How could Lucifer have tempted Eve in the garden when he had not been cast from heaven yet?

I suspect the "demon" Legion represents disease, for what is a disease if not many small parts coming together to make a, malign, whole?

Satan is not the serpent, it is only in Christian theology that he is identified with it.

Personally I think the serpent was onto something, like the Greek and Mayan depictions of it as an enlightener, rather than a negative force.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Satan is the accuser, a very important role in the court of law. Yes for it is all about law with God. Ha-Shatan stands before God and accuse humans according to their do and don'ts all day long, like you can see in Job and Revelation. It's his job. Not that I like atteurneys and their job, but we need such a role in our courts. The Holy Spirit is our defence atteurney (if he want's that is)...

thats a great theory and all, but your ignoring all the scriptures that show satan to be an enemy of god.

john 8:44, 2 peter 2:4, jude 6, rev 12:7-12

Originally posted by miriam0566
thats a great theory and all, but your ignoring all the scriptures that show satan to be an enemy of god.

john 8:44, 2 peter 2:4, jude 6, rev 12:7-12

And are you ignoring anything that doesn't relate to scripture?

The snake, prior to the Christian Dogmatists usurping it for nefarious means, has long been held as a symbol of wisdom and spirituality.

Take as example the Greek Caduceus.

In Gnostic Belief, in some circles it is thought that the serpent in the Garden was Pistis Sophia, having taken on the shape of the Serpent, in order to give to Mankind the ability to ascend beyond the trapped existence of Demi-Urgos (The Lord Thy God) as she saw the potential for mankind to reunite with the Divine Existence.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
The snake, prior to the Christian Dogmatists usurping it for nefarious means, has long been held as a symbol of wisdom and spirituality.

yea, except the christians arent the ones who started calling satan a snake. it was the jews.

Originally posted by miriam0566
yea, except the christians arent the ones who started calling satan a snake. it was the jews.

Forgive me for not being as semantic, I occasionally forget myself as I happen to be a Theologian.

Problem with your statement is that the Jewish people did NOT Correlate the Serpent with Satan, that was entirely a Christian venue. As was the name Lucifer being associated with Satan.

It is worthwhile to note that Jewish faith doesn't ascribe to a literal hell, and Satan is a metaphor for sin rather than an actual entity in Jewish faith since God created good and evil and all is under his Dominion.

The association Christians make is that the Serpent tempted Eve with the apple, and the metaphorical being in Talmudic texts has this as one of the venues it is used under for education purposes as it relates to living a good life, so the Association was made and built up over centuries.

Yes, the snake Tempted Eve. Was the snake Satan/Lucifer? No, not according to Jewish beliefs. And since Christians borrow their faith from Jewish beliefs, the Talmud and Zohar ARE the authority on the subject whereas it relates to the Old Testament.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Problem with your statement is that the Jewish people did NOT Correlate the Serpent with Satan, that was entirely a Christian venue. As was the name Lucifer being associated with Satan.

jewish people today might not, but then again the jewish faith has changed much since that time. to say that a jew today does or doesnt believe something doesnt completely mean that they did or didnt back then.

while i agree that there are certain ¨christian¨ misinterpretations. lucifer is an excellent example. however, there is evidence that satan was in fact the serpent that tempted eve.

It is worthwhile to note that Jewish faith doesn't ascribe to a literal hell, and Satan is a metaphor for sin rather than an actual entity in Jewish faith since God created good and evil and all is under his Dominion.

i agree with the statement about hell, however the entire book of job describes satan as a very real person. same with the ¨sons of god¨ who forsook their positions before god. metaphors cant have babies.

Yes, the snake Tempted Eve. Was the snake Satan/Lucifer? No, not according to Jewish beliefs. And since Christians borrow their faith from Jewish beliefs, the Talmud and Zohar ARE the authority on the subject whereas it relates to the Old Testament.

if your belief in the scriptures is from a purely scholastic view, then i agree with what you are saying. a group of people who are borrowing from tales and mythologies of another may misinterpret certain things.

but there is another possibility. if the scriptures are indeed inspired, then it shows that the jews were possibly misinterpreting the scriptures. jesus said some ¨new¨ things, but if you look at them closely, they werent really new. they are all there in the OT.

Jesus´ interaction with satan after the trip to the wilderness shows satan to be more than a metaphor. jesus´revelations to john show satan in the same light. and of course none of this would conflict with the book of job.

admittedly, if you take out the greek scriptures, there really isnt mentioned much about satan. but there is enough to say that satan is a real person.

it all depends on whether to believe the scriptures to be divinely inspired

reply to post by miriam0566


So your whole argument hinges on the Hebrews not Interpreting God correctly when they FIRST wrote the Talmud and Zohar?

The Jewish PEOPLE may have changed, but you need to conduct some research on Jewish Religious Texts and the Rabbinical traditions whereas it relates to the Talmud.

The Jewish people are the people who wrote all the books, and their interpretations are GOING to be closer to the truth of the religion whereas it relates to Old Testament content.

As for the book of Job, Job is a parable. Ask a Rabbi some time, Satan is never used in reference to an actual entity as much as a metaphorical devil's advocate to God. Depending on how studious the Rabbi, they may even tell you that Satan isn't even an entity mentioned in the traditional Jewish Texts (Since Satan is Shai'Tahn, the name borrowed from a pre-islamic middle eastern deity much like the Image of the goat-headed entity was robbed from the Celts).

The Jewish people don't believe in a Hell, so there can't be a lake of fire, a pit, a Satan or whatnot. Shayol is about as close as you get, and that is just where the dead reside at.

The snake is in the Jewish stories too, but it isn't Lucifer or Satan.

And then you go and say that if my review is from a "Scholastic Point of View" you agree, but otherwise I am wrong? So, from a scholarly review perspective I am accurate, but because you want to believe otherwise, I am wrong?

As for the divinely inspired scriptures, I've never counted Revelations even close to Divinely inspired. As a Gnostic, I think the Apocryphal texts are more divinely inspired than some of the books that were put into the canonical text.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
So your whole argument hinges on the Hebrews not Interpreting God correctly when they FIRST wrote the Talmud and Zohar?

yes.

The Jewish PEOPLE may have changed, but you need to conduct some research on Jewish Religious Texts and the Rabbinical traditions whereas it relates to the Talmud.

The Jewish people are the people who wrote all the books, and their interpretations are GOING to be closer to the truth of the religion whereas it relates to Old Testament content.

like certain proclamations that the church has made about the trinity or the afterlife?

they are opinions. opinions from very smart people, true but they are still opinions. i mean the talmud is basically a copy of oral traditions and debates.

by the time we get to jesus, he was saying that these people were burdened by useless tradition. the rabbis hijacked judaism the same way the church eventually hijacked christianity.

granted, im not saying that those rabbi´s were completely without merit or that they simply didnt know what they were talking about. but there is evidence that they got certain things wrong.



As for the book of Job, Job is a parable. Ask a Rabbi some time, Satan is never used in reference to an actual entity as much as a metaphorical devil's advocate to God. Depending on how studious the Rabbi, they may even tell you that Satan isn't even an entity mentioned in the traditional Jewish Texts (Since Satan is Shai'Tahn, the name borrowed from a pre-islamic middle eastern deity much like the Image of the goat-headed entity was robbed from the Celts).

first off, satan is not a name. its a title but im sure you already knew that. so satan or Shai´tahn being a title borrowed from elsewhere is inconsequential. second, where does the book of job say that it should be taken metaphorically? is there any verse that shows that?

ezekial 14:[12] The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
[13] Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
[14] Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
The Jewish people don't believe in a Hell, so there can't be a lake of fire, a pit, a Satan or whatnot. Shayol is about as close as you get, and that is just where the dead reside at.

does that mean noah and daniel are also ¨metaphoric¨? is it not possible that the rabbi is wrong?

The snake is in the Jewish stories too, but it isn't Lucifer or Satan.

lucifer is actually Helal translated and it referred to the babylonian king, but im sure from your last post you knew that.

but my question stands. is there any reason to believe that satan was NOT the serpent?

And then you go and say that if my review is from a "Scholastic Point of View" you agree, but otherwise I am wrong? So, from a scholarly review perspective I am accurate, but because you want to believe otherwise, I am wrong?

no, before your reply, i was not sure of your beliefs. some scholars are atheist and look at the bible as if it is a record of mythology. from that point of view, christians ¨borrowed¨ their faith from the jews.

As for the divinely inspired scriptures, I've never counted Revelations even close to Divinely inspired. As a Gnostic, I think the Apocryphal texts are more divinely inspired than some of the books that were put into the canonical text.

ok so god had some part in inspiring the writings, but he decided stay out of what books are included in his bible. this does not make sense to me at all. its logical to think that if god DID inspire writings, that he would also make sure that those writings are available to everyone. so say that the bible, which is the most circulated book in the world... ever, would contain the complete word of god. what would be the point of hiding his will in some generally unknown apocryphal text?

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by spy66
When God created the garden of Eden Lucifer and his angels where united with God. Lucifer the devil didn't reject god before the creation was finished. When God was done with the creation he told the angels in heaven to kneel to his creation. That's when Lucifer started the war in heaven. But before that Lucifer didn't have a reason to tamper with Adam and Eve.

but see now this is falling into the point you were making to me about satan not being specifically named in genesis, this is not in the bible. in fact there is nothing in the bible that says satan is lucifer, there also is nothing saying he was cast down BEFORE the kingdom of god is set up.

just look at job, satan traveled freely between earth and heaven. in daniel, the angel gabriel was stopped by the prince of persia (in heaven) and later the prince of greece.

angels as well as demons could travel to and from earth. it isnt until revelation that we see satan and his demons restricted. and this is closely tied to the last days

But Lucifer didn't have a reason to be evil at this time.So why did he tempt Even in the garden! It dosent make sense?
Lucifer didn't hate God until God told Lucifer to Beau for his creation. And after the war in heaven God sent Lucifer to dwell on earth. And that's when it all started , that's when Lucifer wanted to take revenge on God. By ruining his creation.

If Lucifer was the serpent:
If that's the case this whole idea with God creating the new heavens and the earth is just to flush out Lucifer and his evil angels from heaven. Other wise it doesn't make sense.

If so it means that Lucifer was evil al a long. That's the only explanation that can fit into Lucifer being the serpent.
But according to the story Lucifer was Gods most trusted angel until he had to Beau to us humans.


I think God sent Lucifer and his angels down to earth because we where cast out of the garden already. God would never let Lucifer come to earth to play with us. If we where in the garden. It was gods perfect creation.
It wouldent be perfect if evil Lucifer and his angels was to be able to walk among us.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by miriam0566
yes.

Wow. The level of Arrogance, conceit and ignorance in that one word response is astounding. The Jewish people, the Chosen Race, the people who wrote and passed down the Old Testament for thousands of years before the Christians were even a thought in anyone's head... THEY didn't "Interpret" God Correctly.

I suppose if that were true, the Christian Faith wouldn't be accurate in the least as it would be based on a flawed foundation of a wrongly interpreted deity.

by the time we get to jesus, he was saying that these people were burdened by useless tradition. the rabbis hijacked judaism the same way the church eventually hijacked christianity.

granted, im not saying that those rabbi´s were completely without merit or that they simply didnt know what they were talking about. but there is evidence that they got certain things wrong.

What evidence can you even possibly Cite that doesn't occur in the era of the Christians? You can't make such a claim. That would be like saying water doesn't have a boiling point because it isn't boiling NOW and citing that as proof.



first off, satan is not a name. its a title but im sure you already knew that. so satan or Shai´tahn being a title borrowed from elsewhere is inconsequential. second, where does the book of job say that it should be taken metaphorically? is there any verse that shows that?

A title for WHAT, per se? And as for where it is "SAID" in the book, I stated very explicitly that you should speak with a Rabbi on the subject. The oral traditions of the Jewish faith are just as strong today as they were three thousand years ago. I would qualify a Rabbi as far more qualified to make statements about their faith than you are.

does that mean noah and daniel are also ¨metaphoric¨? is it not possible that the rabbi is wrong?

Depends on the Rabbi. Everyone is capable of being wrong, but a Rabbi knows more about his people's religion than you do. Assuming they are "WRONG" on something that you haven't been raised to teach is incredibly arrogant.

lucifer is actually Helal translated and it referred to the babylonian king, but im sure from your last post you knew that.

I'm well aware of myriad different origins of Lucifer. Helal is but one possible explanation, and a popular one.

but my question stands. is there any reason to believe that satan was NOT the serpent?

Why do you believe Satan was? It's been demonstrated that the usage of Lucifer from various points in the bible doesn't refer to the Serpent, and Satan's name was added to the book after adopting Shai'Tahn into the religion... so who is the Snake?

Was the snake Deceiving, or was the Snake being truthful? Was the snake undermining the Lord Thy God, and if so, for what Reason?

Gnosticism proposes that the Snake was Pistis Sophia, the mother of the Demi-Urgos, who saw the potential in humankind to become one with the Great Divine Spirit, and so subverted the destiny of Humankind by making them eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

And then you go and say that if my review is from a "Scholastic Point of View" you agree, but otherwise I am wrong? So, from a scholarly review perspective I am accurate, but because you want to believe otherwise, I am wrong?

no, before your reply, i was not sure of your beliefs. some scholars are atheist and look at the bible as if it is a record of mythology. from that point of view, christians ¨borrowed¨ their faith from the jews.

As for the divinely inspired scriptures, I've never counted Revelations even close to Divinely inspired. As a Gnostic, I think the Apocryphal texts are more divinely inspired than some of the books that were put into the canonical text.

ok so god had some part in inspiring the writings, but he decided stay out of what books are included in his bible. this does not make sense to me at all. its logical to think that if god DID inspire writings, that he would also make sure that those writings are available to everyone. so say that the bible, which is the most circulated book in the world... ever, would contain the complete word of god. what would be the point of hiding his will in some generally unknown apocryphal text?

reply to post by miriam0566


miriam9566:

Hello there! First let me say I look forward and learn much from all your posts. Where I have the belief of Lucifer being satan and the devil came from my Nave's Topical Bible. When looking under the name of Lucifer it suggested to also look under the names of satan and the devil.

It is of course still one's own choice as to what they choose to believe. There are sources that can be gotten to prove almost anyone's own personal belief.

In the end I believe that we all must go with what "our gut" tells us, by that of course I don't mean so much about "what was written or by who" as much as by what our heart and the Holy Spirit teaches us, after we read the Scriptures and/or other text. I confess that I have a lot to learn book wise and hope that my teachings spiritual wise excel above to God himself.

Peace to you,
Grandma

reply to post by Grumble

Genesis explains. For some deeper explaination Read the book of Enoch.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by miriam0566
yes.

Wow. The level of Arrogance, conceit and ignorance in that one word response is astounding. The Jewish people, the Chosen Race, the people who wrote and passed down the Old Testament for thousands of years before the Christians were even a thought in anyone's head... THEY didn't "Interpret" God Correctly.

I suppose if that were true, the Christian Faith wouldn't be accurate in the least as it would be based on a flawed foundation of a wrongly interpreted deity.

think about for a second what you are essentially asking me to do. you are asking me to defend revealed information without using the reveal information. you dont want me to use christian texts

is the gospel´s inspired or not?

if they are, they alone hold your answers. jesus was tempted by a person, not a metaphor. he had conversations with demons, where they metaphors too?

your are effectively taking speculation (a rabbi simply saying satan is a metaphor) and you are comparing it to inspired writings, then your talking the side of the speculation. then you call me ignorant and arrogant.

the jewish people, the chosen race, make mistakes. they always did. constantly introducing false worship in there day to day lives. alot of the prophet books attest to that. and yet you are saying im the one who is ignorant?

What evidence can you even possibly Cite that doesn't occur in the era of the Christians? You can't make such a claim. That would be like saying water doesn't have a boiling point because it isn't boiling NOW and citing that as proof.

again... are the gospels inspired or not? if they are inspired, why would i NOT be able to cite them?

A title for WHAT, per se?

resistor, adversary.

first occurrence of the title appears in numbers 22:22 and actually doesnt refer to ha sa-tan´ or the devil but actually to an angel sent by god to ¨resist¨ balaam

1sa 29:4, 2 sa 19:21,22, 1 ki 5:4, 11:14, 23, 25 all have ¨satan¨ in them in the original hebrew, but are not actually referring to satan, but rather to adversaries or resistors.

¨satan¨ is a title, not a name. satan´s original name as far as we know is not made known.

And as for where it is "SAID" in the book, I stated very explicitly that you should speak with a Rabbi on the subject. The oral traditions of the Jewish faith are just as strong today as they were three thousand years ago. I would qualify a Rabbi as far more qualified to make statements about their faith than you are.

but once again we get back to inspiration or not...

john 8:[44] Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

jesus´ own words. was he wrong to call satan the ¨father¨ of the lie?

Depends on the Rabbi. Everyone is capable of being wrong, but a Rabbi knows more about his people's religion than you do. Assuming they are "WRONG" on something that you haven't been raised to teach is incredibly arrogant.

no, arrogant is assuming someone is right or wrong based on no evidence. looking at the scriptures, one can easily deduce that satan is a person and that he was there in the garden of eden. you can trifle all you want and say well you can only use the hebrew scriptures to prove that or you can cite what scholars say on the subject, but it doesnt change the fact that the scriptures are staring you right in the face.

I'm well aware of myriad different origins of Lucifer. Helal is but one possible explanation, and a popular one

the point is, we both agree its not satan.

Why do you believe Satan was? It's been demonstrated that the usage of Lucifer from various points in the bible doesn't refer to the Serpent, and Satan's name was added to the book after adopting Shai'Tahn into the religion... so who is the Snake?

Was the snake Deceiving, or was the Snake being truthful? Was the snake undermining the Lord Thy God, and if so, for what Reason?

Gnosticism proposes that the Snake was Pistis Sophia, the mother of the Demi-Urgos, who saw the potential in humankind to become one with the Great Divine Spirit, and so subverted the destiny of Humankind by making them eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

does that seriously make sense to you?

start with the lie. didnt satan say that eve would not die? didnt eve die?

if satan was truthful, then wouldnt god be the liar? didnt it ever occur to you that that is what satan would have wanted? he is called a liar and deceiver.

as to why, just think about it for a moment. covetousness. he wanted something he didnt have. he wanted glory for himself. its the same reason people try to usurp thrones. they want the honor.

You see a long time ago... well, when time did not matter for it existed not, The unbegotten became self begotten and one of the self begotten created with out her concort and 'bang' the universe formed.. along with many other creations of multi dimensions. So being the the creation from Sophia became 'the lord thy god' which tried to rule over that which Sophia created. Sophia meanwhile fell through the mysteries (lost power) and it was not until the incarnation of her concort (Jesus of Nazzerath sp) which saved her from the lower powers (archons). Since we are created from Sophia and are imperfect we must redeme (learn) how to reach divinity again.
Oh, what if the snake was actually Jesus the concort of Sophia. ah the complexity of metaphorical speach lol...

reply to post by miriam0566


Except for the fact that God would have known what he was doing, allowed him to do it and continued to allow him to do it from heaven for some time. Seems like a real retard move to me.

I don't believe in either the Christian or Jewish account for things, even though I still chose to believe in Jesus. Technically, there isn't anything to support the Christian interpretation of Satan or Lucifer in the Scriptures. I've studied that, and the passages used, never meant what they claim in modern times, mind you, or at least comparatively speaking as the original writings are ancient. A belief in a permanent hell only began to be championed for by Augustine. Just about all of this stuff doesn't mean what Christians interpret it to mean, but that doesn't mean the faith as passed on by the Jews, or even the gnostic ones is correct.
Despite this, there does appear to be something playing the traditional role of fallen angels/demons in lower dimensions and possibly in our world, and I had a kind of classic experience with them, and was rescued by a classic angel. But it was in semi sleep and in sleep mode, and it certainly was subjective. But due to it I researched this very deeply because I had never even imagined this could be real. That it is real, is not dependent on the truth of Scriptures. Even the word used for hells fire, Gehenna, was a kind of dump where garbage was burned, and was not the biblical hell.

The early accounts were just visions, or allegories, anyway, they were not literal in any respect. The story of Adam and Eve is just an allegory of sorts. Personally I think ets had more to do with this, and that two opposing sets of goals amongst at least two opposing factions of alien "keepers" was involved in that story.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by mystiq]

I think you all have totally missed the point about the apple, and just what the apple represents in the bible.

What Lucifer did was make humans self aware. Prior to that we were animal like in our innocence and ran around naked in total bliss and ignorance. There was no evil or good prior to the apple for we were just like all other animals who lived by their instincts only and any of their acts or actions have nothing to do with good or evil. As example, a lion killing a deer is not an evil or good act for the lion has no self awareness and doesn’t have the choice to do it or not.

When you think about it, this was a humongous attack against God by Lucifer and it was most ingenious. Giving man the ability of choice through self-awareness Lucifer gave man the ability to do evil or good which prior to the apple he could not do. This opened the door for him to guild man towards evil/him and away from god.

As a trump card God sacrificed his only son so that man could be saved even after doing evil acts if he wanted to be saved.

So in the end such as the number 666 that we pin as the sign of the devil is really the sign of man for man is the only living creature that can possibly commit an evil act. Whether god is good or the devil is evil is a moot point for good and evil rest completely in the hands of man….

The symbolism of wisdom and also loss of innocence, but...its also just symbolic.
Unless, in a sort of relation to the book of enoch, it is two opposing groups of et, wherein one is more controlling and keeping us more primitive, and the "luciferian" ones advancing us, but along with that was decadence and greed and human sacrifice. Don't really know who was truly the bad guy here in the two groups, perhaps both were. These were just dreams or visions someone had. The book was written thousands of years after the events. Could you imagine someone on ATS, after a series of visions, writing some "cemented in stone" tale that would become a controlling religion for thousands of years. !!!

Edit to add: where were the skeptics when we needed them back then?

[edit on 30-11-2008 by mystiq]

Originally posted by mystiq
The symbolism of wisdom and also loss of innocence, but...its also just symbolic.
[edit on 30-11-2008 by mystiq]

Yes it is mostly symbolism, and I feel it is the story of the progress of human evolution and when man left the Garden of Eden is the point in his evolution when man finally became man, and a big part of that was the point we became self-aware.