From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:04:18 GMT

In article <fVtf04U@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.160014.13688@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <fVqpYAJ@quack.sac.ca.us> 
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov17.163018.790@cs.yale.edu> 
>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>The OT and NT both speak of a literal Satan. In the OT, he's the prosecuting
>>>>attorney of the divine court.
>>>Well, sort of. Satan is a Hebrew word, it is the word for adversary or as you
>>>say, prosecuting attorney. Somehow the Christians got confused, probably
>>>Paul, and thought Satan was a name. As the poster above says, there is no
>>>Hell and no Satan, Devil, Lucifer in Judaism. Judaism is pure monotheism.
>>Yes, I'm aware of the fact that "Satan" is a Hebrew word for "adversary",
>>however, the Satan, if you like, is a real individual, though subordinate
>>to God, and, as I say, the prosecuting attorney in God's court.
>Well, I'm glad that you think that Satan is a real individual. Good for
>you. Interested in investing in some Florida swamp land?
Satan is a real individual in the tradition, numb nuts. I'm an atheist.

>>Your assertion that somehow Paul is the one who got it wrong is
>>simply nuts, however, and shows a complete unfamiliarity with the
>>Apochalyptic Eschatology.
>I have all their albums, even the White one with the raised lettering.
You really refuse to learn, don't you?

>>The idea of a literal "Satan" becomes much
>>more prevalant towards the time of Jesus, long before Paul. Jubilees,
>>I believe it is, refers to "Prince Mastema(lit. Hate)" who takes many
>>of the actions that seemed inappropriate for Yahweh to take. In specific,
>>he urges God to test Abraham. It doesn't have anything to do with the
>>Christians getting it wrong, but simply with modern Xianity being
>>an outgrowth of a dualistic eschatalogical tradition. I suggest you
>>compare the War Scroll from the DSS. Since Judaism is an outgrowth
>>of the Pharasaic tradition, it doesn't have this element.
>I'm sure the idea comes from the Septuagint which is known to be a
>flawed translation. However, since Paul is the father of Western
>Christianity, a good deal of the "exegesis" probably comes from him.
The idea does NOT come from the LXX you idiot. In case you hadn't
noticed, the DSS are not in Koine, they're in Hebrew. Now, if you
were the Qumran sect(maybe the Essenes, maybe not) and you had
Hebrew versions of the texts, why would you insist on using a Koine
translation? They did have Hebrew versions you know. We found them(some)
in the DSS cache. Moreover, we have many "apochryphal" texts which
are again written in Hebrew and which predate the LXX. Jubilees,
for instance, is written in Hebrew. The claim that somehow the authors
of Jubilees, who quite clearly believed in a literal "Satan"(Prince
Mastema) somehow needed the LXX to give them the concept when they
were perfectly capable of reading the texts in the Hebrew themselves
is pretty stupid, Paul.

>>>>In the NT, he is more or less the opposite of God.
>>>Well, now we are on rough ground. If Satan is truly the opposite of God, then
>>>we have dualism, not monotheism.
>>That's a matter of opinion. In classical Xian theology, (non Manicheist)
>>Satan is opposite in intentionality, but inferior in power. The claim
>>is that he is inferior and therefore not a God.
>Then, why did you say, "more or less the opposite of God?"
Because it was shorter and I didn't expect this sort of stupid nitpicking,
even from you.

>>>The concept of Lord of the Underworld is
>>>Greco/Roman.
>>Not just Greco-Roman. Compare Gilgamesh for evidence of this.
>>> The concept of Lord of Light and Lord of Dark is Persian
>>>dualism. Paulist Christianity represents the combination of Hebrew monotheism
>>>plus the Greco/Roman Lord of the Underworld and God as man (Jesus) plus the
>>>Persian duality plus some pagan concepts like a Holy Trinity. And who said
>>>Paul wasn't a clever marketer.
>>As far as I can tell, Paul didn't sell the trinity, and hardly created
>>the idea of the Devil as we have him today. You really can't attribute
>>2000 years of Xian theology to Paul alone.
>True, but he is the father of Western Christianity.
SO?
That's on the same level of intelligence as attributing punctuated
equilibrium to Darwin, merely because he happened to be the father
of evolution.


>>>By the way, are you aware of what the Devil's crime was? You see, God first
>>>created the angels, including Lucifer, and He commanded, "bow to no one but
>>>Me". Then He created man and He said, "Bow to man." Now, Lucifer and the
>>>archangels refused to bow to man. They felt it was insulting to God and they
>>>felt they caught God in a contradiction and perhaps He was testing them. So
>>>the archangels who refused to bow to man, led by Lucifer, were sentenced to
>>>Hell. And what is Hell? Hell is never being able to see He who they
>>>loved again, to never again see God. Think about it
>>This is all later myth. Perhaps you should see what the texts really
>>say before you come up with this sort of crap.
>You think I made this up? You are too kind. I'm not this creative.
I didn't say you made this up. I said it's later myth.

>>For instance, Lucifer
>>is only mentioned in one place, Isaiah, and it's quite clear that
>>he is the King of Babylon, not any sort of divine figure whatsoever.
>
>Are you refering to Isaiah14:12?
>(KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
>*how* art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
>(JPS) How are you fallen from heaven, O Shining One, son of Dawn!(d) How
>are you felled to earth, O vanquisher of nations!
>d: A character in some lost myth.
>By the way, Lucifer is a Latin word meaning morning star or light
>bearing, lux = light + ferre = to bring.
Yes, I'm quite aware of what it says. You don't think that Isaiah wrote
in Latin, do you? He certainly didn't use the word "Lucifer".
The catch is that the KJV authors were quite aware of the Lucifer
mythos, and therefore used the name.
If you check out the context, it's in a series of oracles against
various nations: Moreover, the text is quite clear:
Isaiah 14.4 "You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon."
The next 17 verses are that taunt. It doesn't have anything to
do with angels at all.

>>This isn't even the classical Xian myth, which is that Satan refused to
>>bow to God! (compare Paradise Lost).
>I think you're getting stories mixed up. Satan refused to follow God's
>wish that he bow to man. Satan was God's most devout angel. It was his
>total love of God that prevented him from bowing to man. That's the
>lesson, if you see it.
Once again, I do not believe that's the classical myth. Does anyone
remember what Paradise Lost says? (A pretty good guess at the myth.)
As I remember, in PL, Satan is cast out of heaven before the creation
of man.

>>In either case, it's not grounded
>>in the text, and it's far from clear that it was a common belief
>>at the time the NT waws being written. I suggest you go back
>>and check the original texts to see what they really say.
>Original texts? Do you mean the Hebrew scriptures? Of course it's not in
>there, Judaism is pure monotheism. And you'll find only a hint that
>there was a war in Heaven led by Satan, but no details in the "official"
>Protestant Greek Gospel.
What are you talking about? "Official Protestant Greek Gospel."

> That's because somebody edited the stories out.
>And who could that have been? The church lady?
Noone edited the bloody stories out. It's simply a much later myth.

Stop being so paranoid, eh?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."