The Case for Satan (Let the Defense speak)

Originally posted by rlnochance
I can understand and respect your point of view, BC. Allow me to give you a detailed response as to some logical fallacies which are common in modern Christianity. These in turn lead towards confusion and dichotomies *edit in your own 'story'.

Anyways... the first problem is that you, and many other christians don't and have not ever read hebrew. I'm sorry, but this is a prerequisite towards understanding the bible in it's fullest. You might ask why. The reason is that as you transliterate a book or document, the meaning changes. There are some words which are incredibly relevant that are not understood because they don't or didn't translate well.

The first is Satan. There are three satan's technically listed in the bible that I'm aware of. The first is satan - a generic term for adversary. The second is ha-satan - "The Adversary" or "The accuser" or "The great adversary". This is the name formally ascribed to Lucifer. There is, finally, 'the dragon' or the 'great dragon'. While many ascribe this to be Lucifer, there is compelling evidence that it is another entity altogether.

www.aletheiacollege.net...
......

edit on 26-9-2011 by rlnochance because: added more

I am NOT a Christian.

I totally understand that there is 'god' and a 'Lord god'....in fact that is in the courtroom dialouge.

I broke the main issue down without each technical aspect in order to keep the attention of the readers, and for them to keep focus of the main point...not that I didn't know it...

And I most certainly explained that Satan really means 'adversary/enemy'...opponent.

Did you truly read the script? Not saying that in a negative way, just seems that you didn't.

Originally posted by rlnochance
reply to post by bogomil

 

Elitist? You seriously dredged up elitism as a means of refuting what I've said - then compare it to secret bible codes and what not when I'm talking straight fact?! Unreal. That's called a straw man argument, and holds no water.

Your analogy is akin to saying that you shouldn't need to know how to multiply or divide to be able to do algebra, because it's elitist to be non-inclusive to people who don't understand the concepts.

My goal here, if anything, was to at least show that most people are dealing with the product of (gasp) thousands of years, translations, several languages, modifications, etc and that if they want to study the matter they should at least try to get as close to the source as possible so as to best understand it. If you want to misinterpret that as some kind of christian crusade, that's your prerogative (despite the fact I already stated I'm a classical diest w/ a christian slant - primarily due to upbringing).

FACT: The bible wasn't written in english originally
FACT: English and Hebrew are different languages with different forms
FACT: There are words that didn't translate right which hinder people's understandings.

Personally I'd recommend the 'dead sea scrolls bible'. It's probably as accurate as you're going to get in an english context. Not that you have any interest, I guess that's more aimed at people who might.

Absolutely correct!!

And the Dead Sea Scrolls is where the history of the 'visitors' (Anunnaki) derrive from; it explains the wars fought between Enlil (Lord God) and Enki (God aka Satan), and why were created.

reply to post by rlnochance


You wrote:

["My goal here, if anything, was to at least show that most people are dealing with the product of (gasp) thousands of years, translations, several languages, modifications, etc and that if they want to study the matter they should at least try to get as close to the source as possible so as to best understand it."]

That didn't get well across, as the initial basis for your (for a scholar/amateur-scholar completely respectable) digression into the hebrew language was a common ideological/religious basis, which you added a dimension to.

To some extent I can understand your position, as I often am in a somewhat similar situation, where theists ignorant of real science/logic (ignorant to such an extent, that they don't even know how ignorant they really are) start to throw their bizarre pseudo-science around.

I have a college education in very hard science myself, but it would be both snobbish, an 'authority-argument' and contrary to debate-forum intents if I insisted on other people taking a college education. A few key-concepts easily found on wiki should do the trick.

On this forum, parallel to you, we also have theists, who claims the opposite of you, that the bible has become 'better' over time due to 'god's' later 'inspiration', and......

theists who trust in the Panin-based bible-code system, which requires a knowledge of greek and twenty years of numerological, manual bible-analysis....

The contemporary bible-relater relies on christianity being expressed through the bible they read, and to write as..... you put it

Quote (11:13 AM): ["Anyways... the first problem is that you, and many other christians don't and have not ever read hebrew. I'm sorry, but this is a prerequisite towards understanding the bible in it's fullest."]

is an elitist claim. In spite of your......

Quote (12:21 PM): [" Your analogy is akin to saying that you shouldn't need to know how to multiply or divide to be able to do algebra, because it's elitist to be non-inclusive to people who don't understand the concepts."]

Multiplication etc. is not identifiable with learning hebrew.

reply to post by rlnochance

There is also the variation between GOD and the LORD. In hebrew, these are markedly different entities; the reason that modern christians believe them to be the same primarily can lay directly on the catholic church and their desire in centuries gone by to move from a quasi-polytheism to a more monotheistic culture.

You don't think that was what was going on inside Judaism, too?
Could you imagine there having been even more god names at an earlier time?
For example, why is Yahweh in Genesis when he said he was never known as Yahweh previous to that time (in Exodus)?
Could the scribes or priests have been involved in a purging of the oldest names for God and back-dating the Yahweh name?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by rlnochance

 

There is also the variation between GOD and the LORD. In hebrew, these are markedly different entities; the reason that modern christians believe them to be the same primarily can lay directly on the catholic church and their desire in centuries gone by to move from a quasi-polytheism to a more monotheistic culture.

You don't think that was what was going on inside Judaism, too?
Could you imagine there having been even more god names at an earlier time?
For example, why is Yahweh in Genesis when he said he was never known as Yahweh previous to that time (in Exodus)?
Could the scribes or priests have been involved in a purging of the oldest names for God and back-dating the Yahweh name?

edit on 26-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yes indeed


They did so at the Council of Nice, in 325 AD

Enki, Enlil, Ra, Horus, Isis, Marduk, Osiris, were actual names, replaced with Mary, Peter, Joseph, Paul, etc....

Polytheism is REAL...we've been taught that it is mythology, so that we only accept one god also. The worship (hebrew "to work for") /slave issue was very important to the individual gods, as they did not want slaves working for (worshipping) any other gods.....

Gods= The Visitors (ET's)

reply to post by ButterCookie

I have this two volume set of books I bought twenty five years ago which are the nicest looking books in my library, called, Preparation for the Gospel, by Eusebius.
en.wikipedia.org...
It goes into the concept that God somehow introduced ideas into mythology which could later be a foundation for people to understand the Gospel, once that became available for consideration. I recommend everyone reading it and to at least read about it, such as following the link I provided.

Christians are NOT allowed to question.

GUILTY!
Thats God.

god gave man free will? that is a lye.
if man does not choice god and be a slave on bended knee.
he will torcher them endlessly to make them obey him!
any that dont stay there for ever. that is evil and petty.

as for jesus. yes he did good miracles.
But only for people to worship him.
did jesus ever heal some one who did not end up as a worshiper?
if they had just said thank you. and gone on with there life.
and Not worshipped him. jesus would have sent them to hell.
now thats your good and nice jesus.
Just like a politician canvassing for Votes.
the one who wins the war. wrights history.
what IF Hitler had won?

(locusts....chirrp chirrp)

reply to post by buddha

. . .as for jesus. yes he did good miracles.
But only for people to worship him.

Are there instances where he did not, as in turning someone down?
Jesus healed people who asked him to, which would indicate a certain level of belief.
I think that he wanted them to believe in the concept which he was the embodiment of, which is a person caring about another person, and not holding themselves as being somehow intrinsically superior to another.

Originally posted by buddha
Christians are NOT allowed to question.

GUILTY!
Thats God.

god gave man free will? that is a lye.
if man does not choice god and be a slave on bended knee.
he will torcher them endlessly to make them obey him!
any that dont stay there for ever. that is evil and petty.

as for jesus. yes he did good miracles.
But only for people to worship him.
did jesus ever heal some one who did not end up as a worshiper?
if they had just said thank you. and gone on with there life.
and Not worshipped him. jesus would have sent them to hell.
now thats your good and nice jesus.
Just like a politician canvassing for Votes.
the one who wins the war. wrights history.
what IF Hitler had won?

(locusts....chirrp chirrp)

What you say of Christ is not accurate my friend. He never asked to be glorified, but asked that the father be glorified through his works.

I won't beat you with the scripture to prove it, but at least consider looking into what he actually said.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by buddha
Christians are NOT allowed to question.

GUILTY!
Thats God.

god gave man free will? that is a lye.
if man does not choice god and be a slave on bended knee.
he will torcher them endlessly to make them obey him!
any that dont stay there for ever. that is evil and petty.

as for jesus. yes he did good miracles.
But only for people to worship him.
did jesus ever heal some one who did not end up as a worshiper?
if they had just said thank you. and gone on with there life.
and Not worshipped him. jesus would have sent them to hell.
now thats your good and nice jesus.
Just like a politician canvassing for Votes.
the one who wins the war. wrights history.
what IF Hitler had won?

(locusts....chirrp chirrp)

Oh indeed, the winner writes the history...

that's why the bible is written slanted toward Jehovah (Lord God)

Here's a mind-blowing concept....but hear me out.

Jesus Christ is actually Satan's seed (Enki)....

He is God's son. Satan is referred to as 'God' until he sides with the humans...

Remember, God and Lord God are two different gods, the higher ranking one being 'Lord'.

Jesus is concieved by artificial inseminaiton between Enki (Satan) and Isis (Mary)....

Jesus's "out-of-the box thinking, free-yourself" characteristics are like his father's, Satan (Enki/God)

God and Lord God are at major war.

That's why Lord God allows him to be killed.

What say you?

Originally posted by ButterCookie
What say you?

I gave you one star for originality, but no flag due to lack of character development.

Elaborate!

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by ButterCookie
What say you?

I gave you one star for originality, but no flag due to lack of character development.

Elaborate!

With Love,

Your Brother

You need character development?

Here it goes....

In the bible, there are plenty of references (especially in the Old Testament) of 'God' and 'Lord God'. They are not same 'God'. One has a higher rank, thus the title, 'Lord'.

"Satan', or rather, the name Satan does not come on the scene until after the Garden of Eden Incident. As you may know by now, Satan is just a term of slander; it was not a name. It meant, "enemy".

When you look at how Jesus was concieved, it was through artificial insemination; or as Christians call it "Virgin Birth".

The DNA (seed) was from God, not Lord God.

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman,
born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
Galatians 4:4-6 (NIV)

Mary was not 'blessed' by the Lord God, it was by 'God'

(Just the same as Eve did not get pregnant by Adam...she was 'blessed' by the Lord God once, and God once.

Cain is Lord God's son and Able was God's son.

That's why the Lord God did not punish Cain for murdering Abel,and told him he would be protected.

Remember God and Lord God are at war.

reply to post by ButterCookie

. . ."out-of-the box thinking, free-yourself" characteristics are like his father's, Satan (Enki/. . .

You are ignoring what satan means. To me, the "out of the box" is to make himself the supreme God, while only being the highest level god who happens to live on this planet, then on the merit of his supposed rank, he demands worship. His satan-hood comes from his habit of demonstrating his superiority over other gods by leading an alliance of armies to defeat a weaker enemy, then claiming to be the magical cause for this victory, since these people somehow worshiped him instead of the gods of the vanquished, so he ends up being the scourge of the earth, from the viewpoint of the ordinary person.

reply to post by ButterCookie

When you look at how Jesus was concieved, it was through artificial insemination; or as Christians call it "Virgin Birth".

Right, but I don't think it means that it was God's seed, just that it was an agency of God which performed the procedure. The couple, Mary and Joseph were already betrothed but not yet officially married so God would have considered it good enough for Him and needed to speed things up a bit to meet a timeline.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

When you look at how Jesus was concieved, it was through artificial insemination; or as Christians call it "Virgin Birth".

Right, but I don't think it means that it was God's seed, just that it was an agency of God which performed the procedure. The couple, Mary and Joseph were already betrothed but not yet officially married so God would have considered it good enough for Him and needed to speed things up a bit to meet a timeline.

You are correct!

His agency ( the angels) performed the procedure....

God's seed means that it was HIS DNA used.

reply to post by ButterCookie



My love and I have taken a liking to watching "Weeds" when we get together. We just started so we watched every episode through season 5 (6 just came out). What we discovered is that we do not like to wait to know what is happening in the next show.

So....

You have a plot, character development, but what is the crescendo?

How does this final battle play out?

For a star, lets see the end.

As promised, you get a flag for the character development.



With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by ButterCookie

God's seed means that it was HIS DNA used.

Romans 1:3
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dauid kata sarka

Of His son (God's son), the coming to be, out of the seed of David, according to human nature.
That would be my translation of it. Have to be careful with looking at other's translations on verses like this where you can make little subtle word substitutions that may be correct technically, but a little misleading to the unsuspecting.
People want to genetically link Jesus to God but I am suspicious of their motives. I don't mean you but whoever was the source of the religion version you picked up on at some point in your life.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

God's seed means that it was HIS DNA used.

Romans 1:3
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dauid kata sarka

Of His son (God's son), the coming to be, out of the seed of David, according to human nature.
That would be my translation of it. Have to be careful with looking at other's translations on verses like this where you can make little subtle word substitutions that may be correct technically, but a little misleading to the unsuspecting.
People want to genetically link Jesus to God but I am suspicious of their motives. I don't mean you but whoever was the source of the religion version you picked up on at some point in your life.

edit on 26-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I do not use any of my religious upbringings as any sources anymore, nor do I with the dogma that came along with it.

Jesus was God's son, but not the god you think I am talking about. 'God' in the bible referred to the god that Christians call the 'devil' or Satan; opposite of Lord God (the ones that Christians worship)

Satan was a god.

He was the god that was on humanity's side in the wars against the Lord God.

reply to post by ButterCookie
You might want to look at Pthena's thread, Jesus is not the Messiah.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
He explains how, like you say, the "devil" that came to Jesus in the temptation in the wilderness would have been the OT god, or what the people back then thought of as god.
I just have a problem with the DNA thing.