Origin of Satan

[JoeP222w]

To this day, Christian baptism requires a person to solemnly" renounce the devil and all his works" and to accept exorcism.

What chapter and verse is that in the Bible?

 

[SkyWriting]

Is it true its a title and not his real name?

What is the difference?

 

[he-man]

• Every Hebrew word, including names, have a Hebrew meaning. Satan is no different and it means adversary. Jesus is tempted by Satan in the wilderness

  Read the verse..Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Angel of God to be tested and then they ministered unto him. In Revelation (12:9, 20:2) Satan is referred to as the "Serpent of old" mythological levithan which is how the Hebrews understood the passage. This idea as Satan as a cast down star (9:1) Ch 12 is shown to be a myth if you read the Rev 1:1 that says all the things taht John saw would shortly come to pass and Rev 4 says things which must be hereafter. You do know what future tense means, don't you?

 

[DamianWarS]

Read the verse..Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Angel of God to be tested and then they ministered unto him. In Revelation (12:9, 20:2) Satan is referred to as the "Serpent of old" mythological [leviathan] which is how the Hebrews understood the passage. This idea as Satan as a cast down star (9:1) Ch 12 is shown to be a myth if you read the Rev 1:1 that says all the things [that] John saw would shortly come to pass and Rev 4 says things which must be hereafter.

Jesus may have been led to the wilderness by the Spirit but he was tempted by Satan in Mark, in Matthew he was tempted by the Devil and has specific dialogue with him. I agree the word Satan can be very ambiguous but this passage seems to identify Satan more clearly.

Revelations is regarded as talking about more than just things to come. The passages need to be taken in context in that they are not isolated accounts of the past but rather woven into the prophecies that build to the end. Although passages can be more ambiguous Satan is directly referred to as the serpent of old, devil in 12:9 and 20:2 in context of the dragon.

You do know what future tense means, don't you?

Although I appreciate your thoughts on the subject let's keep this above reproach... that last comment dipped a little below.

 

[he-man]

Revelations is regarded as talking about more than just things to come. The passages need to be taken in context in that they are not isolated accounts of the past but rather woven into the prophecies that build to the end. Although passages can be more ambiguous Satan is directly referred to as the serpent of old, devil in 12:9 and 20:2 in context of the dragon.

right, they do not contain a prophecy of the past, only of the future. Strong G1228 says the word is of Chaldee origin from G4566, an accuser. Clementine Homily X says if like a charmer you say to the serpent which lurks IN YOUR HEART, fear the Lord and Him only shall you serve! G1228 is an adjective from G1225 metahorically applied to a man said to act the part of a devil, a wicked person. Louw-Nida

 

[Phantasman]

Hello he-man. It's been a few years since the times we debated. I always respected your intense seeking and knowledge, especially when we used to discuss Koine greek translations.

You were a hard proponent of OT theology back then. It appears your seeking is leading you towards some new paths. (a good thing from my perspective).

I find Elaine Pagels to be a wealth of knowledge. Did she mention Yaltabaoth in that book? I find that explanation more in line with the spiritual aspect of the Gospel and the OT.

As you can see, I'm still the same as years ago. lol.

Always enjoy your posts.

 

[he-man]

I find Elaine Pagels to be a wealth of knowledge. Did she mention Yaltabaoth in that book? I find that explanation more in line with the spiritual aspect of the Gospel and the OT. As you can see, I'm still the same as years ago. lol.
Always enjoy your posts.

Thanks and good to hear from you as well. A good debate would be unusual on this forum! Ms. Pagels does not mention Yaltaboath directly but Lewis Loftlin does @ www.sullivan-county.com and I quote the following: Now the archon who is weak has three names, the first is yaltaboath, the second is saklas, and the third is samael. He is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, "I am God and there is no god before me," for he is ignorant of his strength, that is, the place from which he had come. Yaltaboath literally means, 'child come hither' in a certain Semantic language. Gnostic myth recounts the Sophia, (literally 'wisdom, the demurge's mother and aspect of the father'). Saklas means 'fool' and samael literally means 'god of the blind'. The Apostle Paul specifically condems Gnoticism as high heresy and satan is defined as 'enemy'.

 

[Phantasman]

Thanks and good to hear from you as well. A good debate would be unusual on this forum! Ms. Pagels does not mention Yaltaboath directly but Lewis Loftlin does @ www.sullivan-county.com and I quote the following: Now the archon who is weak has three names, the first is yaltaboath, the second is saklas, and the third is samael. He is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, "I am God and there is no god before me," for he is ignorant of his strength, that is, the place from which he had come. Yaltaboath literally means, 'child come hither' in a certain Semantic language. Gnostic myth recounts the Sophia, (literally 'wisdom, the demurge's mother and aspect of the father'). Saklas means 'fool' and samael literally means 'god of the blind'. The Apostle Paul specifically condems Gnoticism as high heresy and satan is defined as 'enemy'.

Yes. Lewis is about 30 miles from me. He is a wealth of information on both Bible and non Canon books. He gets a little too deep for me to follow sometimes. There are some non Canon books I have trouble understanding and he gives views that I am praying and working on.

To understand Yaltaboath, and how he is the adversary, you need to take the time and patience to read the Apocryphon of John.(Secret John). Don't be misled by the name. Secret merely meant that it wasn't given to the world, but to those who received the Spirit to understand it's intention. It describes the spiritual (realm) in a way that supersedes the Hebrew narrative.

It's just a perspective, and answers much more than what Moses told. Not that Moses didn't do his best, but it was a time before the Holy Spirit came to man.

You are extremely intellectual. You may want to read it a few times, as I had to. But you will be introduced to words you may not know, like Epinoia (spark of spiritual life), Aeon and Archons. The presbyters of Eugnostos (the blessed) see the same thing, and explain the spiritual players a bit better. It is not essential to know or even agree with this perception. But it does answer a lot of questions that has perplexed the Orthodox belief for two millennia.

You learn that God the Father never created the adversary, that would make him imperfect.
What really happened in Eden. The unconditional love and patience of the Father (why he allows the adversary to not be destroyed), the trek of Christ into Hades (to save those before Truth came).

I wish you clear light if you pursue this path. If I can help, ask. And remember, SoulGazers words are still archived on this forum.

 

[he-man]

To understand Yaltaboath, and how he is the adversary, you need to take the time and patience to read the Apocryphon of John. It describes the spiritual (realm) in a way that supersedes the Hebrew narrative. But you will be introduced to words you may not know, like Epinoia (spark of spiritual life), Aeon and Archons. You learn that God the Father never created the adversary, that would make him imperfect.

The Secret John was written around 180 A.D.from a Complex Gnostic develpometal MYTHOLOGY with evident additions of lenghty lists of magical names to an original that lacked them.From an unknown source called "The Book of Zoraster". . They forced humans to drink water from forgetfulness so not to know their true place of origin. And saying such as, I am the Father, the Mother, the son in the 'Teachings of the Savior". In Six questions of the soul. it says the 'artificial spirit leads them (lost souls) astray and they are cast into forgetfuness and eventually it (the soul) becomes saved. Then the demons changed their appearance to look like women's husbands. From the Prologue Three Ploys Against Humanity through Epinoia and the Chief Ruler (of demons) Archons. All the above is gibberish and Christ is the Son of God, not of the title, 'his mother' , and not "the Father, but the Son only. There is no real physical adversary or even Spiritual adversary. You are your own adversary thru any evil actions. You need to read the Bible Study by Driesman which discusses the magical sayings that were used by heritics and soothsayers to cast spells to keep out evil spirits which were superstitions and from MYTHOLOGY.

 

[Phantasman]

Irenaeus writings of Valentinians said that they were men of sexual perversion seeking their own enlightenment. In 1945 that long standing view was proven wrong with the actual books of Valentinus (Gospel of Truth and other writings).

Zorasterism cannot be compared to or even associated with Christian Gnostic text. It was a 5BC movement that had been following the line of Ishmael and was the opening door to Islam.

The two God scenario continues as it has from the beginning. When all Christian books had been destroyed, and the one church (Catholic) was in control of the Word (Gospel), and translated it to Latin for the elitist Priests, it is not surprising that the God of Ismael arose (600AD) to challenge a system of spiritual belief with physical actions and opposition.

Because we read something, doesn't make it true. Words can be changed to fit a (false) agenda. The Holy Spirit (Truth) comes in images, as languages and words mean nothing to her.

Time of what scholars determine means nothing. We know that the only complete reference is 4th century writings of Eusebius. Even the Nag Hammadi find is 4th century at best. Also Codex Sinaiticus. So for the Christian truths, we don't know when they were practiced, as oral traditions were quit large for the masses that never had a formal education to learn reading and writing.

We are told to try the spirits. And John tells us which ones are of God.

 

[he-man]

We are told to try the spirits. And John tells us which ones are of God.

You need to read "Bible Studies" by Diessmann 1988; starting at Page 277, the demonic spirit; Page 281, the tomb where the spell was laid; Page 283 Magic Papryi; etc

 

[he-man]

Zorasterism cannot be compared to or even associated with Christian Gnostic text. It was a 5BC movement that had been following the line of Ishmael and was the opening door to Islam. it is not surprising that the God of Ismael arose (600AD) to challenge a system of spiritual belief with physical actions and opposition.We are told to try the spirits. And John tells us which ones are of God.

TITUS 1:13-16

 

[Phantasman]

TITUS 1:13-16

I wouldn't put a lot into the Pastorals as well as the Book of Hebrews.


Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Norman Perrin writes:

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Werner Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84.

 

[he-man]

I wouldn't put a lot into the Pastorals as well as the Book of Hebrews.
Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter. The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Werner Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84.

dikaios is defined as fair, right, in the sense deliver, rescue, claim avenge from latin vindicate. The false teachers are thought to be Gnostics, 1 Tim. 6:20. The first seven of early Paul are written in the 50's and 60's. the Pastorls were wrtten 80-100 A.D. The unknown which some call forgeries only prove to be consistant with the conduct of Elders and over seers. So what is your point???

 

[Phantasman]

The false teachers are thought to be Gnostics, 1 Tim. 6:20 ?

That IS a catholic view of it, which I do not see. There's one point. Hebrews glorifying the Priest 32 times when the Gospel or Pauls 10 letters doesn't, shows me it isn't Gospel as well. Timothy has instruction for bishops and deacons, also not part of the Gospels or it's structure (of Ekklesia).

Again, I don't see it as Paul, but an attempt to glorify the catholic ideology.

 

[he-man]

The false teachers are thought to be Gnostics, 1 Tim. 6:20 ?
That IS a catholic view of it, not part of the Gospels or it's structure (of Ekklesia).
Again, I don't see it as Paul, but an attempt to glorify the catholic ideology.

Gnostic gospels are not historical accounts of Jesus's life but instead are largely esoteric sayings leaving out historical details such as names, places, and events, in starking contrast to N.T. Gospels which contain innumerable historic facts about Jesus's life, ministry, and words. The Gospel of Thomas says these are hidden things that the living Jesus spoke and Judas Thomas recorded. 110-150 A.D. [Robinson P. 126.]
Gonosticism is a mixture of mythical Christian beliefs with Occultism and Orential mysticism fused with Astrology and Magic. [Mark, Q, L, M. or Matthew.] Ekklesia is an assembly Rom. 16:5 and not congregation.