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 Difflugia in post #28]

You’ve made a compelling case for Zoroastrian influence on the Jewish conceptualization of Satan, particularly during the Persian period. Perhaps are areas where your argument could be further developed or nuanced to account for alternative explanations and textual complexities.

1. Temporal and Cultural Context
You emphasize that the shift from monism (God as the source of both good and evil) to dualism (God versus Satan) coincides with the Jewish diaspora’s exposure to Persian culture. While this correlation is intriguing, correlation alone does not establish causation.

Internal Evolution Argument: The Jewish people’s prolonged exposure to suffering, captivity, and foreign domination during this period could have prompted an internal theological evolution, independent of external influence. The need to reconcile God’s justice with the reality of evil may have organically led to the development of a cosmic adversary figure.

Contextual Support: For instance, the satan in Job acts as a tester of human loyalty, reflecting an internal theological function rather than an imported dualistic antagonist. This role aligns more with the dynamics of Yahweh’s sovereignty than with Zoroastrian dualism, where Ahriman exists in eternal opposition to Ahura Mazda.

2. Historical Syncretism You provide compelling examples of Persian influence on Jewish culture, including Cyrus’s role in Isaiah and Nehemiah’s connection to Artaxerxes. However, the argument for syncretism regarding Satan is less direct.

Genesis and Babylonian Influence: While Genesis 1 borrows motifs from Babylonian mythology (e.g., Marduk and Tiamat), these borrowings involve reshaping existing myths into a monotheistic framework. Similarly, if there were Zoroastrian influence on the satan concept, we should expect clear parallels with Ahriman’s defining traits (e.g., primordial conflict, embodiment of evil, inability to create life). The satan in Job and Zechariah lacks these hallmarks.

Explicit Textual Evidence: Are there specific Zoroastrian texts that directly parallel the satan’s role in Job or Zechariah? For example, does Ahriman operate under Ahura Mazda’s authority, as the satan does under Yahweh’s? If not, the satan may represent a distinct theological development rather than direct borrowing.

3. Mark 1:12-13 and Satan’s Role
You argue that Mark 1:12-13 shows continuity with the satan of Job, emphasizing a cooperative relationship between Satan and Yahweh. This is an intriguing point, but it raises questions about your broader thesis.

Continuity with Old Testament Theology: If Mark’s depiction of Satan aligns with the satan of Job, this suggests that New Testament authors may have drawn on earlier Jewish traditions rather than Zoroastrian dualism. The cooperative, testing role described in Mark diverges significantly from Ahriman’s role as an independent, rebellious force of evil.

Rebellious Satan: The Satan of later Christian theology—rebellious, deceitful, and eternally opposed to God—emerges more explicitly in texts like Revelation and extra-biblical traditions. Mark 1:12-13, however, does not clearly support this later characterization, which complicates the argument for a direct Zoroastrian influence.

4. Broader Implications of Syncretism
You argue that the Jewish exile in Babylon and subsequent Persian influence created fertile ground for theological borrowing. While this is plausible, it raises important questions:

Selective Syncretism: Why would Jewish theology adopt aspects of Zoroastrianism selectively, particularly dualism, while retaining monotheism and rejecting other Zoroastrian concepts like the Amesha Spentas or Ahriman’s complete independence from Ahura Mazda? This suggests that any borrowing would have been heavily filtered through Jewish theological priorities, potentially diminishing the directness of the connection.

Divined Sovereignty: The satan in Job operates within Yahweh’s sovereign framework, testing humanity with divined permission. This stands in contrast to the eternal, independent opposition of Ahriman. How do you reconcile this difference with your argument for direct borrowing?

Conclusion
Your argument for Zoroastrian influence on the concept of Satan is well-grounded in historical and cultural context, but the textual evidence remains indirect. A stronger case could be made by addressing the following:

Textual Parallels: Provide explicit examples from Zoroastrian texts that align closely with the satan’s role in Job and Zechariah.

Alternative Explanations: Consider how internal theological evolution, driven by the Jewish community’s historical experiences, might independently explain the development of Satan as a cosmic adversary.

Continuity vs. Syncretism: Reconcile the cooperative satan in Mark 1:12-13 with your thesis of Zoroastrian dualism, as this depiction complicates the case for a direct borrowing.
Your insights into the historical and cultural context are invaluable, but the argument may benefit from a deeper exploration of the textual and theological nuances?




Footnote:
When I reflect on Mark 1:12-13, I see the wilderness not as a battleground between Jesus and an external adversary but as a space where Jesus confronts internal struggles—temptations born out of his human nature. The Spirit drives him into solitude, into a place where he faces what he may internally desire.

This moment represents Jesus wrestling with the same kinds of temptations we all experience: the pull of ambition, the lure of self-gratification, and the desire for power or validation. It’s not just about resisting an external force like Satan, but about grappling with the very real questions that come with being human. Should he use his abilities for personal gain? Should he rely on worldly power to achieve his goals? Should he test God’s protection to prove his identity?

The wilderness symbolizes that liminal space—a place of transformation and reflection. The wild animals seem symbolic too, representing the untamed aspects of human nature. And yet, angels minister to him, showing that even in this vulnerable state, there’s divined support for the struggle.

What’s also interesting to me is that this story is presented in the third person, with no mention of witnesses. It’s different from other accounts of Jesus’ actions, which are often delivered to or witnessed by the apostles or crowds. Here, we’re told about something deeply personal, something that seems to have occurred in private, and we have no indication of how this event came to be reported. To me, this gives the story an almost metaphorical quality, as if it’s not just about what happened to Jesus but what happens within all of us when we face our own wilderness moments.

This passage resonates because it highlights Jesus’ humanity. It reminds me of Hebrews 4:15, which says that Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he did not sin." His struggle in the wilderness wasn’t just about resisting external evil but about mastering his inner desires and aligning them with God’s will. That’s something we all face—those moments when we’re alone with our thoughts, wrestling with who we are and what we’re called to do.

For me, this story serves as a powerful reminder that inner struggles are part of the journey. The absence of witnesses makes it even more relatable, as it mirrors the personal, unseen battles we all fight. Temptation isn’t just external; it’s an opportunity for self-awareness and spiritual growth.
When I reflect on Mark 1:12-13, I see the wilderness not as a battleground between Jesus and an external adversary but as a space where Jesus confronts internal struggles—temptations born out of his human nature. The Spirit drives him into solitude, into a place where he faces what he may internally desire.

This moment represents Jesus wrestling with the same kinds of temptations we all experience: the pull of ambition, the lure of self-gratification, and the desire for power or validation. It’s not just about resisting an external force like Satan, but about grappling with the very real questions that come with being human. Should he use his abilities for personal gain? Should he rely on worldly power to achieve his goals? Should he test God’s protection to prove his identity?

The wilderness symbolizes that liminal space—a place of transformation and reflection. The wild animals seem symbolic too, representing the untamed aspects of human nature. And yet, angels minister to him, showing that even in this vulnerable state, there’s divined support for the struggle.

What’s also interesting to me is that this story is presented in the third person, with no mention of witnesses. It’s different from other accounts of Jesus’ actions, which are often delivered to or witnessed by the apostles or crowds. Here, we’re told about something deeply personal, something that seems to have occurred in private, and we have no indication of how this event came to be reported. To me, this gives the story an almost metaphorical quality, as if it’s not just about what happened to Jesus but what happens within all of us when we face our own wilderness moments.

This passage resonates because it highlights Jesus’ humanity. It reminds me of Hebrews 4:15, which says that Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he did not sin." His struggle in the wilderness wasn’t just about resisting external evil but about mastering his inner desires and aligning them with God’s will. That’s something we all face—those moments when we’re alone with our thoughts, wrestling with who we are and what we’re called to do.

For me, this story serves as a powerful reminder that inner struggles are part of the journey. The absence of witnesses makes it even more relatable, as it mirrors the personal, unseen battles we all fight. Temptation isn’t just external; it’s an opportunity for self-awareness and spiritual growth. THe story conveys that, if Jesus faced it and overcame, it gives me hope that we can, too.

[theophile]

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.

The satan could just be a plot device, just as it could be an agent of God. But I still think it could represent something more, a true accusation and voice of enmity predicted by God in Genesis 3, and that we should at least explore that possibility for the layer of deeper conflict and consequence it opens up.

This is not to deny the conflict between Job and God, which is important, but to situate it in a higher order conflict between the satan (/God) and humankind.

It is also reasonable to suppose that later NT writers may have agreed, hence why they doubled-down on the name...

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.

It's not a conflict between the satan and Yahweh that I'm suggesting, but the satan / Yahweh and humankind. It is humankind that is on trial in the book of Job - Job is just our representative and redeeming example. He is the one who gets tested to prove our worth.

Looking beyond the book of Job we see a pattern that is worth considering: Job is just one in a series of similar, progressively demanding tests in the bible:

1. Abraham is tested by the taking of his son, and his son is spared.
2. Job is tested by the taking of his children, his wealth, and his health, but his life is spared.
3. Jesus is tested by the taking of his life -- nothing is spared.

What we learn most explicitly from Jesus is that this testing serves a purpose: not just to prove the worth of the individual being tested, but to save us (humankind) from our sins. Which means, to prove whether we deserve continued life and rule of this earth or if we should be blotted out as a mistake and regret.

Now, I obviously can't prove any of this, since the book of Job is mum, but I can't help extend this broader biblical theme to the book for how good it fits. Especially when we start to dive into the other conflict you raised, between Job and God, and how it reinforces this theme.

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.

I don't think the serpent is Satan either, just a very early progenitor. By which I mean a good creature (the wisest) that has enmity predicted between its offspring and humankind. Offspring / enmity that shows up in the book of Job and becomes full blown in Revelation.

You have to at least admit that Genesis 3 opens up a narrative path that later writers latch onto by predicting such enmity.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #30]

Here's a post of mine from another thread. Perhaps it bears repeating here:

A being who is closer to God than any other, was created by God and knows that God created him and that he is held in existence by God's sheer thought and will, and that being seriously undertakes to depose his own omnipotent creator and set his own power above that of God.

That doesn't describe a being who's merely a prideful rebel. It describes a being who is insane, delusionally detatched from reality. Thus, the story of Lucifer's rebellion doesn't tell us that there was war in heaven. It tells us that there are no mental health services in heaven.

Of course, the people who wrote the story wouldn't have known that since they lived centuries before psychology began to be understood.

[theophile]

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?

It could, but what does this gain us? It just adds bureaucracy to God's rule, neuters the story, and risks distracting us from the real problem. I think it's dangerous to over-generalize, which I fear may be happening with what you say here. Focusing too much on the satan's role and less on the actual case it has come to prosecute. And also potentially conflating Satan / the satan versus keeping these distinct per the genealogy.

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.

To be clear on the 'co-creative' nature of morality as I see it, I would say that God unconditionally represents a certain cosmic vision and end. An ultimate final cause if you will to which all things are called to move towards. (Not at all unlike Aristotle's unmoved movers...) As such, God has no real power to make us move in the direction God wants; all God can do is try to influence, persuade, etc. Hence the power and primacy of the Word in the bible.

But as with Aristotle, there are other unmoved movers out there. Different final causes that similarly call upon us and move us away from God's final cause and end. Satan comes to be the figurehead of all such contrary (or rebellious) motivators.

Now, I'm not saying with this that God's end is absolute, or right in an absolute moral sense, but that it is on us to decide across all these. To take sides if you will. That is step 1 in 'co-creation'. Then there are all the pragmatic movements necessary to achieve that ultimate end. That is step 2 in 'co-creation', and where the real work is.

But the only way any of it happens is if we take responsibility and do it. Back to cultural Christianity, that is my biggest beef. The pernicious idea that, say, Jesus and the kingdom are going to come irrespective of anything we do about it. That God has the power and sovereignty and it's just a matter of time before God's perfect plan unfolds.

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.

Here we may differ again for the same basic reasons as before. I think there needs to be a starker divide between God and Satan. Real conflict. Satan represents a contrary course for all things. There is not an underlying unity between Satan and God whereby they somehow become one, but starkly different visions and ends. (And I am distinguishing Satan from the satan here, to be clear.)

To put it starkly, where one would lead us to a world filled with life of every kind, where all kinds of life can flourish and be, the other leads us to a barren, empty, hell-scape if you will. To oppression and death versus freedom and life, just as the bible describes of sin.

Again, real conflict and consequence, at a cosmic scale.

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?

As should be clear, don't think YHWH and Satan (versus the satan) are dual aspects of the Creator. The true duality, IMO, is more along the lines of spirit and matter, by which I mean (again, not far from Aristotle), a spiritual unmoved mover representing a final cause for all things, and the material beings of dust and ashes like us who answer that call and move the earth (and cosmos more broadly) in that direction to achieve it. That is the duality expressed from the beginning in Genesis 1 and that matters most. The satan has a place in it as you generally describe above; Satan does not.

The personal and societal implications of this are huge, once we unpack the final cause I mentioned above. It creates compelling priorities, like environmentalism and care for the earth. It gives a framework for legislation, just as we see laws unfolding in the bible to universalize its maxims. It gives backbone for policies, like universal healthcare, transgender rights, redistribution of wealth, etc.

Ultimately, just as the bible shows, Satan needs to be defeated. Not that Satan can be destroyed per se, since Satan is the representative of all paths contrary to God, but turned away from. Given no power. Cast into the abyss for 1000-years kind of thing.

As to the practical implications of the God - Satan dynamic, I think it's recognizing and giving real care and attention to the voices of discontent (like the satan) that are out there. Understanding where such voices come from (just as God asks the satan in Job). Giving them real address so they don't turn away from God and lay the groundwork for deeper divisions and rebellions down the road. Again, just as we see in Job.

[Difflugia]

You’ve made a compelling case for Zoroastrian influence on the Jewish conceptualization of Satan, particularly during the Persian period. Perhaps are areas where your argument could be further developed or nuanced to account for alternative explanations and textual complexities.

Are you debating me? So far, your position seems to be that I might be wrong. You've neither narrowed that to anything specific nor offered any support for any particular position, but you're now asking me to support my position even more.

1. Temporal and Cultural Context
You emphasize that the shift from monism (God as the source of both good and evil) to dualism (God versus Satan) coincides with the Jewish diaspora’s exposure to Persian culture. While this correlation is intriguing, correlation alone does not establish causation.

But at this point, I've explained why I think Jewish-Persian syncretism is the most reasonable explanation as "causation" and you've once again just said that you don't think it's good enough. I'm not going to debate myself.

Internal Evolution Argument: The Jewish people’s prolonged exposure to suffering, captivity, and foreign domination during this period could have prompted an internal theological evolution, independent of external influence. The need to reconcile God’s justice with the reality of evil may have organically led to the development of a cosmic adversary figure.

And leprechauns could be hiding pots of gold. Possible and probable aren't the same thing.

Contextual Support: For instance, the satan in Job acts as a tester of human loyalty, reflecting an internal theological function rather than an imported dualistic antagonist. This role aligns more with the dynamics of Yahweh’s sovereignty than with Zoroastrian dualism, where Ahriman exists in eternal opposition to Ahura Mazda.

The satan in Job was offered as an example of the Jewish conception of the adversary prior to the syncretistic dualism of Satan, so, yes, you're absolutely right.

2. Historical Syncretism You provide compelling examples of Persian influence on Jewish culture, including Cyrus’s role in Isaiah and Nehemiah’s connection to Artaxerxes. However, the argument for syncretism regarding Satan is less direct.

I look forward to your development and support of an alternative.

Genesis and Babylonian Influence: While Genesis 1 borrows motifs from Babylonian mythology (e.g., Marduk and Tiamat), these borrowings involve reshaping existing myths into a monotheistic framework. Similarly, if there were Zoroastrian influence on the satan concept, we should expect clear parallels with Ahriman’s defining traits (e.g., primordial conflict, embodiment of evil, inability to create life). The satan in Job and Zechariah lacks these hallmarks.

Why would you expect any particular set of traits to survive any particular syncretistic merger? Your original claim is that you didn't see evidence of syncretism, but now you're just claiming that the results are slightly different than what you would personally expect without offering any particular reason why.

Explicit Textual Evidence: Are there specific Zoroastrian texts that directly parallel the satan’s role in Job or Zechariah? For example, does Ahriman operate under Ahura Mazda’s authority, as the satan does under Yahweh’s? If not, the satan may represent a distinct theological development rather than direct borrowing.

No, because Job wasn't an example of Zoroastrian syncretism in the first place.

Rebellious Satan: The Satan of later Christian theology—rebellious, deceitful, and eternally opposed to God—emerges more explicitly in texts like Revelation and extra-biblical traditions. Mark 1:12-13, however, does not clearly support this later characterization, which complicates the argument for a direct Zoroastrian influence.

My original discussion offered Mark, like Job, as an example of a more traditionally Jewish role assigned to Satan. I offered Luke 22 as an example of Satan as an evil force rather than the divine tester of humanity's mettle.

I'd like to take a moment to offer an observation about ChatGPT. I've noticed that it has a habit of subtly shifting discussions until it's answering a different question than was asked in the first place. Maybe people do this, too, and so that's a feature of its training data that it's mimicking, but it's not something that I personally would have expected. This conversation seems to me to have some of those hallmarks, so I guess keep an eye on it.

Selective Syncretism: Why would Jewish theology adopt aspects of Zoroastrianism selectively, particularly dualism, while retaining monotheism and rejecting other Zoroastrian concepts like the Amesha Spentas or Ahriman’s complete independence from Ahura Mazda? This suggests that any borrowing would have been heavily filtered through Jewish theological priorities, potentially diminishing the directness of the connection.

You just described the form that Jewish syncretism historically took, but then claimed that you think it should have happened differently. You can certainly ask why Jewish syncretism with surrounding cultures historically took this form, but that's hardly an argument that it didn't happen.

Divined Sovereignty: The satan in Job operates within Yahweh’s sovereign framework, testing humanity with divined permission. This stands in contrast to the eternal, independent opposition of Ahriman. How do you reconcile this difference with your argument for direct borrowing?

Again, one of you is confused about how my examples were related to my claim.

Conclusion
Your argument for Zoroastrian influence on the concept of Satan is well-grounded in historical and cultural context, but the textual evidence remains indirect. A stronger case could be made by addressing the following:

I look forward to you presenting and supporting an alternative.

Footnote:
When I reflect on Mark 1:12-13, I see the wilderness not as a battleground between Jesus and an external adversary but as a space where Jesus confronts internal struggles—temptations born out of his human nature. The Spirit drives him into solitude, into a place where he faces what he may internally desire.

This moment represents Jesus wrestling with the same kinds of temptations we all experience: the pull of ambition, the lure of self-gratification, and the desire for power or validation. It’s not just about resisting an external force like Satan, but about grappling with the very real questions that come with being human. Should he use his abilities for personal gain? Should he rely on worldly power to achieve his goals? Should he test God’s protection to prove his identity?

These are things you're reading back into Mark, perhaps from Matthew or Luke, or perhaps you're independently imagining the same sort of scenario that they did. For Mark, the only details are that the test happened and the implication that Jesus passed. We can discuss Matthew's and Luke's concepts of evil and its relationship to the divine, but let's be careful not to conflate the three different accounts.

What’s also interesting to me is that this story is presented in the third person, with no mention of witnesses. It’s different from other accounts of Jesus’ actions, which are often delivered to or witnessed by the apostles or crowds.

This isn't as different as you seem to think. All four Gospels (and Acts, for that matter) feature an omniscient narrator. While there are often, as you point out, plausible witnesses, Mark's testing of Jesus is hardly unique in lacking them. Easy examples are Jesus' actions in Gethsemane after the disciples fell asleep (Mark 14:37-42) and the women fleeing the tomb, "[saying] nothing to anyone" (Mark 16:8).

Here, we’re told about something deeply personal, something that seems to have occurred in private, and we have no indication of how this event came to be reported. To me, this gives the story an almost metaphorical quality, as if it’s not just about what happened to Jesus but what happens within all of us when we face our own wilderness moments.

I don't think there's any "almost" about it. The stories are allegorical fiction, even if there's a kernel of historicity.

This passage resonates because it highlights Jesus’ humanity. It reminds me of Hebrews 4:15, which says that Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he did not sin." His struggle in the wilderness wasn’t just about resisting external evil but about mastering his inner desires and aligning them with God’s will. That’s something we all face—those moments when we’re alone with our thoughts, wrestling with who we are and what we’re called to do.

For me, this story serves as a powerful reminder that inner struggles are part of the journey. The absence of witnesses makes it even more relatable, as it mirrors the personal, unseen battles we all fight. Temptation isn’t just external; it’s an opportunity for self-awareness and spiritual growth.

This is interesting, but keep in mind that the christology of Hebrews is radically different than that of any of the Gospels. Hebrews may be referring to the same tradition of wilderness testing as Mark, but there's not really enough there to be certain.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #34]

Theophile, thank you for your thoughtful engagement. To clarify, the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) sees God and Satan as the natural results of humanity’s dualistic perception of reality, not true representatives of GOD, the ultimate creative principle. These roles are better understood as useful fictions—ambassadors of human misinterpretation of the UNIverse—that GOD tolerates to guide humanity toward Truth.

1. Dualistic Misinterpretation and the UNIverse
Humanity’s tendency to see the UNIverse as divided into opposing forces (e.g., good versus evil, order versus chaos) creates the framework for God and Satan. God embodies the perceived need for order and alignment, while Satan represents disruption and testing. However, the UNIverse is not inherently dualistic—it is a unified whole, as the term “UNIverse” suggests. The duality is a human projection, not an ultimate reality.

2. God and Satan as Ambassadors of Misinterpretation
God and Satan serve as conceptual tools within this universe, helping humanity grapple with moral and spiritual complexities. They are ambassadors of humanity’s misinterpretation, reflecting how humans process their experiences rather than representing GOD’s true nature. Their roles are tied to this layer of the multi-layered human purpose and exist only within the dualistic framework of this universe.

3. GOD’s Tolerance and Guidance
GOD, as the unified creative principle, transcends duality but tolerates these constructs to meet humanity where it is in its understanding. By working through the constructs of God and Satan, GOD draws humanity closer to the Truth—moving beyond duality and toward recognition of the UNIverse’s inherent unity.

4. The Multi-Layered Human Purpose
The human purpose is not singular but multi-layered, with each layer reflecting a stage in humanity’s evolving relationship with GOD. In this universe, the purpose is to transcend dualistic thinking, internalize the lessons of order and disruption, and align with the unified reality of GOD. God and Satan are temporary tools for this layer, dissolving as humanity advances to higher dimensions of purpose.

Conclusion. God and Satan are not eternal forces in opposition but transitional roles within the human journey, shaped by dualistic misinterpretation. GOD tolerates and engages these fictions to guide humanity toward unity, ultimately replacing them as humanity evolves beyond duality. The current discussion focuses on this universe, but the ultimate human purpose extends beyond it, revealing deeper dimensions of existence and alignment with GOD.

Does this framing address your concerns about the roles of God and Satan? Or do you see their influence extending beyond this transitional stage?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #35]

Difflugia, thank you for your detailed feedback. I appreciate the opportunity to refine my points and clarify where we might align or diverge. Here’s a response that directly addresses your critiques while integrating the broader themes of the discussion.

1. Zoroastrian Influence and Internal Evolution
You’ve made a strong case for Zoroastrian influence on Jewish conceptualizations of Satan, particularly during the Persian period. However, I think there’s room to explore internal evolution as an equally plausible pathway. The shift in Jewish theology—from monism (God as the source of both good and evil) to a more dualistic framework—may have developed organically due to the Jewish people’s experiences of suffering and exile.

This isn’t to dismiss the possibility of Zoroastrian influence, but rather to suggest that the evolution of Satan might be a synthesis of both external syncretism and internal theological necessity. The concept of "Satan as a tester," present in Job, reflects an internally cohesive role that diverges significantly from Ahriman's eternal opposition to Ahura Mazda. This complexity suggests a filtered syncretism shaped by Jewish theological priorities.

2. Syncretism and Cultural Adaptation
Your argument acknowledges Jewish syncretism as selective and filtered, which aligns with my observation that theological borrowing was nuanced. For example, while Genesis incorporates Babylonian mythological motifs, the reshaping of these myths into a monotheistic framework shows intentional theological reinterpretation rather than direct copying. Similarly, if Zoroastrian ideas influenced Jewish theology, it was likely a reinterpretation of dualism to fit within the existing structure of Yahweh’s sovereignty.

You asked why I might expect specific traits of Ahriman to appear in Satan. The absence of these traits—primordial conflict, inability to create life, etc.—is significant because it highlights the unique theological function of Satan within Judaism: operating under Yahweh’s authority rather than in opposition. This distinctiveness may suggest a parallel evolution rather than direct borrowing.

3. The Wilderness Narrative
Regarding Mark 1:12-13, I appreciate your clarification that Mark presents Satan as fulfilling a traditionally Jewish role, while Luke 22 shows the shift toward an evil adversary. However, my reflection on the wilderness narrative wasn’t an attempt to conflate Gospel accounts, but to explore how these texts function allegorically to highlight Jesus' humanity and inner struggles.

Mark’s brevity emphasizes the testing rather than the specific nature of the temptations, but this silence invites reflection. The testing scene’s lack of witnesses and its deeply personal nature resonate as a metaphor for the universal human experience of wrestling with internal desires and aligning with a greater purpose. While this allegorical reading may draw from interpretations in Matthew or Luke, it remains consistent with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as deeply human, yet divinely inspired.

4. Allegorical Fiction and Interpretation
You note that the wilderness story is allegorical fiction. I would agree that its primary purpose is theological rather than historical. Whether or not the events occurred exactly as described, the narrative serves as a framework for self-reflection—highlighting the importance of inner struggles as moments of growth. This mirrors broader themes in Jewish theology, where figures like Job confront tests that refine faith and character.

Conclusion
Your insights into Zoroastrian influence and Jewish syncretism are compelling and deserve further exploration. However, the evolution of Satan’s role—from divine tester to rebellious adversary—likely reflects both external influences and internal theological needs. The wilderness narrative, whether historical or fictional, functions as a powerful allegory for human struggles with alignment and purpose.

I look forward to continuing this discussion and exploring how these ideas interact with the broader themes of syncretism, narrative function, and theological evolution.

[William]

Re: Middle Ground on Zoroastrian Influence and Theological Evolution

Difflugia and Theophile, your arguments represent two important perspectives in this discussion. Difflugia emphasizes external Zoroastrian influence as the primary driver of theological evolution, while Theophile focuses on the distinctiveness of Jewish theology and insists on humanity “taking sides” between God and Satan. While Theophile critiques dualism, the framework still reflects a practical dualism in its emphasis on real conflict and alignment with God’s vision. My position seeks to establish a middle ground, synthesizing elements of both perspectives while highlighting how external influences and internal frameworks interact to shape theological development.

1. Syncretism and Internal Evolution: Complementary, Not Opposing.
Difflugia, your argument that Jewish theology was influenced by Zoroastrian ideas is compelling, but as Theophile emphasizes, Jewish theological priorities significantly shaped how these influences were integrated. Rather than seeing syncretism as a wholesale adoption of Zoroastrian dualism, I propose that the evolution of Satan’s role reflects a filtered syncretism—a blend of external ideas and internal theological and moral priorities.

External Influence:
Exposure to Zoroastrian dualism during the Persian period likely introduced the concept of a cosmic adversary. However, this idea was adapted to fit within the framework of Yahweh’s sovereignty, leading to the distinct role of the satan in Job and Zechariah as a tester rather than an independent rebel.

Internal Priorities:
The Jewish people’s historical experiences—captivity, suffering, and the need to reconcile divined justice with evil—may have independently prompted the development of a figure like Satan. Jewish theology prioritized Yahweh’s sovereignty, reshaping external ideas to align with monotheism and the moral purpose of humanity’s alignment with God’s vision.

This position bridges these extremes, acknowledging Zoroastrian influence while emphasizing the intentional agency of Jewish theologians in reshaping these ideas to fit their distinctive worldview.

2. The Wilderness Narrative as a Microcosm
In Mark 1:12-13, the wilderness narrative reflects this duality in action. Difflugia, your interpretation of Satan in Mark as a divine tester aligns with the Jewish conception of the satan, while Theophile’s emphasis on real conflict and moral alignment highlights the evolution of evil within human responsibility. I see the wilderness narrative as a microcosm of this larger process:

External Testing and Internal Growth:
Jesus’ experience in the wilderness mirrors humanity’s engagement with external challenges and internal struggles. This dual focus bridges the Jewish and Christian understandings of Satan, showing how external influences and internal evolution coexist.

Mark’s Allegorical Approach:
The brevity of Mark’s account invites allegorical interpretation. Whether read as external testing or internal wrestling, the narrative underscores the universal human journey of confronting challenges to align with a higher purpose.

This middle-ground perspective integrates both external and internal dimensions, reflecting the layered nature of theological development and moral alignment.

3. God, Satan, and Human Perception
My middle ground situates God and Satan as transitional roles shaped by humanity’s dualistic tendencies:

Ambassadors of Misinterpretation, Not Representatives of GOD:
God and Satan emerge from humanity’s perception of the UNIverse as divided into order and chaos. These roles serve as useful fictions to navigate this misinterpretation, guiding humanity toward a deeper understanding of unity.

GOD’s Role:
GOD transcends these dualistic constructs, tolerating and engaging with them to guide humanity toward Truth. The interaction between God, Satan, and humanity reflects the interplay of external influence and internal moral growth.

This perspective situates God and Satan within the human journey, highlighting their transitional and pedagogical nature while acknowledging their theological significance.

4. A Multi-Layered Purpose
Finally, I propose that the evolution of Satan’s and God's roles reflect one layer of the multi-layered human purpose. Difflugia, your focus on Zoroastrian influence addresses one dimension of this development, while Theophile’s emphasis on moral alignment highlights another. My middle-ground perspective integrates these dimensions into a broader framework:

This Universe as a Layer:
Within this universe, God and Satan serve as tools for humanity’s moral and spiritual evolution. Their roles reflect humanity’s dualistic perception and help bridge the gap between external influences and internal growth.

Beyond This Universe:
Re: SGM, the ultimate human purpose extends beyond this universe. The current discussion focuses on this universe, where humanity transcends duality and aligns with the unified reality of GOD.

This layered approach respects the complexity of theological evolution while providing a framework for integrating external and internal perspectives.

Conclusion: Bridging the Extremes
My middle-ground position seeks to reconcile Difflugia’s emphasis on external influence with Theophile’s focus on moral alignment and real conflict. While Theophile critiques dualism, the insistence on taking sides reflects a practical dualism within their framework. The evolution of Satan’s role reflects both filtered syncretism and internal necessity, shaped by the interaction of historical context and theological priorities.

God and Satan, as transitional roles, guide humanity toward a deeper understanding of unity, aligning with the multi-layered human purpose within and beyond this universe.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether this middle-ground perspective helps bridge the gap between your positions. Can we see the evolution of the Satan and God roles as both a product of historical interaction and an expression of moral and theological growth?

[Difflugia]

However, I think there’s room to explore internal evolution as an equally plausible pathway.

I look forward to you developing and supporting that argument.

Mark’s brevity emphasizes the testing rather than the specific nature of the temptations, but this silence invites reflection. The testing scene’s lack of witnesses and its deeply personal nature resonate as a metaphor for the universal human experience of wrestling with internal desires and aligning with a greater purpose. While this allegorical reading may draw from interpretations in Matthew or Luke, it remains consistent with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as deeply human, yet divinely inspired.

If you want to explore in this direction, my view is that Mark's Jesus is the adopted Son of God, with the adoption itself being the four verses beginning with the baptism theophany in 1:10 and ending with the wilderness testing in 1:12-13. This contrasts with Matthew and Luke, both of whom have the Son of God status begin at the virgin birth.

I look forward to continuing this discussion and exploring how these ideas interact with the broader themes of syncretism, narrative function, and theological evolution.

Me, too.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #34]

Theophile, thank you for your thoughtful engagement. To clarify, the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) sees God and Satan as the natural results of humanity’s dualistic perception of reality, not true representatives of GOD, the ultimate creative principle. These roles are better understood as useful fictions—ambassadors of human misinterpretation of the UNIverse—that GOD tolerates to guide humanity toward Truth.

So what are your views on God / the ultimate creative principle then? I feel like that matters way more than any subjective human experience that you're trying to describe. If we can't answer that, we can't progress to the next stage.

1. Dualistic Misinterpretation and the UNIverse
Humanity’s tendency to see the UNIverse as divided into opposing forces (e.g., good versus evil, order versus chaos) creates the framework for God and Satan. God embodies the perceived need for order and alignment, while Satan represents disruption and testing. However, the UNIverse is not inherently dualistic—it is a unified whole, as the term “UNIverse” suggests. The duality is a human projection, not an ultimate reality.

Yup. But what is the ultimate reality and calling per above? What unifies all things? I don't think things are unified at all. Unless in some base and useless sense like everything 'is', and as such part of the UNIverse. (I would say that God is not yet a unifying concept, but only the potential of one.)

2. God and Satan as Ambassadors of Misinterpretation
God and Satan serve as conceptual tools within this universe, helping humanity grapple with moral and spiritual complexities. They are ambassadors of humanity’s misinterpretation, reflecting how humans process their experiences rather than representing GOD’s true nature. Their roles are tied to this layer of the multi-layered human purpose and exist only within the dualistic framework of this universe.

See previous comment. What is God's true nature? Is it just the UNIverse? Some material realm of things? What truth does God guide us toward? What is the unity beyond the duality that you keep alluding to?

3. GOD’s Tolerance and Guidance
GOD, as the unified creative principle, transcends duality but tolerates these constructs to meet humanity where it is in its understanding. By working through the constructs of God and Satan, GOD draws humanity closer to the Truth—moving beyond duality and toward recognition of the UNIverse’s inherent unity.

Your idea of God "drawing humanity to the truth" is very similar to what I'm saying about God as unmoved mover. As final cause for all things. But I have said what is the ultimate unity, truth, final cause, etc., that God calls us to, while you have not, so far as I can tell. You just keep circling around it.

I feel you need a concrete principle, like life, and its well-being, or a universe where life of every kind can flourish and be, to give real meaning to the views you're expressing.

4. The Multi-Layered Human Purpose
The human purpose is not singular but multi-layered, with each layer reflecting a stage in humanity’s evolving relationship with GOD. In this universe, the purpose is to transcend dualistic thinking, internalize the lessons of order and disruption, and align with the unified reality of GOD. God and Satan are temporary tools for this layer, dissolving as humanity advances to higher dimensions of purpose.

This still says nothing on what the vision and end actually is... It's time to move past generalities and declare the unifying creative principle.

Conclusion. God and Satan are not eternal forces in opposition but transitional roles within the human journey, shaped by dualistic misinterpretation. GOD tolerates and engages these fictions to guide humanity toward unity, ultimately replacing them as humanity evolves beyond duality. The current discussion focuses on this universe, but the ultimate human purpose extends beyond it, revealing deeper dimensions of existence and alignment with GOD.

I think God and Satan have eternal existence outside of human experience, and we should consider this. I also think you are on the verge of substance, but not quite declaring it. Stop using words like "unifying", "truth", "UNIverse", "GOD", etc., and give concrete terms to your ultimate principle.

Does this framing address your concerns about the roles of God and Satan? Or do you see their influence extending beyond this transitional stage?

It helps me understand your thinking for sure. But it leaves me thinking that God and Satan are just figments of human imagination, versus anything in their own right, even though you keep alluding to a higher dimension that you never quite pin down.