It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Satan God, partly God, or not God?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Watch out for deception!


Perhaps you'd better listen to your own advice...my guide directs me around the pits of deception--after pulling me out of the many that I fell into (my very first step landed me in the first pit!!!). Don't be like I was and think you will avoid them, because no one born in this world escapes all the pits...and remember, you can't watch out if you cannot see.





posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
However, the only way we can be "right" is by discarding our free will, and becoming brainless servants "willingly".

This is not restricted to christianity though. It starts in Judaism, and thats why it occurs in Christianity and Islam.


dbrandt
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

But this addresses the king of babylon. It is also the only time anyone is called lucifer, and the word is not otherwise associated with the devil, rather, its directed at, I think in this instance, the biblical Nimrod.


queenannie38
but #H1984 is easily found

These are just other instances where words associated with a brightness are being used though. The morning star is a bright star though, so perhaps that is why it is being called that. But, again, at the same time, ther eis this issue of Angels beign "beings of light and fire", and thus bright.

Also, lets take note, there is considerable debate over whether or not there really is such a thing as a fallen angel within Judaism. Normally the concept of an angel in rebellion against got, not merely even 'not beleiveing' in god like with men, is seen as an affront to the monotheistic aspect of God.

Thus, in judaism, Satan is not seen as a corrupt fallen angel, rather, he is, as apparently the name 'satan' implies, 'the accuser'. He is an angel who functions as god's prosecutor, pointing out when and where the nation of Israel has gone wrong. THis is why the hebrews dislike Satan, because he accuses them. It is also, under this aspect, that, in the bible, the hebrews send a goat to "Azazel", the goat is the original scape-goat, and its a sacrifice to Azazel, who is one of these prosecuting angels, and who they hope will be appeased with the goat.


And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make ye free...

The new testament is pretty clear that satan is not anyone's friend and that he is something of an enemy. There are traditions within judaism that speak entirely otherwise, that don't have satan as a prince of evil, as a sort of anti-god, but I don't think that its accurate to say that the new testament recognizes him as in anyway helpful.

[quoteTamahu
the Light(Luci) and Fire(fer) needed to
I think that that is the incorrect etymology though no? Lucifer is the Light Bearer, Luci is light, ferous is 'carrier', not fire.


Many of the Churches don't want us to know this

Why would the church, knowing it to be true, not want people to know it? If it is true, and they know and beleive it, then they'd go for it also, because they're recognize, since they beleive in it, that those rewards are greater than any 'worldly' rewards. They might be working against it, but they can't, I think, be said to actually know it.


It would be absurd to think that we could enter Heaven with all of our defects.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. - Matthew 5:48

But if the father in heaven is perfect, then how can evil exist? And if he permits evil to exist, even if its to work for some other goal, then wouldn't he be imperfect? Or, at least, a person wouldn't require reincarnantion or gnosis in order to be become perfect and acceptable no? If his emmanations could be corrupted, like with fallen angels, then he could just as easily 'tolerate' people in whatever state they are in no?


serves to create and to destroy, and the Fall of Adam

Why associated satan with the Fall though?

due to this interior phosphorus

phosphor, which has the same root as lucifor, 'to bear', I think phosphorous essentially means the same thing, 'that which bears light'


enkidu
These entities weren't exactly what you'd call "God" and "Satan," since Zoroaster didn't anthropomorphize the creator entity

And, also, because Satan isn't really equivalent, in many traditions, with Ahriman. In orthodox christianity Satan is more or less the Evil God, even though its understood that he will be defeated in the end. But thats the closest he ever really gets to Ahriman, he's not a creator of the material world, and he's even, in many of the jewish traditions, merely a servant of the lord.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I thinks there has to be two sides to every coin. If there is good then there has to be someting to make it good ie: evil. So Satan The Devil, Lucifer or whatever, is important as a model to base what is right from wrong. Sounds a bit depressing in a way though (is peace ever possible?)



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
Most scholars think that the concept of a cosmological duality began with Zoroaster
(this dude)

For the non-scholars I think it is safe to say that the concept of cosmological duality is introduced from two different perspectives, in the first few chapters of Genesis.
Adam and Eve and then Cain and Abel. The problem seems to be the hidden good, though--it is that third element that knocks the wind out of most.


There were some other entities in the mix, but mostly it was a two-entity fight.
But the fight was fixed, wasn't it?



His "God" didn't have a face, and couldn't be "bargained" with through the use of prayer.
Neither does mine, believe me...


People seem to like the notion of the cosmos being divided up into good and evil, though, even if basic sociology tells us that actions by themselves are never good or evil, but always require a context to determine that.

Is it context or perspective? Maybe it is a matter of standing too close? Or using two eyes instead of one?


The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. (Matthew 6:22 KJV)

I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. (Psalms 32:8 KJV)


Perhaps that dude cyclops wasn't such a bad monster after all....



Still, Satan is a good thing on which to blame your own failings -- "The Devil made me do it!" -- rather than take personal responsibility and face the consequences. People are like that.

That's true. Born liars, all of us.
But if one can lie, then all it really means is that somewhere, deep down inside, one also knows the truth. So in the end, there is no excuse at all.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
Sounds a bit depressing in a way though (is peace ever possible?)

Only if we can each give up our attachments or desires to the idea of somehow being 'good' ourselves. Take out the good, then there is no need for evil, and viola!

---we're all just the same. :shk:


No need to fight or kill to compete, because there is really nothing to win....



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
It is also the only time anyone is called lucifer, and the word is not otherwise associated with the devil, rather, its directed at, I think in this instance, the biblical Nimrod.

His grandson Nebuchadnezzar is the one who this is directed at, in the biblical context of the lesson Isaiah is presenting. But he inherited his ego from the Mighty Hunter, no doubt. Orion.


These are just other instances where words associated with a brightness are being used though. The morning star is a bright star though, so perhaps that is why it is being called that. But, again, at the same time, ther eis this issue of Angels beign "beings of light and fire", and thus bright.

Exactly. But the word used in Isaiah is really just the root (#H1984) turned into a proper name. A name that means 'shining self-proclaiming madman,' basically.

Just like Nebuchadnezzar.


THis is why the hebrews dislike Satan, because he accuses them.

I've never heard of that. Not the accuser part but the dislike. Idolatry is their biggest abhorrence, it causes uncleanliness of the worst sort.


It is also, under this aspect, that, in the bible, the hebrews send a goat to "Azazel", the goat is the original scape-goat, and its a sacrifice to Azazel, who is one of these prosecuting angels, and who they hope will be appeased with the goat.

EXACTLY~! And yet if christianity wants to take a portion of jewish theology (the god part) and use it, why don't they take this part, too?!?



And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make ye free... /quote]
The new testament is pretty clear that satan is not anyone's friend and that he is something of an enemy. There are traditions within judaism that speak entirely otherwise, that don't have satan as a prince of evil, as a sort of anti-god, but I don't think that its accurate to say that the new testament recognizes him as in anyway helpful.


Sure he is helpful, in the OT and the NT...he has to be, he works for the same Creator who made all of us.


To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(1 Corinthians 5:5 KJV)

Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
(1 Timothy 1:20 KJV)


For those who have already been delivered unto satan and passed his tests, who therefore know what he's about and easily recognize his work, he remains for the purpose of being a thorn in one's side. Also known as 'humility.'

[quoteTamahu


the Light(Luci) and Fire(fer) needed to

I think that that is the incorrect etymology though no? Lucifer is the Light Bearer, Luci is light, ferous is 'carrier', not fire.

But the problem is this: the OT was first changed from Hebrew to Greek, then to Latin (by Jerome under authority of the RCC) and then to English--with the whole process being rather partial and selective instead of truly translatory for the sake of same. It is not accurate to apply the etymology of a Latin based word to the original Hebraic meaning. It does apply in this case, but not on the introductory level, instead
it causes more confusion than clarity.


They might be working against it, but they can't, I think, be said to actually know it.

Or at least not know they know it. I don't think they'd hide something that could potentially get them in hot water, like you say.


due to this interior phosphorus

phosphor, which has the same root as lucifor, 'to bear', I think phosphorous essentially means the same thing, 'that which bears light'
But the light of phosphorous is defined as one that comes from within, not reflected light from another source. I believe, also, that the word phosphorous is known after the Vulgate was written and that it came from the word 'Lucifer', not the other way around. The oldest origin I can find is 'torch bearer' which is more like one who carries fire which is of course both light and heat, and potentially dangerous as opposed to simple benign illumination of any sort.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Perhaps you'd better listen to your own advice...and remember, you can't watch out if you cannot see.



This is just a tit for tat thing. I say your deceived, you say I'm deceived. The proof is in the pudding.

If your right it doesn't matter what you or I do, cause we're all going to heaven anyway, God will just wink at our sin. So big deal what you or I do.

If I'm right then some have a problem that needs to be addressed.

Suppose there is a human judge somewhere who was has to try the case of a serial rapist. There are witnesses and DNA evidence so there is no question of the guilt of the rapist. The judge proceeds to explain to the rapist that what he has done is excusable and then says I'm going to release you. There would be a tremendous outrage and the judge would be accused of not following the law. The law he has sworn to uphold and follow. He would be considered a sham of a judge.
That judge would not be respected and would be a joke.

We think this about a judge of the court system, yet replace the word judge with the word God and we get a totally different response. We get, "well God just loves everybody" or "God is love", or "my God wouldn't send anyone to hell", or "I was given free will so God can't get mad at me for choosing the wrong thing" and on and on and on with the excuses.

We expect a human judge to follow the law yet it is unacceptable for God to follow the law. People need to wake up it doesn't work that way.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
(is peace ever possible?)


Yes it is:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
I thinks there has to be two sides to every coin. If there is good then there has to be someting to make it good ie: evil. So Satan The Devil, Lucifer or whatever, is important as a model to base what is right from wrong.

But does that mean that he is simply to be taken as a tool for teaching ethics, or as an actual thing that stems from god? Or, with the coin allegory, as a sort of God of Evil who god would destroy, if only he could?


queenannie38
I've never heard of that. Not the accuser part but the dislike.

Well it seems to make sense to me anyway. Satan is sometimes presented as a generally affable character who's just doing his job, BUT Satan, if you ask the average person on the street, isn't too popular. So I figure, if its not because satan is the prince of evil, its got because even Israel didn't like him, becuse he's rat them out all the time.


why don't they take this part, too?!?

Thats specific aspect is hidden even to the jews though. There were apparently kabbalistic mystics back in the middle ages that hinted at such a thing, and even refered to those odd passages as being 'noteworthy' in the context of an ancient secret. BUt even they couldn't just come out and say that there was this evil entitity in opposition to god, becuse the god of the jews is all powerful. Only their secret initiates could 'follow the clues' that the even said that they had left and 'figure it out'.


Sure he is helpful, in the OT and the NT...

However in the NT he will be exterminated, wiped out, (assuming he is associated with beast and false prophet anyways). In judaism I think that they have this idea of an 'evil inclination' in men, and that that can lead us to do bad things.
But when have an actual personified Satan then no?


For those who have already been delivered unto satan and passed his tests, who therefore know what he's about and easily recognize his work, he remains for the purpose of being a thorn in one's side.

This, indeed, is the traditional interpretation of some of the church fathers.


and that it came from the word 'Lucifer', not the other way around

I have no idea which came first, phosphor or luci'phor', interesting question though.

As far as a torch bearer, there is, in Roman Mithraism, a torch bearer who accompanies the Sun-runner (which represents teh course of the sun through the stars, which in itself represents the movement of the soul from the divine world into the material one and back), but that might be too 'new' to be influencing 'lucifer'.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

dbrandt
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

But this addresses the king of babylon. It is also the only time anyone is called lucifer, and the word is not otherwise associated with the devil, rather, its directed at, I think in this instance, the biblical Nimrod.



What is Babylon, the place where man was trying to build a world devoid of the real God. The place where false religions started.

Hmmmm...........who would get a thrill out of that?

I know, satan, that's pretty much what he wants, the truth about the real God to remain unknown.

Now this could be speaking about a man king, or someone(satan) who wants to be king, or it could have a dual application and be speaking about both.

There are also some who feel it starts out referring to the king of babylon and then at the Lucifer parts jumps to talking about satan.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38


No need to fight or kill to compete, because there is really nothing to win....


The Bible says way different:

Philippians 3:8.............that I may win Christ,
[9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
[10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
[13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
[14] I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

and

1 Corinthians 9:[24] Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
[25] And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Truth is stranger than fiction and nobody could have made up this answer to the question about the status of Satan.

One first has to know the spiritual cosmology of our universe to understand who Satan was. Those in charge of the universe are spiritual, the names are not important.

In the universe cosmology there are more than angels and those who create them. The universe is enormous and it has to be governed. That creates the need for many spiritual administrators.

Satan was a spiritual administrator. His boss was Lucifer. Lucifer's representative to our neck of the woods was Caligastia. Lucifer convinced Satan to help him overthrow the spiritual government and in turn Satan talked Caligastia into joining the rebel forces.

All this happened about 250,000 years ago. Our own planet under Calagastia seceeded from the government and took our planet into rebellion. It destroyed all the educational centers and projects meant to improve the knowledge of man about the universe and how it is governed.

Satan, Lucifer, and Caligastia, and a host of other spiritual individuals, were eventually removed by force from our part of the universe by the Supreme Court. That court has final say over life and death issues in the universe and it was decreed, once these characters refused rehabilitation, that they suffer extinction. The final decision and the punishment was enacted less than 20 years ago.

Satan was created a high Son administrator, not an angel. His talents for administration were said to be brilliant and he was highly respected for the work he did in our local area of space. Manyh who knew him could not believe what he was doing.

There were many orders of beings that were entrapped by the Lucifer rebellion including several Seraphic types. Here on our planet Caligastia had a visible staff of modified humans (non-dying so as to serve in the educational centers for a long period of time). When the rebellion broke out, roughly half of the visible staff went into rebellion with Caligastia.

Those who rebelled dispersed into what is now Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. In history we know the offspring of these rebels were known as the Nodites and their greatest ancient empire was Babylon.

However, Satan, Lucifer, and Caligastia were never visible. The rebels were not removed completely until they were forced to come back and look at our planet to see what their actions have caused. It has also been decreed that this planet we call earth shall be purged of these influences and in the near future.

I hope this provides at least a partial answer to the inquiry about the status of Satan.

This narrative is based upon what has been told to various people around the world in contact with the new spiritual administration resident on our planet, the successor to the Caligastia rebel government who held us hostage for over 200,000 years of development.

Ron



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Satan created us... therefore he is a God to a degree, but he is not the jealous God, the one who said he was the only one...
He created us out of ignorance..

more on the subject here..

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
What is Babylon, the place where man was trying to build a world devoid of the real God. The place where false religions started.

I do not accept this. Even if we grant that it was literally the place where the Tower fell and man's language was confused, I don't think it needs to be the source of all non-jewish religions (iow, I don't even think that the bible is saying such). And, clearly, history shows us that this wouldnt' be the case.


Hmmmm...........who would get a thrill out of that?

Why wouldn't man do that?

I know, satan, that's pretty much what he wants, the truth about the real God to remain unknown.

Now this could be speaking about a man king, or someone(satan) who wants to be king, or it could have a dual application and be speaking about both.
I think its important to note that its babylon (or that area anyways) that is being pointed out. Its a temporal/secular power of its time. I suspect that it has nothing to do with satan and is really just talking about a king whom the hebrews knew of.

Its sort of saying 'all your secular/wordly powers are meaningless, exalt god, not the world'


There are also some who feel it starts out referring to the king of babylon and then at the Lucifer parts jumps to talking about satan.

Indeed, I have read of that also. But, I think, "lucifer" is not a name that the hebrews associated with Satan, so, perhaps, we should not associate it with satan either.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But, I think, "lucifer" is not a name that the hebrews associated with Satan, so, perhaps, we should not associate it with satan either.

You're right, Nygdan. sa'Hatan is the accuser, the adversary, the opposition.
Haylel is the torch-bearer--somehow connected to the spark of life itself--the all-consuming fire that is from only one place: 'Our God is a consuming fire.'

Lucifer is a name that Jerome adopted to mean Haylel, but God's language is Hebrew at its roots, not Latin.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well it seems to make sense to me anyway. Satan is sometimes presented as a generally affable character who's just doing his job, BUT Satan, if you ask the average person on the street, isn't too popular.

They haven't yet been Job, then. It's a guilty conscience that cause people to fear and despise Satan. But God's highest Archangel Michael, who stands up for Israel doesn't even rebuke Satan.


So I figure, if its not because satan is the prince of evil, its got because even Israel didn't like him, becuse he's rat them out all the time.

He didn't rat them out! That's a christian idea, or some other idea. God didn't need a snitch for Israel--or anyone. He knows exactly what is in the hearts of men.



why don't they take this part, too?!?

Thats specific aspect is hidden even to the jews though.

It is hidden for everyone.




Sure he is helpful, in the OT and the NT...

However in the NT he will be exterminated, wiped out, (assuming he is associated with beast and false prophet anyways).

'Evil shall slay the wicked.'


In judaism I think that they have this idea of an 'evil inclination' in men, and that that can lead us to do bad things.

No, Jews think of people 2 ways: men and beasts. Jews are men and Gentiles are beasts.... Clean or unclean.


But when have an actual personified Satan then no?
Only in the bathroom mirror!


but that might be too 'new' to be influencing 'lucifer'.

Nothing new under the sun, everything that will be done has already been done.

[edit on 6/21/2006 by queenannie38]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Ummmm...just to clarify. I didn't really mean anything bad by the term "brainless servant". It's just a way of saying someone who serves God without question.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
But God's highest Archangel Michael, who stands up for Israel doesn't even rebuke Satan.

I think that this is part of the idea of "National Guardian Angels", which each nation having a "Prince in Heaven" assigned to him. Michael and Gabriel are assigned to Israel (in other traditions, its under the ambit of God himself). When disaster befalls Israel at the hands of an enemy, its because that enemies Prince has worked against Israels Prince. There is a story about Israel's Prince fighting with the Prince of Persia, and this resulting in Satan beign able to successful accuse Israel with its sins.


So I figure, if its not because satan is the prince of evil, its got because even Israel didn't like him, becuse he's rat them out all the time.

He didn't rat them out! That's a christian idea, or some other idea. God didn't need a snitch for Israel--or anyone. He knows exactly what is in the hearts of men.
Then why the titled "Accuser"? It does seem to be his function.



why don't they take this part, too?!?

Thats specific aspect is hidden even to the jews though.

It is hidden for everyone.


'Evil shall slay the wicked.'

?


No, Jews think of people 2 ways: men and beasts. Jews are men and Gentiles are beasts.... Clean or unclean.

But both would have the evil inclination and the good inclination.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
(is peace ever possible?)

What do you want peace for? Most, if not all, of mankind's greatest achievements have been attained as a result of unrest and turmoil. Peace is boring. Peace is the fruity Marxist ideal of a beautiful pastoral society where everyone cooperates and no one seeks an advantage. A fantasy, in other words, that has never existed on Earth, and hopefully never will.

Thank God for Satan, because without the serpent tempting Eve, we'd all be sitting around Eden doing what... getting fat?

People who wish for peace are usually just worried about their ability to compete.

:bash:



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by dbrandt
What is Babylon, the place where man was trying to build a world devoid of the real God. The place where false religions started.

I do not accept this. Even if we grant that it was literally the place where the Tower fell and man's language was confused, I don't think it needs to be the source of all non-jewish religions (iow, I don't even think that the bible is saying such). And, clearly, history shows us that this wouldnt' be the case.


Babylon - Biblios - Bible



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join