Could Jesus be Satan?

[Zzyzx]

.
According to the bible Satan was "cast down to Earth" – and later a "messiah" shows up claiming to know a great deal about "god", doing "miracles" (supernatural forms of magic), calling himself by the common name Jesus, and is accepted as being "god" (or "son of god") by followers.

Satan, according to lore, is credited with supernatural powers AND a lust for power, a great ego, a deceptive nature, and with being the epitome of evil. As such "he" could easily arrange a "virgin birth", could he not? With supernatural powers couldn't he also walk on water, feed multitudes from a lunchbox, turn water into wine, preach convincingly, and even arrange a "resurrection"?

Since all of that could be done by any competent supernatural being of great power, what is there to insure that Jesus and Satan are not the same being?

One might cite a bible story about Jesus and Satan being in the same place (atop a high mountain), but there were no known witnesses and there is no such mountain (from which all kingdoms of the Earth can be seen from a single point on a sphere). Thus, Satan could well have made up such a story (and in the role of Jesus, tell followers that it had happened – or have them informed by another source).

Couldn't ALL the events attributed to Jesus or God be the actions of a "Satan"? How can one tell for sure which supernatural entity produced what effects?

Couldn't "Satan" arrange for the bible to be written by worshipers / followers / believers? How can anyone be certain that they are not worshiping Satan.

What would be Satan's motivation to create a Jesus character and play the role of "the son of god"? EGO and a desire to be worshipped.

[Beto]

He did confess to being a Christian through that weird Freudian slip, right? Ouch... credit to the creed.

Oh Zz, you king of words you. You must feel flattered. I know I would.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 6 Post 58

Just wondering if you have anything better to do than disprove something you think is likened unto the mythological FSM. Is that how boring your life is? Wow, I'd expect something more from someone of your caliber of "knowledge." Like maybe you could dedicate your time to climbing Mt. Everest, on the other hand, I doubt people climbing Mt. Everest have time to debate who satan is.

Does Mt. Everest address the OP? Is Mt. Everest Satan?

I bet you sit home, constantly on this board, salivating at the moment to push what you think is the ultimate of "knowledge" on to to people you think should accept that your word is the word of all words. I bet you re-read your posts over and over again thinking "wow, I'm really smart."

Huh? Please explain how this part has anything to do with the OP. Please explain how this disproves the object of the OP.

I don't see how someone who may or may not be proud of what they said proves anything. I've said a whole bunch of stuff I'm proud of, I just can't figure out how that has anything to do with the OP. I've said a whole bunch of stuff I'm ashamed of, but none of it had anything to do with this OP.

Seriously, take up a hobby. Maybe you can go to Books-A-Million on a Friday night and play one of those fantasy role playing games. It seems like you're drawn to stuff off the deep end. Or you could just stay home and do some yoga. It really will get you in to shape if you work with it on a daily basis.

Now I'm starting to think you'd rather insult folks than carry on about the OP. Debate is a legitimate hobby, might I suggest you take it up? I mean instead of putting folks down because you lack anything of value to add to the conversation.

You're a piece of work. I hope I get the award for "calling out an egotistical self-proclaimed wanna be know it all" instead of the "most polite" debater.

So, this dude offers up a question for debate. He's just trying to sort it all out, and if he's off, he'll head back home. If he's right, he won't rub it in your face, he'll just let it stand. So this dude here offers up an OP. Right or wrong, he's feeding the debate horse.
Then along comes someone who is incapable of commenting on the OP. Now this dude, who it should be apparent by now, is utterly incapable of adding anything to the debate, well this guy comes along and he tries to insult the guy who asked the question in the first place.
Now we know this guy who asked the question is honorable, because he asks the question. He puts himself 'out there' and is willing to take his lumps. He's never given any indication that he will dogmatically stick to his point (though often he will use points he's willing to stand by).
So anyway, here we are with this dude who can only offer snide, irrelevant, rude commentary.
I'm thinking, I don't care what this interloper, this insulter, this dude with nothing but insults to offer has to say.
I'm immediately unimpressed with this dude's lack of a verifiable position. I'm immediately struck with a decision to make. In looking at this decision, I'm forced by my ingrained sense of reason to accept the premise of the 'questioner', who offers valid commentary, over this interloper who offers insults.

You are not a debater, your a trouble maker. You've got your mind set and no one can change it. That means that whenever you come to this board you aren't really here to debate, you're here to try and convince anyone else that you are so smart and no one can beat you in a debate.

I find it interesting that someone would not offer anything for their position, but would insult another for theirs.
Dang you Zyzzx, dang you and your posts I can't disprove.

The only reason you are here is to pretend like you have all the answers and you want people to recognize you as having them. You want to be revered.

Um, now this is gonna be kinda weird, but why should we revere your slanderous post?

Tragically, you're a loser. Sorry to say but you've lost here. Even if just one person recognizes that you are a loser, it's worth it to me. And, I'm that one person. So it's worth it. I recognize that you are an insult to anyone who has ever tried to be more than they thought they could be.

Zzyzx, I love you man, but you're a loser because I couldn't prove you wrong.

Why? Because there is always someone like you that decides you are so much smarter than them and has to try and prove it by making silly remarks and rebuttals as if they are the king of words. You know what, you have no idea what words are....words are the mere makings of what an idea would try to be if it could described in words. but it can't, even though you think you could.

Please explain what this has to do with the OP.

Take your game somewhere else....you're a nobody here Z.

See Z, we don't want you saying stuff we can't prove wrong. Since we can't prove you wrong, you are the nobody. I know it contradicts all logic and good sense, but that ain't never got in the way of ignorance before.

Don't worry about responding because I refuse to read your response. I've already read enough of your garbage to know that you are not worthy of me coming back to read what you don't know.

Please don't respond, I fear how your response may damage my already tanked reputation.

I know you're going to try and come back with something that you think will be "ultra-intelligent" however, nothing you say is intelligent because you are ignorant of so much that even the smartest thought you have is as dumb as you try convince people of it being smart.

Zzyzx, please listen to me. Your most valid response here would be to place your thumb to your nose, extend your fingers, and wiggle 'em real good.

What will be your fancy Z? Oh, look at this intolerable christian? (Which really means, "this person figured me out." Or, what an idiot everybody, do you hear this person? Can you believe that they are questioning me? (Meaning...please come back with some great quip, like all my fans do when weirdos like this one question me.) Or maybe you just think you have the victory because this board is dominated and ran, in part, by people who try and convince others that God is meaningless.

Caaaaaan you feeeeel the loooove tonight?

You're a true ignoramous Zzzzz, you should take advice from your nick and take a nap, for a very, very, very long time.

I gotta tell ya Z, this guy should know what an ignoramous is. If he's calling you one because he can't prove your OP wrong, then you know, I mean, c'mon.

[Cmass]

Hey Z,

Just wondering if you have anything better to do than disprove something you think is likened unto the mythological FSM. Is that how boring your life is? Wow, I'd expect something more from someone of your caliber of "knowledge." Like maybe you could dedicate your time to climbing Mt. Everest, on the other hand, I doubt people climbing Mt. Everest have time to debate who satan is.

I bet you sit home, constantly on this board, salivating at the moment to push what you think is the ultimate of "knowledge" on to to people you think should accept that your word is the word of all words. I bet you re-read your posts over and over again thinking "wow, I'm really smart."

.......... Tragically, you're a loser. Sorry to say but you've lost here. Even if just one person recognizes that you are a loser, it's worth it to me. And, I'm that one person. So it's worth it. I recognize that you are an insult to anyone who has ever tried to be more than they thought they could be.

Chay, I notice you are very new to this forum and thus I highly recommend you read the rules of engagement before continuing to engage in discussion.

Ad hominem is not acceptable in this forum - which is one of the reasons this forum has been relatively successful over the years. If you feel you cannot debate the topic without displaying this kind of behavior, then leave. You may feel more comfortable debating on Youtube where the level of discourse is in line with your offering.

For the record: ZZ has won an award for best debater last year which included votes from both Christians and non-theists. Second, this board is owned and operated by a fundamentalist Christian and moderated by a combination of theists and non-theists. The person who has started the most topics is the owner of the board. Third, the largest single user group on this forum is Christian.

If you choose to continue acting in this manner, no doubt a Christian or non-theist moderator will intervene.

* Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

[otseng]

Hey Z,

Just wondering if you have anything better to do than disprove something you think is likened unto the mythological FSM. Is that how boring your life is? Wow, I'd expect something more from someone of your caliber of "knowledge." Like maybe you could dedicate your time to climbing Mt. Everest, on the other hand, I doubt people climbing Mt. Everest have time to debate who satan is.

Moderator warning:

Please review the rules.

In particular:
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

[Fallibleone]

Edit: otseng beat me to it. Just to add: Everyone, pleasy try to avoid responding to the off-topic post. Let's get back on track.

[melodious]

Edit: otseng beat me to it. Just to add: Everyone, pleasy try to avoid responding to the off-topic post. Let's get back on track.

I agree, Fallibleone. However, I must say that I do share Littlepig's opinion that the "flame" was about a D or D-. I've resorted to similar behavior in the past on this forum, and then later on see the error of my ways, realizing that I was having a bad day and just taking it out on someone here (not to mention, I'm just a little schizo sometimes - damn those demons!).

To get back on track with the OP, I would like to introduce an interesting factor into the equation. The recently published Gospel of Judas lends an interesting thought on the issue of what god Jesus was actually the son of. This gospel is very gnostic in content and theology, and illustrates Judas as the hero and not the villain of the Jesus story. The gnostics did not believe that Jesus was the son of the god in the Old Testament, but rather was sent by one who is above the Creator of this world. The Gospel of Judas asserts that the god which the other disciples worshipped was what gnostics called the demiurge (false god, or god of ignorance), and Jesus points this out in Judas several times.

Conclusion: Certain Christians (gnostics) in the early centuries believed that Jesus was from a different god than what other Christians ("orthodox") believed.

Now we turn and look at the "orthodox" accounts of Judas in the NT and we find a very different view of Judas than what is presented in the Gospel which carries his name (many scholars view this gospel as a Sethian text, and if anyone here has read my other posts, they will probably already see where I'm going with this). Now in the four gospels in the NT we have different details given about the nature of Judas' motives and character. The one I find most interesting is found in Luke. Luke states that Satan entered Judas and drove him to the dirty deed of betraying his master. So if the "orthodox" Christians viewed Judas' act as being influenced or inspired by Satan, and the gnostics viewed Judas' "betrayal" as something Jesus asked him to do, then we come to the conclusion that the thing (Satan) which "possessed" Judas to do the act in Luke could be equated with the same force that is behind Jesus asking Judas to "betray" him in the gnostic gospel. Then we look at the trinity doctrine and see that Jesus is equated with God. So this would lead us to conclude that whatever god Jesus was the son of is not the god of the Jews, according to the gnostic account, and so it could be said that it is the same force which "possesses" Judas in the NT ("orthodox") accounts.

To make a synoptic conclusion: The gnostics' god could be said to be the "orthodoxy's" Satan and vice-versa.

As a Gnostic and a modern, or symbolic, Satanist, I will make this statement: The Christians' "devil" is my god (in symbolic terms), and their god is a human fallicy beyond measure and (again, in symbolic terms) my mortal enemy, or adversary!

Note: the word 'devil' comes from the Sanskrit word 'devi' meaning 'goddess,' and we all know how the early "orthodox" Christian church demonized the goddess, dubbing her "the beast." The number 666 is also associated with the goddess and her consort, the sun.

In the spirit of the serpent of gnosis - M

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Just wondering if you have anything better to do...

This is a simple attack, which is opposed to both the rules and a basic understanding of civility. Further, no one will be convinced by these kinds of posts.
Do not make personal attacks on other members. Rather, provide relevant and thoughtful arguments and evidence.

[melodious]

Moderator Comment

Just wondering if you have anything better to do...

This is a simple attack, which is opposed to both the rules and a basic understanding of civility. Further, no one will be convinced by these kinds of posts.
Do not make personal attacks on other members. Rather, provide relevant and thoughtful arguments and evidence.

Chay obviously didn't have anything better to do either. Bad Chay... baaaad Chay. I'm wondering if he was moved by the holy spirit to write that flame. Personally, I've written better ones, but I've tried to realize since then that the forum is not about people agreeing with you; rather the contrary. So, Chay, keep a stiff upper lip and get back in there and give 'em hell (of course, civilly this time).

The serpent is crawling up you pants - M

[LittlePig]

To get back on track with the OP, I would like to introduce an interesting factor into the equation. The recently published Gospel of Judas lends an interesting thought on the issue of what god Jesus was actually the son of. This gospel is very gnostic in content and theology, and illustrates Judas as the hero and not the villain of the Jesus story. The gnostics did not believe that Jesus was the son of the god in the Old Testament, but rather was sent by one who is above the Creator of this world. The Gospel of Judas asserts that the god which the other disciples worshipped was what gnostics called the demiurge (false god, or god of ignorance), and Jesus points this out in Judas several times.

One wonders if alternate versions can be purchased from P y P Ceniza (as was the case for De Umbrarum Regni Novem Portis).

Maybe Judas = Satan, and Jesus was a ruse to throw off the less dedicated runners.

Note: the word 'devil' comes from the Sanskrit word 'devi' meaning 'goddess,' and we all know how the early "orthodox" Christian church demonized the goddess, dubbing her "the beast." The number 666 is also associated with the goddess and her consort, the sun.

As the old saying goes, one man's goddess is another man's fallen angel.

[LittlePig]

According to Disney, the Users are the Pleroma, and the hacker/video game designer Flynn is Jesus. Dillinger would be the unwise Sophia, and the MCP would be the Demiurge.

Since Flynn acts as a benevolent and subversive representative of the Users attempting to bring data back to the Pneumatic routines, that would make Jesus both God and the Serpent, though whether the Serpent is indeed Satan depends on your domain.