Judeo-Christian Satan- A single entity or collection of any number of "God's" adversaries?

Just wanted to open the floor for some disscusssion- I realize all religions have there version of Satan and all that aside speaking directly of the biblical Satan- really you can count on one hand how many times the name or word Satan is used in the Bible. I believe Bael is even mentioned more in the Old Testament then Satan is at all. The only account that I can recall is when there as any acknowledgement of Satan being a single solitary entity is when he tempts Jesus in the desert. So all that said- yes we all know Satan means adversary so do we feel he is a single entity or a collection of “Gods” adversaries and “false gods” as Bael was always referred to- Lucifer, Azazel, Bael, etc= Satan. I never hear of anyone particularly “working with Satan” for a specific goal but hear of the others all the time.

3 Likes

As I’ve said previously on this forum, I firmly believe there is no single entity called Satan. Rather, there are many Satans, and many spirits can take the title Satan (which means adversary) Spirits such as Azazel (who himself told me that he is Satan to some people), Enki, Prometheus, Lucifer, etc.

3 Likes

I’m going to answer this question historically as opposed to using gnosis.

So, originally, satan was not a name it was a title, הַשָּׂטָ֛ן “hashaytan” which means the accuser. It was an angelic entity whose job was to accuse men before God (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Zechariah 3:1-7). In the Septuagint this word was translated as diaboloß “diabolos” which means the slanderer, literally to throw across from διά “through, across” and βάλλειν “to throw”. Diabolos is where we get the word devil from.

Anyway, so during the Babylonian exile, the Jews interact with the Persian Zoroastrian religion. I go at length into this process in this post:

And after this event, we see the only instance of Satan being used as a name in 1 Chronicles 21:14.

tl;dr Satan is a mask of Ahriman.

4 Likes

My UPG seems to (more or less) agree, I typed that out recently in this post.

2 Likes

Maybe I’m reading to deep into this but yet I hear what your saying. I could’ve just as easily yet neglected to included Ahriman as part of the group of entities regarded as “Satan”. Unless I’m mis reading which I probably am and you seem very well versed in biblical and other traditions however the name Satan is mentioned several occasions in the Bible- to be honest the Corinthians reference escaped me however he is mentioned several other times as well- such as a direct calling of name “Satan” when tempting Jesus in the desert and in the book of Job. Pretty sure the Adam and Eve story just refers to “a serpent” if memory serves. Still can count on one hand how many times the name or word Satan is used in the Bible. As for the Adam and Eve story I’ve read that it was Azazel or Samael (which I’ve found confusing since by some accounts Samael is a neutral angel or bringer of death not necessarily an adverserial entity but that’s cause for another discussion. Not that it matters but I’ve often speculated that per the biblical account it was Azazel who tempted Jesus in the desert- after all was he not a watcher associated with the desert and even has a desert mountain named after him- I’m aware of the scapegoat story so no need there. I’ve also read on this very forum through a few members that Azazel is the identified biblical Satan- which may or may not be cause for debate since I was merely alluring to the biblical “Satan” as a number of adveserial entities- a collective word of sorts to simplify things for lazy romans- no offense Italy.

1 Like

Preceding last comment was a joke and a poke at the origins of the Christian bible. On no way shape or form do I consider ancient Roman civilization lazy. Modern maybe. Again no offense Italy :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

I don’t think Azazel is Satan, they fulfill separate roles. Azazel, at least the Azazel that’s mentioned in the Scriptures, is nothing but an entity involved in the scapegoat rite on Yom Kippur. Satan was originally the title of an angel (usually Samael) who’s job is to accuse people before God, but after Babylonian exile when Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism he became an oppositional entity to YHWH.

2 Likes

Hmmmm- seemed to have opened a can of worms here. I do not speak Hebrew but appreciate the translations. When you paranthesised (Satan) was that your own doing or is that part of the texts. I realize your going back to roots here but speaking from a judeo-Christian perspective I realize the Zoroastrianism connection. However I’m not as familiar with it so leaned topic more towards the " traditional" judeo Christian context. I’ll spare the quotes but some of them allure to “Satan” as a single entity. Funny a google and wiki of not that I hold much credence to wiki or google but like I said earlier speaks of him as an neutral entity and angel of death-

So I’ve opened the can of worms now to catch then and go fishing- based on the preceding quote one may almost take that as saying Satan is a single entity Samael. This is all hypothetical and sarcastic but if “God or YWEH” is omnipresent why the fuck does he need an “accuser” after all he is omnipresent. Also the story of Job is one of my favorites- " sure go fuck with someone who loves and worships me to prove a point to a “lesser” being. Typical. Also are we implying here that lucifer is an insignificant figure here?

1 Like

As far as i know, in sanskrit is it spelled “SAT-AN”, and it was meaning the [illusionary] world.
“Illusionary”? That sounds familiar:

The jedi consider magic an illusion.
The church considers magic as an illusion.
(Meaning, that no witch has done anything ever, but “Satan”,
and for this service does he get the witch’s soul after death.)
The buddhists consider the manifested world as a whole an illusion.

I don’t wanna sound like some “rebellic little teen brat”, but:
if they believe that it is an illusion -it is probably as real as you can ever get!

~So… We kinda are all Satans.

P.S.: When EA evoked Satan, he might as well evoked just some loose, shapeless thought form.
-But what do i know?

1 Like

Lucifer is not in the Bible. He is the Roman name of the Greek God Heosophoros, God of the Morning Star.

It was one of my first posts where I went over the Hebrew and showed that Lucifer is a Latin mistranslation of the original Hebrew. And, it’s a poetic nickname of the King of Babylon anyway. No fallen angel, no true name of Satan, just a bad translation. If Lucifer were truly the name of Satan then why did a fellow named Lucifer become a Bishop of Cagliai and later a Saint (see: St. Lucifer of Cagliari)?

1 Like

Satan is a Hebrew word, not Sanskrit. So, to use Sanskrit for your basis of translation and meaning is really bad etymology.

This is false, the Catholic Church at least, considers magic to be a real and true threat as well as a sin. It’s even in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[quote]2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future.48 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.[/quote]

1 Like

Is cool.

1 Like

Obviously free thought is first and foremost but on some EA videos there are direct references to the first one that comes to mind is " I don’t really work with Satan much" almost sounds like he considers him a single conscience entity- actually there’s a few examples I found

1 Like