[QUOTE=Zeke129;44316356]Lucifer and the snake were (likely) different characters since most biblical scholars don't seem willing to say that either one is Satan
I think Lucifer is just an angel that rebelled against god, but didn't become the devil, Satan is just a personification of evil, and the talking snake was just literally a snake that talked because the bible was silly like that[/QUOTE]
There's a bunch of really cool canon on the Christian mythos about this subject.
The most accepted description is that Lucifer and Satan were both different fallen angels, both with different reasons for falling into sin. Lucifer has become the personification of Pride and Satan is the personification of Wrath, or rage. As for the 'devil', it's just a concept. There's more than one 'devil' as you would put it (Satan and Lucifer are both called this very often), but the concept of the devil itself is the personification of evil incarnate.
[editline]22nd March 2014[/editline]
Most 'devils' and stories of demons are usually just really fancy versions of real life stories and most characters like Lucifer and Satan are based on real people too.
[editline]22nd March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;44316969]Most scholars along with Judaism state that Lucifer was the king of Babylon, probably Nebuchadnezzar, the verses that mention Lucifer are mocking the king of Babylon due to his lofty opinion of himself, seeing himself as being like a god.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is the origin of that. His 'Pride' was the main thing.
Reminds me of Jezebel.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;44322538]Nicea is my personal favourite. I just, so wanted to be there. Imagine- a bunch of old pops sat and yelled until everyone agreed that yeah, mary was a virgin and holy, christ was a virgin birth thus and yeah, christ and god both exist since forever and didn't came one after another (quite an interesting take on 'which came first? The chicken or the egg?'). :v:[/QUOTE]
Well, if you consider the concept of the Trinity, it makes sense. If you consider that God exists outside of time, it makes sense. If you consider that God is an omnipresent, all-powerful being who can do what he wants, even the virgin birth makes sense. The Council of Nicea was the logical outcome of the growing Biblical interpretation of the time.
Think about it, you've got a couple hundred years of Biblical teaching that basically says the Chief Deity, being Jehovah/YHWH, is three deities in one. That's a fairly classic multi-aspect interpretation, where each subdeity controls a certain aspect of the godhood. It also rectifies the "No other gods before me," while still maintaining a pantheonic approach. Considering the early Jews were polytheistic, you see where they would have gotten that interpretation. It makes sense that that would be preserved as a chief tenet of the religion, because it's so ingrained.
With the others, I guess they just assumed that an all-powerful deity is, in fact, all-powerful, and can do pretty much whatever it wants. It's not like they were going to say that the Christ was born out of wedlock either, so virgin birth it is.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;44317824]I.E. Satan's intent was to trick humanity into serving him by showing them knowledge then ripping it away.
There's a reason he's called "Prince of Lies."[/QUOTE]
It wasn't normal knowledge, though. It was the knowledge of Good and Evil. The snake's intent was to destroy Adam and Eve's innocence, thus making them able to sin, or purposefully defying God's will. We still have that knowledge, humanity as a whole is still inherently flawed, hence the need of baptism, confession, and the Church as a whole.
If you look at it from another point of view, Satan gifted us with self-determination, and that's why he's worshipped by satanists as the ultimate humanist, or why he's consistently portrayed as an individualist that values above everything his indipendence from God (Paradise Lost).
[QUOTE=lapsus_;44321656]Also woah there with the racism, modern mafia isn't like what you'd think any longer.[/QUOTE]
Racism?
I guess it is possible that the snake and the devil were two different fallen angels, doesn't the older texts say that when Lucifer rebelled, 1/3 of the angels in heaven followed him? So essentially, depending on how many angels God had created, Lucifer could effectively be commanding an army of demons. The snake could have been any of them under his control. But even in that sense, could you still say it was Satan to blame because he had commanded this demon in question?
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;44323848]I guess it is possible that the snake and the devil were two different fallen angels, doesn't the older texts say that when Lucifer rebelled, 1/3 of the angels in heaven followed him? So essentially, depending on how many angels God had created, Lucifer could effectively be commanding an army of demons. The snake could have been any of them under his control. But even in that sense, could you still say it was Satan to blame because he had commanded this demon in question?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure you're mixing up the canon and Paradise Lost.
In the latter it is easy- Lucifer is capable of shape-shifting and chooses to transform into a snake because then it can reach Eve and talk to her unnoticed.
All that is there in the text is-
[QUOTE]3- Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.[/QUOTE]
That's the entire description. The catholic church said it is a representation of sin and temptation. Which, by extention, is 'the enemy'. Dunno which is the general thought outside of catolicism.
The step to be made was really really short there. Bestiaries were popular books in the dark age where animals were not only ''''drawn'''' and described, but also given a moral value. Hence why a whole good deal of animals were, and to some extent still are, considered inherently evil- Wolves (in the iconography, the door to hell is a wolf mouth), foxes (Liars, they play dead to catch birds who come peck them) Rats, flies, frogs, lices- and of course- snakes were given negative moral connotations, and often malign nature. And they were all thought to be manifestation of satan.
But that said.. Why a snake? We don't know. Perhaps the writer/s or editor/s of the original text were creeped out by them. who knows really. The canon doesn't give a definite answer on the matter.
to add to the bestiary thing- it is curious how the animal that we nowadays link to satan is 'the goat'.. which didn't have any negative connotation in the dark ages, it was a symbol of knowledge, kind of a 'seer' too. that's another thing modern satanism holds strong to now.
[editline]22nd March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44323823]Racism?[/QUOTE]
50's Italian-american olive-skinned mafioso stereotype =/= Modern day & age worldwide criminal organizations
[QUOTE=zpiscool;44319094]I think this is the first time I've seen a theology discussion on FP like, ever[/QUOTE]
You've been staying out of Mass Debate then.
[QUOTE=gk99;44324344]You've been staying out of Mass Debate then.[/QUOTE]
The last time I saw a religious debate over there it was one guy going out of his way to dismiss any religion-based argument no matter how sensible it was just by saying "but you're religious, you're obviously wrong!"
EDIT: Granted, this was several months ago...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
