility of both YHWH and Satan requires individuals to interpret events and discern between divined guidance and demonic manipulation, fostering a central theme of faith, discernment, and moral choice.


The play between these apparently different entities may reflect the braider goings on within the One Entity.

1. Unity within Duality:
YHWH and Satan as Complementary Forces: Instead of absolute opposition, they might represent a dynamic tension within the One Entity, facilitating growth, moral testing, and the evolution of consciousness. Just as light defines shadow, good and evil could be interdependent aspects of a greater whole.
(This perspective echoes ideas found in Kabbalistic thought, where the divined incorporates both mercy and judgment as necessary aspects of existence.)

2. Theological Implications:

Cosmic Drama within the One Entity: The struggles and interplay between these forces could symbolize internal dynamics of the divine—creation vs. destruction, order vs. chaos, love vs. justice—all working toward a unified purpose.
This notion reframes the dualism often seen in theology as a more integrated, holistic system, where the One Entity is engaged in self-expression and self-reconciliation.

3. Human Reflection of the Divined Tension:
Humanity, created in the image of the divined, mirrors this internal interplay. The moral and spiritual struggles within individuals might reflect this larger cosmic balance, embodying the eternal dance between these forces.

Here is the visual representation of YHWH and Satan as two aspects of a single divine entity, symbolizing unity within duality. The interplay of light and shadow reflects their interconnected roles within the One Entity..