Who carried anything backwards? I merely quoted a passage of scripture in which is shown that the Hebrews were knowledgeable of Satan long before Christianity came into being. Providing that the various translations of the OT are accurate, then those translations show that Satan possessed certain qualities in which are included 'self will' and 'presumptuousness'. No argument on those points immediately above. Considering that you are now pondering a probability, I will not argue that point. I will take a chance here and simply add that you should have added a delimiter such as "some", "many", "a few".... but to simply say "posters" is all inclusive and I cannot agree with that summation.
Faith? I have no faith. I only believe what can be seen, observed, not only outwardly, but inwardly. I can observe, as any human being can, what the ego is, what creates it, its nature, and that can be done without any other authority telling one anything about it. In fact, you must look for yourself, and not take my word for it, or anyone else's word. If you trust an authority, then you will not self discover. And the seeking of the kingdom is just that, self discovery. No one can do it for me. It has to be directly experienced, or its worthless. This path that Christ spoke of, has to be done by the each of us. And it is not easy. For distractions are very powerful. If anyone made it a purpose, to self observe every possible moment, in daily existence, there is so much to be learned there. And that very seeing, and learning does something to consciousness. One will reach a point, if great energy is given to it, that an epiphany happens. It is like walking down a path and seeing a poisonous snake as your foot is moving towards it, and you react without thinking.. The heart pumps, the senses become more away, it has a physical effect upon the entire organism. But what happens when you see that the snake was just a rope? This is what I am talking about, but it happens in consciousness, in regards to the ego, the self, the me. It is very real, and faith is not needed. Perhaps faith is only needed if one doesn't find the inner kingdom, as we are impatient. Perhaps then it takes faith in order to keep the self observation going, that something unseen is there, but you have not knocked on the right door yet. I dunno, makes sense. I only say these things, because instead of reading about them, there was a personal experience involved. So one speaks of what one has discovered. Not as an idea, a concept, but a discovery, that all people can discover too. So then having discovered something, when one reads the teaching of Christ, what he was talking about is so true, for one has experienced it, without reading him prior to the discovery. And this inner kingdom is no different than what Buddha taught about, and the idea is certainly in parts of Hinduism, and ever Lao Tzu speaks of it, in a different way. There is nothing fairy tale about a direct experience that all can experience if there is attention and intention there. That fairy tales were used to try to convey some of this is apparent to me, but they also send people on some rather silly paths, that the farther one travels, the more absurd they become. If religion is to have any value at all to humanity, it has to involve an evolution or revolution in consciousness itself. So that a totally different perspective is born. Religion has to change perspectives, in a way that solves all inner turmoil, psychological fears, conflict that all of humanity has in personal consciousness. For it this does not happen, any religion has no real value at all. It is just a belief system, dead, and has no life in it. So if a Christian says he is born again, he will see a total change in how he interacts and treats other human beings in his daily life, and it will not be by any self effort at all. There will be no urge to constantly seek gratification for the ego, hurting others as he does. The very awareness of consciousness will change, a very real rebirth as Christ spoke of. This rebirth has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity as we know it. Nothing. It is as far away from it as anything can be. Christ taught, and since we all have egos, develop then unconsciously as we grow from an infant into a young person, he taught in a way that appealed to the ego. For that is the only way to get through to anyone, is to appeal to the ego. But the paradox is he was speaking of a state of being that was selfless, and selflessness and the Kingdom are one in the same. Of course people need egos, just to survive, and it is a survival device, have no doubt about that. But what happens when one denies the ego, by the understanding that can only come from that inner search, that inner seeking, there is a change in perception of oneself, and the outer world. So when the ego is needed, to get by in daily life, for the ego cannot be separated from memory and thought, the ego comes back into consciousness. But when it is not needed, one is in a selfless state. So the ego no longer is the ruler of the organism, it takes its rightful place, and non ego is the ruler. Now you can hang terms on this, from the bible, and call it Christ consciousness, or the holy spirit, or whatever term you want to use. But the term is just a symbol for an experience. The experience is not the term. You can say that the story of eden is just a nice little story, that symbolizes the rise of the ego in human beings. Without literally thinking the story happened as it is laid out. The story does tell of a monumental event that happened at some point in the history of man, his evolution. And this ego, is what gave humanity everything we know. Art, science, literature, and even organized religion. But there is a great down side to it as well. It creates division inwardly, and outwardly. It divides man, and anywhere there is division, conflict, and even horrible conflicts will inevitably follow. Because we take the division seriously. When in fact, the very thing that creates the division is an illusion, but a very powerful illusion. And here is the deal. One can actually see that the ego, the me, the self, that psychological entity created by memory and thought, for what it actually is, when one seeks the kingdom within. For in that seeking, eventually there will be self inquiry into exactly what it is, that you are trying to save by your efforts. And with understanding, comes freedom, real freedom, from the monumental power of that illusion we call the self, the me. So, if religion does not try to point man in this direction, as Christ tried to do, what good is it? It will create as much evil as it tries to create good, and surely its very history evidences this. The problem of course, is if Christianity stressed seeking the inner kingdom, and place that responsibility on the people you would not need a huge, money making organization with its tiers of religious authority, those that say, you do not know, but I do know, and come to my church and I will show you what to do, how to think, and what to think. The church that JC spoke of is nothing more than people who have discovered the inner kingdom, and being like minded, gather together to commune, for we are social animals. If someone came to that church, the advice given by the people there, would be the same advice JC tried to give. Deny the self, the me, and seek the inner kingdom that is within consciousness itself, which if discovered will change man to his very core of consciousness, healing all psychological afflictions and making him WHOLLY. Make him whole, not fragmented inwardly. Then the question of if the ego survives the body at death, is not even a concern at all. For you have already died to it, while still living. This can be experienced by all human beings, and then you do not need a book at all. For all that is needed, is now living inside the each of us, JC called it living waters Unless one has this, we are all dead anyways, metaphorically speaking. Yet this is foreign to what we call Christians. They are not interested in it. They want to argue over a book, and interpretations, and think about revelations and the end of time, cross their t's and dot their I's, in basically some kind of legalistic religion divorced from reality, that entertains them on sundays. And makes their egos feel superior to other nonsaved egos. It really is cosmic absurdity, along with being full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Of course they knew of Satan - called The Satan. HaSatan. The challenger Judaism does not believe in the devil, but we do believe in Satan (who more properly should be called "the Satan"). As this demonstrates, the Jewish view of Satan is very different than the Christian one. Here's a summary of the Jewish view; you can also find information at Alyza (Gretchen) Shapiro's web site at http://www.geocities.com/alyzab/Jewish/satan.html The word satan means "challenger", "difficulty", or "distraction" (note that it is not a proper name). With the leading ha- to make haSatan, it refers to /the/ challenger. This describes Satan as the angel who is the embodiment of man's challenges. HaSatan works for G-d. His job is to make choosing good over evil enough of a challenge so that it can be a meaningful choice. In other words, haSatan is an angel whose mission it is to add difficulty, challenges, and growth experiences to life. Contrast this to Christianity, which sees Satan as God's opponent. In Jewish thought, the idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic—you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod. The notion of an angel having free will is alien to Judaism. Free will requires the tension created by being a soul dwelling in a body. People can have free will, angels can't. There is a debate over whether they lack the potential for free will, or whether they simply percieve reality to clearly to have any choices to make. But in any case, without the fence-straddling of the human condition, there is no free will. HaSatan acts as a servant of God, not as an opponent or even disobediant child. Angels cannot sin, they cannot fall. http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-35.html
Strong's Bible dictionary also portrays 'Satan' as the 'opposer' or one who brings 'opposition'. A "challenger" is synonymous with 'opposer'. "challenger N → desafiador(a) m/f; (= competitor) → aspirante mf; (= opponent) → contrincante mf" Language can be such a witch at times. At best I see a cultural stigma existing between what you are saying and what I have stated. The notion of Satan being Gods opponent was IMHO a silly remark, because Satan already lost the battle with God when Lucifer was cast out of Heaven and made to crawl upon his belly on the ground.... All of which is included in Hebrew culture and teachings within the OT. "Lu·ci·fer n.1. Bible An angelic being who was cast from heaven as punishment for his rebellious pride. Lucifer is traditionally identified with Satan." "Sa·tan n. In Abrahamic religions, a powerful spiritual being, the tempter and persecutor of humanity, sometimes considered as an angel who rebelled against God and became the Devil. [HR][/HR][Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]" I repeat: Language can be such a witch at times. At best I see a cultural stigma existing between what you are saying and what I have stated.
Not to sell your dissertation short, but the opening four words places the remainder of your comments in a position of being a mere justification. "faith" has more than just a religious signification. 'faith' can also simply mean 'trust', 'confidence', 'assurance'. So, for you to say that you have no faith, is dubious at best.
Note. Traditionally. This came about in the 2nd century CE. There is no mention of Lucifer in the Tanakh. What was thought for millenia by the Christian church to be references to Lucifer in Isaiah is now being look at in the light of Hebrew scriptures. It is now becoming agreed among many scholars that references refer to earthly monarchs of the time. The KJV uses the 'name' Lucifer because of an early mistake by a church father. You will not find Lucifer in the Tanakh. Lucifer is Latin. Belief that it was the proper name of Satan began with its use in Bible to translate Greek Phosphoros, which translates Hebrew Helel ben Shahar in Isaiah xiv:12 -- "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] Because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, the verse was interpreted by Christians as a reference to Satan, even though it is literally a reference to the King of Babylon (see Isaiah xiv:4).
Are you then suggesting that these "earthly monarchs" were cast out of Heaven? Apparently you are because you are also presenting the idea that Heaven is/was the abode of the King of Babylon. In other words you are saying that Heaven is located in 'Babylon'. My goodness. Where is your proof of such a claim? And where is 'Babylon' located? Perhaps we should all move to that location so that we can all be members/citizens of Heaven.
LOL So then everyone is to make up whatever they want, and say the Bible is just saying that? The Bible is worthless, the 10 commandments mean zero. Every story is meaningless, there is God, and Jesus was a nice guy no one needs listen to to all. Is that what all you partial preterists believe???
It s a silly examination of the spirits which are inside people, which is where heaven exists, to dismiss the point made in Isaiah 14:12. Of course the spirit fell from the heaven within him, inside his psyche. And to identify Phosphoros as that spirit Lucifer, after the New Testament lists six of the other evil spirits, makes good sense here. Luke 17:20-21: Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." 1) Lucifer = ............... Id 2) Satan =........ ...........Libido 3) Mammon = ............ Ego 4) Devil = .................. Anima 5) Beelzebub = .......... Self 6) False Prophet =.......Superego 7) False Shepherd = ... Harmony The Good Shepherd = ...Conscience
The partial opposition of what Trevorw was presenting. It was essentially a discussion involving differing cultural understandings of the terms "Satan", "Lucifer", and 'devil' which went a little overboard in the defining of those terms and the use of those terms. Needless to say, I cannot agree with all of what he stated, based upon cultural and linguistic differences.
Yes, you are still not sure of what a spirit means. You are half ways agreed with the animism of seeing a class of invisible creatures roaming amongst the human population, being the evil entities no one has ever shown evidence exists,... and partly in realization that evil is inside us, if we ignore our Conscience and let anyone of the archetypes dominate our behavior.
OH! And we (the readers of this forum) are to assume that you are the epitome of spiritual understanding??? Right... LOL.
For goodness sake. Isaiah is foretelling the earthly fate of Israel if they don't follow JHWH. The King of Babylon was threatening Judah with his power. 'O Lucifer' is, as I told you, not in the Tanakh. The Hebrew is 'O star of the morning' and the 'heaven' is what you see above you. Isaiah is all about 'My Servant Israel'. If your post is meant as a serious comment it just proves my assertion that people like yourself do not understand or study Jewish scriptures.
For goodness sake. If your post is meant as serious comments, then it is just another example of how people like you do not understand that people of different faiths are not obligated to study or come to an understanding of the different dogmas of another religion. It is also interesting that you now give a different meaning to the passage in Isaiah regarding the morning star reference. If you are serious, then that bright and morning star was cast down to the earth. Strange it (as you explained it) is still up there.
Yes, it was cast down. The King of Babylon (star) was brought down by the King Cyrus. If, as you have said before, that you have studied/read the OT, your comments would not be necessary. However I could give you a rundown on the history of the time, and the reasons for the Assyrian invasion of the Northern kingdom, and the reason for the Babylonian invasion of the Southern kingdom. Not so much to do with prophecy. More to do with Isaiah understanding the situation of the time. Still, why bother. Hebrew theology is not for you apparently Then 'people of other faiths' should not comment on the Tanakh if they haven't studied it. Only an idiot would argue with a scientist without first studying the subject.
Well goodness me.. you never previously said that you were speaking metaphorically. As a metaphor, it can mean just about anything that one can imagine. As many of the non-theists on this forum will also use the metaphors in the 'Bible' to mean anything that they want them to mean. So what really is your point, and how do you plan to escape the almost infinite number of interpretations that can be derived from using such metaphors? Also: Only an idiot scientist would attempt to argue with someone who favors the 'Bible'. In other words keep the two separate.
? If one believes in spirits which are outside of humans, invisible, and with names like Satan and Devil, Beelzebub, Mammon, Lucifer, etc the definition is animsim: "Animism consisted of two unformulated propositions; all parts of nature had a soul, and these souls are capable of moving without requiring a physical form. This gives rise to fetishism, the worship of visible objects as powerful, spiritual beings. The second proposition was that souls are independent of their physical forms. It gives rise to 'spiritism', the worship of the souls of the dead and the unseen spirits of the heavens. ... in Animism, the soul or essence or spirit of objects and living things are novel and separate from the whole,... gives rise to 'spiritism', the worship of the souls of the dead and the unseen spirits of the heavens. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
Huh,... He seemed to make good sense to me. The reference to the morning star and heaven certainly suggest a spiritual element here, whether it refers to the kind or not. The king was under the influence of some spirit which is in heaven. How is that not "a serious comment?"
So you're saying that "the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus,... my shepherd" is influenced by God, himself, here, but to assume the evil spirit, marked by "a morning star" which was "in heaven," too did not exist in this story from Isaiah? [Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1]
Nice copy and paste. So what is your point? Are the readers also supposed to be impressed with that ability that you have used?
It is a simile, not a metaphor. The writer is telling us that Cyrus is under the influence of his Unconscious mind. He is being led to act as a servant of God. And, the King is marked by the star, as influenced by an angel in the heaven of the kingdom within. [Luke 17:21]
