Is it possible Satan/Devil/Serpent/Belial are distinct?

[cloudyday2]

Is it possible Satan/Devil/Serpent/Belial are distinct? Specifically are there different words used for these religious characters in Greek when mentioned in the New Testament?

 

[salt-n-light]

Is it possible Satan/Devil/Serpent/Belial are distinct? Specifically are there different words used for these religious characters in Greek when mentioned in the New Testament?

distinct as in distinct persons?

 

[eleos1954]

Is it possible Satan/Devil/Serpent/Belial are distinct? Specifically are there different words used for these religious characters in Greek when mentioned in the New Testament?

***
Revelation 20

2 He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

You can get to the original Hebrew and/or Greek by using a concordance. Easily done here at www.biblehub.com (free) just a click or 2.

 

[cloudyday2]

distinct as in distinct persons?

Yeah, modern Jews and some readings of the OT imagine Satan as a test-giver instead of as a leader of the forces of darkness. So that made me wonder if early Christians saw Satan and the devil as distinct persons or not.

 

[eleos1954]

Is it possible Satan/Devil/Serpent/Belial are distinct? Specifically are there different words used for these religious characters in Greek when mentioned in the New Testament?

Oh forgot ... Belial

2nd Corinthians 6

15 What accord has Christ with Belial?

Greek Definition

Beliar: "lord of the forest," Beliar, a name of Satan
Original Word: Βελίαρ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Proper Noun, Indeclinable
Transliteration: Beliar
Phonetic Spelling: (bel-ee'-al)
Short Definition: Beliar
Definition: Belial, a demon, and in fact a name for Satan.

From Strongs concordance

God Bless

 

[salt-n-light]

Yeah, modern Jews and some readings of the OT imagine Satan as a test-giver instead of as a leader of the forces of darkness. So that made me wonder if early Christians saw Satan and the devil as distinct persons or not.

Interesting topic, I actually wanted to look into that. My theory is that its the same spirit but take on different forms and roles, and present himself differently, thus being distinct persons. So probably in some instances, he would be seen as Satan, or serpent, or Lucifer, or the Devil, or sometimes interchangeably, but still the same evil spirit.

Again, just a theory off of my head.

 

[eleos1954]

Interesting topic, I actually wanted to look into that. My theory is that its the same spirit but take on different forms and roles, and present himself differently, thus being distinct persons. So probably in some instances, he would be seen as Satan, or serpent, or Lucifer, or the Devil, or sometimes interchangeably, but still the same evil spirit.

Again, just a theory off of my head.

Perhaps interesting reading, however, keep in mind that they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Orthodox Jews of today still believe Messiah has not come. This is why they still want to rebuild the temple.

Among followers of Judaism, Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[1] However, since the traditional Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity has never been a central issue for Judaism.

One can read about Judaism here: (specifically about views on Jesus) All kinds of info, perhaps you can find info more specific to what you are interested in.

Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia

Here's a article I found that you might find interesting.

The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament | Dr. Michael Heiser

God Bless

 

[salt-n-light]

Perhaps interesting reading, however, keep in mind that they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Orthodox Jews of today still believe Messiah has not come. This is why they still want to rebuild the temple.

Among followers of Judaism, Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[1] However, since the traditional Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity has never been a central issue for Judaism.

One can read about Judaism here: (specifically about views on Jesus) All kinds of info, perhaps you can find info more specific to what you are interested in.

Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia

Here's a article I found that you might find interesting.

The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament | Dr. Michael Heiser

God Bless

Good to know, will definitely read in those links. I had the early christians in mind, when i was making that theory, so I would feel that they would see it more interchangeably than the Jews would.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is it possible Satan/Devil/Serpent/Belial are distinct? Specifically are there different words used for these religious characters in Greek when mentioned in the New Testament?

Well, they are different Greek terms. The word "devil" comes from the Greek word "diabolos" through the Latin "diabolus", which also gives rise to the Spanish word "diablo" and the English "diabolical". The word diabolos means "slanderer" or "accuser", and in that sense is a translation of the Hebrew shaytan, which likewise means "accuser"; the Hebrew shaytan is where we get "Satan" through its Hellenization and Latinization (both of which are "Satan").

Belial is the Hellenization of beli-yaal, meaning "without value" or "worthless", which during the Second Temple period came to be used in reference to the chief of the fallen angels, referred to in Second Temple literature often as Samael or Satan. "Samael" is the closest there is to an actual name given for the conceptual chief of the fallen angels, "Satan" is chiefly a title, as would be "the devil" which is effectively a translation; though Belial is treated as a name for this creature in the literature.

From one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, we find this passage:

"You made Belial for the pit, angel of enmity; in darkness is his domain, his counsel is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits of his lot are angels of destruction, they walk in the laws of darkness; towards it goes their only desire." - Belial - Wikipedia

The identification of the serpent with Satan likewise comes to us from the Second Temple period, the most affirmative I am aware of is in the work known as the Life of Adam and Eve, in which the serpent is explicitly described as being the devil; this tradition is also nodded to several times in the New Testament, perhaps most notably in the Apocalypse of St. John where the devil is frequently depicted as "the serpent" and "the dragon"; St. Paul's statement that "For the God of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet" is a possible allusion to the Eden prophecy concerning the child of Eve crushing the serpent, long understood in Christianity to be a prophecy about Christ conquering the devil.

So, in a word, the most clear position that exists within the biblical material is that there are fallen angels, known as "devils" and "demons" in the Greek text, and the chief of these is known variously as "Satan", "the Devil" and more rarely "Belial"; which seem to largely be taken from Second Temple Jewish ideas about fallen angels and their chief "Belial" or "Samael", identified as "the Satan"; such views did not survive in mainstream Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, but continued in Christian thought.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[eleos1954]

Interesting topic, I actually wanted to look into that. My theory is that its the same spirit but take on different forms and roles, and present himself differently, thus being distinct persons. So probably in some instances, he would be seen as Satan, or serpent, or Lucifer, or the Devil, or sometimes interchangeably, but still the same evil spirit.

Again, just a theory off of my head.

Well, understand you are presenting a theory, but Satan (before) being cast to the earth was Lucifer identified as the covering cherub (angel), and 1/3 of the angels were cast down with him. They rebelled against God.

Also using the theory you would also need to apply it to God/Jesus and His angels as well, and I don't see that working out very well ;o) God is the creator of all things, including angels.

The "war" is between God/Jesus and His angels and Lucifer/Satan and his angels. Yes, in a simple sense between good and evil, good spirits and evil spirits which are "generic" terms to describe the character(s) of "groups" but that does not mean they do not have individuality within the "groups".

Such as the term people ... you have people, but you have Jane, Bob and Joe etc. Individual separate distinct persons all with individual characters within the group we call people. And within that group "people", you have good people and bad people and everything in between, but they are also separate and distinct individuals.

God Bless.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, they are different Greek terms. The word "devil" comes from the Greek word "diabolos" through the Latin "diabolus", which also gives rise to the Spanish word "diablo" and the English "diabolical". The word diabolos means "slanderer" or "accuser", and in that sense is a translation of the Hebrew shaytan, which likewise means "accuser"; the Hebrew shaytan is where we get "Satan" through its Hellenization and Latinization (both of which are "Satan").

Belial is the Hellenization of beli-yaal, meaning "without value" or "worthless", which during the Second Temple period came to be used in reference to the chief of the fallen angels, referred to in Second Temple literature often as Samael or Satan. "Samael" is the closest there is to an actual name given for the conceptual chief of the fallen angels, "Satan" is chiefly a title, as would be "the devil" which is effectively a translation; though Belial is treated as a name for this creature in the literature.

From one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, we find this passage:

"You made Belial for the pit, angel of enmity; in darkness is his domain, his counsel is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits of his lot are angels of destruction, they walk in the laws of darkness; towards it goes their only desire." - Belial - Wikipedia

The identification of the serpent with Satan likewise comes to us from the Second Temple period, the most affirmative I am aware of is in the work known as the Life of Adam and Eve, in which the serpent is explicitly described as being the devil; this tradition is also nodded to several times in the New Testament, perhaps most notably in the Apocalypse of St. John where the devil is frequently depicted as "the serpent" and "the dragon"; St. Paul's statement that "For the God of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet" is a possible allusion to the Eden prophecy concerning the child of Eve crushing the serpent, long understood in Christianity to be a prophecy about Christ conquering the devil.

So, in a word, the most clear position that exists within the biblical material is that there are fallen angels, known as "devils" and "demons" in the Greek text, and the chief of these is known variously as "Satan", "the Devil" and more rarely "Belial"; which seem to largely be taken from Second Temple Jewish ideas about fallen angels and their chief "Belial" or "Samael", identified as "the Satan"; such views did not survive in mainstream Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, but continued in Christian thought.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you think Jesus and His first disciples believed in the idea of villainous demons led by a devil/Satan/serpent, original sin in Eden, hell, etc.? As you know, many Christians argue that these ideas were invented during the Middle Ages. I think these Christians might be making the mistake of assuming that modern Jewish theology is representative of Second Temple Jewish theology and overlook these Enochian/Essene ideas. What do you think?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Do you think Jesus and His first disciples believed in the idea of villainous demons led by a devil/Satan/serpent, original sin in Eden, hell, etc.? As you know, many Christians argue that these ideas were invented during the Middle Ages.

Certainly the disciples believed all that Yeshua showed them and taught them,
and all that Yahweh revealed to them.

Yes, in the middle ages, moutains of false information became available and passed on as "truth", in order to oppose Yahweh's Truth.

 

[Hawkins]

Yeah, modern Jews and some readings of the OT imagine Satan as a test-giver instead of as a leader of the forces of darkness. So that made me wonder if early Christians saw Satan and the devil as distinct persons or not.

Modern Jews are corrupted. Ancient Jews took Satan as the sole powerful enemy/adversary of God.

Jude 1:9 (NIV2011)
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

The above is confirming such a concept. There's a whole book written back on how Satan had a dispute with archangel Michael over Moses' body.

The verse reconciled all the names of Satan except for Lucifer. Lucifer is a corrupted archangel, he's nearly perfect and truly powerful. It's a common belief that it's just yet another name of Satan.


Revelation 20:2 (NIV2011)
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

 

[salt-n-light]

Well, understand you are presenting a theory, but Satan (before) being cast to the earth was Lucifer identified as the covering cherub (angel), and 1/3 of the angels were cast down with him. They rebelled against God.

Also using the theory you would also need to apply it to God/Jesus and His angels as well, and I don't see that working out very well ;o) God is the creator of all things, including angels.

The "war" is between God/Jesus and His angels and Lucifer/Satan and his angels. Yes, in a simple sense between good and evil, good spirits and evil spirits which are "generic" terms to describe the character(s) of "groups" but that does not mean they do not have individuality within the "groups".

Such as the term people ... you have people, but you have Jane, Bob and Joe etc. Individual separate distinct persons all with individual characters within the group we call people. And within that group "people", you have good people and bad people and everything in between, but they are also separate and distinct individuals.

God Bless.

I feel like although they do have individuality within the groups, I don't think they are totally seperate, nor do I think they want to present theirselves as such which is why I think "distinct persons" was a better phrase to describe them.

Jesus, although an individual, didn't present Himself as a completely seperate person, and still connects Himself to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Such as how I've seen it in the bible, where Satan, Lucifer, and the Devil are used interchangably sometimes, and sometimes seperately in certain instances, not because they are not individuals, but because they are of the same spirit but operate with distinction. The apperance of Jesus, God, and Holy Spirit are never the same as the same with Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil, but they are of the same good and evil spirit, but some occasions in the Bible calls to make the distinction of role.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Modern Jews are corrupted.

That's prejudiced, isn't it?
Modern man is corrupt, everywhere, every group, every government,
with almost no exception. Possibly, no exception.

Okay, there may be a better outlook than this, expecting or at least HOPING
that some group is not corrupt.

People look for and join groups every day, for politic, healthic, societic, financic,
familic, religic reasons.
They may be desperate OR at least HOPING they have found or will find them to be real and true and helpful.....
then most of the time that doesn't work out as they HOPED or expected.

 

[eleos1954]

Many thoughts we contemplate in futility regarding God, but we do contemplate them. Can't wait to get to heaven so we know the truth about everything. ;o)

God Bless.

 

[Hawkins]

That's prejudiced, isn't it?
Modern man is corrupt, everywhere, every group, every government,
with almost no exception. Possibly, no exception.

Okay, there may be a better outlook than this, expecting or at least HOPING
that some group is not corrupt.

People look for and join groups every day, for politic, healthic, societic, financic,
familic, religic reasons.
They may be desperate OR at least HOPING they have found or will find them to be real and true and helpful.....
then most of the time that doesn't work out as they HOPED or expected.

No.

Corrupt here means they don't have a legal set of Jewish laws. They don't have the legitimate basic Jewish concepts. They don't even observe the laws up to standard. Only a certain percent of them (the orthodox Jews) still pursuing the laws.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No.

Corrupt here means they don't have a legal set of Jewish laws. They don't have the legitimate basic Jewish concepts. They don't even observe the laws up to standard. Only a certain percent of them (the orthodox Jews) still pursuing the laws.

Well, you say "no", but then say "yes":
most people everywhere don't have a legal set of Jewish laws.
They don't have the legitimate basic Jewish concepts (don't even know them),
They don't even observe the laws up to standard.
Only a certain percent of them (anyone, not just orthodox Jews) still pursuing the laws (Jewish or Christian or otherwise) ..

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Many thoughts we contemplate in futility regarding God, but we do contemplate them. Can't wait to get to heaven so we know the truth about everything.

Why wait ?

 

[Hawkins]

Well, you say "no", but then say "yes":
most people everywhere don't have a legal set of Jewish laws.
They don't have the legitimate basic Jewish concepts (don't even know them),
They don't even observe the laws up to standard.
Only a certain percent of them (anyone, not just orthodox Jews) still pursuing the laws (Jewish or Christian or otherwise) ..

It's not a prejudice in this case. It's a correct speculation about the Jews. Why bringing people who are not Jews?