Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I misspoke. It is not the correctly translated word from the scripture's original language in any bible. Therefore it should not be in any bible, and many translations do not have it. The KJV translation of "Lucifer" is in error. You can research it yourself if you want. Or not.
I tried to tell him/her already but I'm just a heathen. What do I know?
Sheol in Hebrew, the KJV translated it "hell" in 31 instances and "grave" in another 31 instances, either "hell" and "grave" means the same, does it? - English is not my mothertongue; or they have knowing and willfully twisted the bible.
Well, Christ certainly did not have Satan dwelling in His flesh. Christ's flesh was not at enmity to God or opposing God.
Neither did Christ's flesh tempt Him to worship Satan (supposedly Christ's flesh).
So if the story of the temptation of Christ is about a figment of the imagination of how Satan is in us then most likely Christ stands for, oh, I don't know, maybe the good spirit in us? Which is very odd to me but it seems that is what the paradigm calls for for those who believe Satan is just a figment or our imagination or is our flesh or is in our flesh.
First, satan is a transliteration of σατανᾶς or satanas (strongs #4567) from the hebrew word שָׂטָן or satan (#7854)... This word MEANS adversary. Can you see that it is totally wrong for this word to be used in it's transliterated form rather than translated as adversary which is what the translation would be. So from the get go your using the word as a name is in error just as the translators leaving the transliteration and capitalizing it is in error.
Second, when you say that satan represents the bad and Christ the good... I have to disagree. Jesus was a man just like you (unless you are a woman like me ). Satan was never described as a human or created being. I don't see the similarity.
Furthermore, the word satan is not used in the Matthew 4 version of Jesus being tempted. The word used is διάβολος or diabolos (#1228) which means false accuser and is translated as "malicious gossips" three times. This word comes from diaballo which is to accuse and is used once in the NT:
Luke 16:1 He also said to his disciples, "There was a certain rich man who had a manager. An accusation was made to him that this man was wasting his possessions.
Now in Mark 1, satan is used... yet we see it is a very short version of the Matt 4 story...
So perhaps the story of Job and the false accuser, satan (who in Job is shown as a helper of God), is VERY similar to that of Jesus and the false accuser, devil. However, believing that satan or devil is a created being with power to influence people is unwarranted by the text, so I don't think you've made your point just from the text alone BUT putting what you are saying into the context of what satan and devil have come to mean since that time (and as Insane stated about the Persian influence.. perhaps earlier to a lesser degree) it makes more sense but is not anymore realistic.
I believe those of you who think of satan, devil, demons... etc. as created beings are mistaken. God is the author of good and EVIL as stated in Isaiah 45:7... so what use is there for a created EVIL being... ??
Sorry, I misspoke. It is not the correctly translated word from the scripture's original language in any bible. Therefore it should not be in any bible, and many translations do not have it. The KJV translation of "Lucifer" is in error. You can research it yourself if you want. Or not.
Lego,
The closest thing to "originals" is the Qumran texts aka "Dead Sea Scrolls". The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. The significance to that is that the texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.
And before the 5% is used for the excuse for the "Lucifer" argument, the 5% involved obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations.
For all intensive purposes, the KJV Bible textual integrity (especially Isaiah) is correct. The core issue is really a matter of belief....which the "originals" couldn't stop people from not believing them either.
Sheol in Hebrew, the KJV translated it "hell" in 31 instances and "grave" in another 31 instances, either "hell" and "grave" means the same, does it? - English is not my mothertongue; or they have knowing and willfully twisted the bible.
While this is not directly about the topic, there is something that has always fascinated me in my research. When someone cracks open the New Testament, we read of concepts and sects that are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. Every bible student knows that the Bible does not roll from Malachi to Matthew just like that. Between the contents of both books, there was a period of elapsed time of about 400 years. These are often called the "silent years" because "god did not speak through the prophets anymore." Historians know that these years were NOT silent by any stretch. In fact, they were action packed and started with the Jews under Persian rule just coming out of Babylonian domination.
The concepts of hell, eternal torment, a devil (opposed to god) an afterlife resurrection and in a more technical way, angels and demons are ALL foreign to the Old Testament. The question is, WHERE did these concepts come from between the Old Testament and the New Testament? While those are questions on to themselves, what is even more curious to me is the appearance of the rival sects the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Again, we read nothing about them in the OT but they are all over the Gospels. Where did they come from?
The Sadducees were from the aristocratic/priestly class and they were members of the old status quo that maintained old Jewish beliefs, "purists" if you will who rejected outside influences on Judaism. According to Josephus, they believed exclusively in the law of Moses and rejected the beliefs of the Pharisees. The rival Pharisees were more popular amongst the common folk and were known for producing the religious teachers (Rabbis). In one story in the New Testament, we are told about the Sadducees meeting Jesus. The writer carefully points out to readers that this sect did not believe in the resurrection. Why is this important? It shows that the Sadducees maintained older Israelite theology which was devoid of any concept of an afterlife resurrection. This was contrasted by the Pharisees who believed in a bodily resurrection.
But why did the Pharisees have a different belief on this matter from the older historical/traditional Sadducee sect? A clue might be in their name. Curiously enough, there is a historical area/province in southwestern Iran known as Fars. This is the original homeland of the Persian people and their native language is known as Parsi or Farsi. To this very day in Fars, there remains a community of followers of the ancient Persian religion known as Zoroastrianism. This is the area that ancient Persian holymen/missionaries originated and this may have been the area that the Persian king commissioned Persian holymen from to accompany Ezra back to Judah to teach the people the law.
Now remember that Zoroastrianism (Persian religion) taught concepts such as eternal torment, paradise (heaven), a great judgment, daevas (angels and demons), an evil deity (Angra Mainyu), a great final battle between good and evil, a cosmic hero (Shayoshant) and a bodily resurrection. ALL of these things made it into Jewish theology by the time we reach the New Testament which were not there in the Old Testament in any developed form. How did they become so popular in Jewish thought? Look no further than the Pharisees. Note VERY carefully how their very name is practically identical to that of the Persian Farsi/Pharsi/Parsi. What this suggests is that this group was made up of either Persians, Jews or both who incorporated Persian religious concepts into Jewish theology.
It makes perfect sense that such Persian concepts would sell well amongst the Jewish common folk because Zoroastrianism basically taught that the wicked man in THIS life would get his just punishment in the NEXT life in the great judgment when all souls will appear before god. It also explains why the Pharisees were popular with the majority poorer class of the Jews. Zoroastrianism was a religion that provided balance and fairness when all was said and done so it appealed to the poor. Interesting to note that Jesus was respected as a rabbi (hinting that he may have been a revolutionary Pharisee) as well as Saul/Paul. Note also that their teachings are saturated with Zoroastrian teachings which set the stage for what many Christians believe today.
In conclusion, it CANNOT be understated the dramatic influences Persian Zoroastrianism had on New Testament Judaism which carried over to Christianity and eventually Islam.
katjonjj, I wrote up this elaborate explanation for you and no reply from you. I am offendededded.
I read it through, just to let you know then was distracted (I AM supposed to be working ) but I don't want to stroke your ego too much so ....
Good Post! Oh and I think I can rep you too... OOPS... I guess I have to spread some reputation around first
LOL...I actually missed World's Dumbest Criminals on TruTV just to type it up and I don't miss that show for anyone. Those fools make me look smarter by the minute.
LOL...I actually missed World's Dumbest Criminals on TruTV just to type it up and I don't miss that show for anyone. Those fools make me look smarter by the minute.
LOL
The post was very informative and gave me a lot more tools in my bible history toolbelt. I took the time to research it even. I think your connection between Persian beliefs and Pharisee is spot on.
(I also love that show... I particularly like the one where the woman doesn't realize that she is being taped.... The look on her face... Don't all interrogation rooms have cameras? )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Satan was never described as a human or created being. I don't see the similarity.
) but I don't want to stroke your ego too much so .... 
Oh and I think I can rep you too... 
