A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Midwestguy Student Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Total posts: 19 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
129.68 tokens
|
Post 1:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:41 pm Post subject: Where did Satan originate? |
|
|
This is to discuss the origins of Satan.
One theory says it was essentially invented by refugees of the Southern Kingdom while being held in Babylon. The Bablylonians had a belief system of titanic struggles between gods of good and evil. As the Jews were contemplating why they were held in Babylon instead of staying the Promised Land, the idea that a force of evil made sense.
The existence of a source of evil didn't negate anything, but it did help explain why they were now in Babylon. Essentially, because they turned from God and allowed other religions (Baal and Asherah, for example) to exist in Israel, God finally allowed the country to fall. These alternate religions were inspired by Satan.
Over time, this belief was refined so by the time of Jesus, Satan had grown into a full blown entity less powerful than God, but still quite capable of creating all kinds of trouble.
Another theory is that Satan has been around from the beginning and is mentioned throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. Through various revelations, the Bible writers gave bits and pieces of information about Satan which, when put together, also give a picture of a full blown entity less powerful than God, but still quite capable of creating all kinds of trouble.
A third theory is that Satan is a figment of imagination. As we grow more able to explain the known universe, the need to explain the dark unexplainable things in life as being the work of Satan, diminishes.
Do any of these ideas make sense? Are there other ideas about the origins of Satan?
As always,
Midwest Guy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| harvey1 Prodigy
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Total posts: 3366 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
28217.78 tokens
|
|
Post 2:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Where did Satan originate? |
|
|
| Midwestguy wrote: |
This is to discuss the origins of Satan.
One theory says it was essentially invented by refugees of the Southern Kingdom while being held in Babylon. The Bablylonians had a belief system of titanic struggles between gods of good and evil. As the Jews were contemplating why they were held in Babylon instead of staying the Promised Land, the idea that a force of evil made sense.
The existence of a source of evil didn't negate anything, but it did help explain why they were now in Babylon. Essentially, because they turned from God and allowed other religions (Baal and Asherah, for example) to exist in Israel, God finally allowed the country to fall. These alternate religions were inspired by Satan.
Over time, this belief was refined so by the time of Jesus, Satan had grown into a full blown entity less powerful than God, but still quite capable of creating all kinds of trouble.
Another theory is that Satan has been around from the beginning and is mentioned throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. Through various revelations, the Bible writers gave bits and pieces of information about Satan which, when put together, also give a picture of a full blown entity less powerful than God, but still quite capable of creating all kinds of trouble.
A third theory is that Satan is a figment of imagination. As we grow more able to explain the known universe, the need to explain the dark unexplainable things in life as being the work of Satan, diminishes.
Do any of these ideas make sense? Are there other ideas about the origins of Satan?
As always,
Midwest Guy |
We can all guess, but that's all we are doing. What we need is another discovery like the Dead Sea scrolls that is before, during, and after the Babylonian captivity, but that's not very likely.
My view, though, is that Satan was part of a larger perspective which saw wisdom being personified as a woman. See for example the apocrypha book of Sirach, even Proverbs has references to wisdom as a woman:
Proverbs 1:20
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares;
Proverbs 4:6
Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you.
Proverbs 9:1
Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn out its seven pillars.
Proverbs 14:33
Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning and even among fools she lets herself be known.
This trend became increasingly apparent in the apocrypha and other pre-Christian texts. It is no wonder that evil also took on a personified tone in terms of Satan. However, it is Zoroastrianism that probably had the most significant effect on the Jewish religion. Zorasterianism had a clearly defined influence on the Jewish religion, and I believe that the belief of Satan was an influence from that religion.
But, just because ideas come to a religion haphazardly do not mean they are wrong. No one would deny that evolution is wrong simply because Anaximander suggested evolutionary processes were at play. Rather, good ideas (and bad ideas) have a way of influencing people, and the concept of Satan is no exception.
Although mythical Satan helps to solve the problem of evil. It states that evil was outside God's control to some extent, and as a result, evil exists. I think it's not quite that simplistic, but 'Satan' as a type of consciousness that applies a certain resistance to not only nature but human thought is quite an attractive notion (attractive in the sense that it seems feasible and does not carry too much ontological baggage). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rocky_923 Student Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Total posts: 36 Location: Tillsonburg, ON Age: 24 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
189.32 tokens
|
|
Post 3:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Where did Satan originate? |
|
|
Hello! I've been lurking for awhile now, but this is my first post.
| Midwestguy wrote: |
One theory says it was essentially invented by refugees of the Southern Kingdom while being held in Babylon. The Bablylonians had a belief system of titanic struggles between gods of good and evil. As the Jews were contemplating why they were held in Babylon instead of staying the Promised Land, the idea that a force of evil made sense.
|
This is the origin i most agree with. Although i don't believe it was the Babylonian's religion that sparked the Isrealite's minds to an evil one. The religion i think started their train of thought is Zoroastianism. It's said to be one of the oldest surviving monotheistic religions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| loki_silver Student Joined: 27 Nov 2004 Total posts: 11 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
92.18 tokens
|
|
Post 4:
Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Post subject: biblical origins of satan |
|
|
I believe that the biblical origins of satan goes something like this:
Lucifer was one of the first angels created by God, was actually one of the most beautiful Angels, was responsible for Holding the fan over the left side of the glory seat. Sometime before the creation of man(actually... not sure about the timing) Lucifer became so prideful that he convinced about half of the other angels to rise aginst God in an attempt to overthrow him. God defeated Lucifer easily casting him out of heaven (although he still has access to God and is able to speak with him... he looses his place in the heavens.) The Fallen angels become Demon's and Lucifer "Satan." Satan temps Eve causing the fall of man. And becomes basically the embodiment of Evil or everything opposed to God. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Midwestguy Student Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Total posts: 19 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
129.68 tokens
|
|
Post 5:
Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: Re: biblical origins of satan |
|
|
| loki_silver wrote: |
I believe that the biblical origins of satan goes something like this:
Lucifer was one of the first angels created by God, was actually one of the most beautiful Angels, was responsible for Holding the fan over the left side of the glory seat. Sometime before the creation of man(actually... not sure about the timing) Lucifer became so prideful that he convinced about half of the other angels to rise aginst God in an attempt to overthrow him. God defeated Lucifer easily casting him out of heaven (although he still has access to God and is able to speak with him... he looses his place in the heavens.) The Fallen angels become Demon's and Lucifer "Satan." Satan temps Eve causing the fall of man. And becomes basically the embodiment of Evil or everything opposed to God. |
Are there any Biblical passages for this? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| trencacloscas Sage
Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Total posts: 848 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
5174.75 tokens
|
|
Post 6:
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One etymology I found lately is that Satan comes from "Shaitan", that is adversary in Arab. Makes sense, really, but I don't know how accurate is this information. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ST88 Site SupporterGuru
Joined: 03 Jul 2004 Total posts: 1772 Location: San Diego Age: 41 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
11605.16 tokens
|
|
Post 7:
Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trencacloscas wrote: |
| One etymology I found lately is that Satan comes from "Shaitan", that is adversary in Arab. Makes sense, really, but I don't know how accurate is this information. |
I believe that the original Hebrew word means "adversary" or "accuser" (sin-tet-nun sofit), and Jews do not believe in a Satan, or any other personlified "negative force" that exists on earth. Instead, where the word appears (ha'satan, l'satan, etc.), it is interpreted to refer to a specific, though vaguely referenced, immediate adversary.
| Quote: |
It is used this way in Numbers 22:22. "And G-d’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the L-rd stood in the way as an *adversary* against him...." The word marked with *'s and translated as adversary is satan (actually l'satan, l' being a prefix that in the context gives the meaning "as"). Likewise in Numbers 22:32, part of the same story about Bilaam.
In I Samuel 29:4. "And the princes of the Philistines were angry with him; and the princes of the Philistines said to him, Make this fellow return, that he may go back to his place which you have appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an *adversary* to us; for how should he reconcile himself to his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?" Agian, the word translated as an adversary is satan. Later, in II Samuel 19:23. "And David said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should this day be *adversaries* to me?..." Again the word is satan and is translated as adversary. I could contiue through the Tanach with this. In each case, the word satan is translated as adversary.
Now, there is the term ha'satan, meaning the adversary. It is used to indicate a definite adversary. It is used in this way in the book of Zecharaih. Zecharia 3:1-2, for example, is sometimes translated as "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the L-RD, and *Satan* standing at his right hand to thwart him. And the L-RD said to Satan, The L-RD rebukes you, O *Satan;* the L-RD that has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" The word translated here as Satan is ha'satan. In other translations, this is translated as the adversary. In the historical context of the prophet, it is used to avoid using the name of the true adversary who was trying to keep the Jews from rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. The adversary was the Samaritans and a highly placed official in the Persian government.
-- A Jewish view of "satan" |
I believe one theory is that the New Testament writers chose to interpret this as an all-encompassing negative force, to the exclusion of the immediate context of the passage. I think this happens a lot with New Testament context being placed upon Old Testament stories. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| youngborean Sage Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Total posts: 799 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups:
5832.96 tokens
|
|
Post 8:
Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I believe one theory is that the New Testament writers chose to interpret this as an all-encompassing negative force, to the exclusion of the immediate context of the passage. I think this happens a lot with New Testament context being placed upon Old Testament stories. |
But New Testament worship didn't originate in a vaccum. I originates in Old testament Hebrew worship just as Judaism has roots in Old Testament Judaism. Neither are a representation of Old Testament worship, both are a result of that foundation. The christian tradition does infer that the adversary is a specific being. Modern Judaism does not. But to say that Modern Judaism's interpretation proves the etymology of a word is silly. Especially considering that a document (the new testament) that pre-dates modern Judaism and supplies the etymology of a physical satan exists. It is more than possible that the Christian interpretation is a closer reflection of Old Testament Worship. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| youngborean Sage Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Total posts: 799 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups:
5832.96 tokens
|
|
Post 9:
Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And more food for thought. There seems to be ample evidence that the Rabbis within Halacha used Satan in a similar (though not completely equal) way.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/SatanHumor.htm
My point is to simply maintain that modern Jewish interpretation is not the proper interpretation of the old testament but is equivalent to modern Christianity in that it was codified at a contemporary time as christianity, and like christianity has undergone 2000 years of exgesis, not only on primary texts, but exegesis of exegesis. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ST88Site SupporterGuru
Joined: 03 Jul 2004 Total posts: 1772 Location: San Diego Age: 41 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
11605.16 tokens
|
|
Post 10:
Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youngborean wrote: |
| The christian tradition does infer that the adversary is a specific being. Modern Judaism does not. But to say that Modern Judaism's interpretation proves the etymology of a word is silly. Especially considering that a document (the new testament) that pre-dates modern Judaism and supplies the etymology of a physical satan exists. It is more than possible that the Christian interpretation is a closer reflection of Old Testament Worship. |
More than possible surely. But there is the ticklish fact that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament. We can sit down for years and debate which version of the Judeo-Christian pantheon of religions is the correct interpreter of the Bible. I was trying to show that it is more than possible to reject the New Testament and still make sense of the Old Testament, however much sense it makes in the first place. Perhaps I should have stated that outright. That "modern" Judaism says it is so should be irrelevant next to the fact that it is there as such. And regardless of who says which interpretation is the correct one and when they might have said it, if it can be interpreted in a certain way, if it is allowable within the logic of the text, then it should be given as much philosophical weight as any other way, shouldn't it? Isn't that what Protestantism is all about? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
