Jump to content
Science Forums

Satan discussion


Moontanman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm almost afraid to bring this up but is anyone else (who is familiar with the Torah, Bible and Apocrypha) curious about certain things the UB brought up that agree with, and explain, some things in those books?

 

I know some of you will be thinking 'oh no, not again' but I would like to look at those points from a more logical perspective rather than an emotional one.

 

Just to clarify, the UB was not written by the same person who inspired the Bible and some Apocrypha, there are too many errors and inconsistencies both with science and the Biblical/Torah account.

 

However, there were other things that need further investigation. The UB states that 'Jesus is Michael' and the Bible agrees. In the Book of Revelation (22:16), Jesus called Himself, 'the bright and morning star', which is just another name for a high angel)'. And why the mention of Michael in the Book of Daniel and elsewhere (10:13, 21, 12:1, and Jude 1:9) if he were not a central figure? Also mention of the fact that Michael is a prince, another name for a high angel.

 

The N.T. states that 'the word (Messiah)' was made 'flesh (flesh and blood)' and dwelt among us (John 1:4) and the word was 'in the beginning and made everything' (John 1:3). Which means that this morning star was responsible for creation, which certainly suits the UB designation of 'Creator Son'.

 

And the topic of Melchizedek: I have often wondered who the heck he was. The brief mention in the Torah/O.T. says of him says he was 'priest (almost as in the priest) of the Most High' and 'king of Salem'(Gen. 14:18), and that for gifts, he brought 'bread and wine' (these have strong spiritual meanings).

 

Also: "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4)

 

Priest-king, Melchizedek in Gen. 14:8. The Christian explanation was always that Melchizedek was God, although he was mentioned in a different sense than God! It makes much more sense that Melchizedek was from some sort of order of heavenly priests.

 

The UB explanation for these things makes a lot of sense.

 

I see the UB as a bad science text but in other ways I wonder at some of its spiritual claims.

 

After seeing its negative effects on its adherents and believing as I do in spirits, think the UB was authored by apostate angels and thus the reason for some of it's amazing spiritually-related insights.

 

 

The morning star is more often associated with Satan, not Jesus.... and UB is associated with Bull Butter....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The morning star is more often associated with Satan, not Jesus.... and UB is associated with Bull Butter....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

 

Yes there's a lot in the UB that's Bull Butter as you say and yes Lucifer was a 'morning star (angel)' but the point I'm making is that the Bible does not disagree with the UB in this instance as Jesus referred to himself in the same way - making him and Lucifer equals:

 

Book of Revelation 22:16:

"I Jesus... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

 

Had it not been in the Bible I wouldn't give it another thought but Jesus clearly called himself an angel - which changes things considerably. It would change the very face of Christianity, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there's a lot in the UB that's Bull Butter as you say and yes Lucifer was a 'morning star (angel)' but the point I'm making is that the Bible does not disagree with the UB in this instance as Jesus referred to himself in the same way - making him and Lucifer equals:

 

Book of Revelation 22:16:

"I Jesus... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

 

Had it not been in the Bible I wouldn't give it another thought but Jesus clearly called himself an angel - which changes things considerably. It would change the very face of Christianity, don't you think?

 

 

Not for me it wouldn't, I don't believe in any of it.... I admit The Urantia Revelation is particularly silly in my eyes but none of it is supported by any real evidence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for me it wouldn't, I don't believe in any of it.... I admit The Urantia Revelation is particularly silly in my eyes but none of it is supported by any real evidence....

 

It wouldn't mean anything to you but it would be a huge blow to Christians specifically that Jesus most definitely referred to himself as an angel/son of God.

 

It's interesting that in Greek mythology, Hades and Zeus were brothers and I used to wonder where the Greeks came up with this. Now I find this same idea paralleled in both the Bible and UB (Satan and Jesus/Michael).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Book of Revelation 22:16:

"I Jesus... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

 

Had it not been in the Bible I wouldn't give it another thought but Jesus clearly called himself an angel ...

You’ve “…”-ed out a significant part of Revelation 22:16, Dduck! The unedited KJV verse reads:

I Jesus
have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches
. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I don’t think many people who accepted this verse as an accurate translation into English of an actual utterance of a historically real Jesus Christ, take this to say at all, let alone clearly, “I, Jesus, am an angel.” Most, I believe, take the phrase “bright and morning star” as a metaphor meaning roughly “hope for the future”.

 

... which changes things considerably. It would change the very face of Christianity, don't you think?

I don’t think the widespread acceptance that “Jesus is an angel” would much change the beliefs or behavior of Christians. Much stranger descriptions of Jesus have and continue to be entertained by wide and influential Christian communities – for example, Gnostic Christian sects, some of which consider Jesus a supernatural false prophet, and/or a purely supernatural being who’s physical appearance was entirely illusion, or the Aquarian Gospel, which considers nearly all of the Christian cannon to be a deceptive perversion of the actual message of Christ – without much affecting mainstream Christian beliefs or behavior.

 

An objective historic analysis of Christian beliefs and behaviors show that they do change significantly over time, but only slowly, along with the beliefs, natural and supernatural, of humanity in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’ve “…”-ed out a significant part of Revelation 22:16, Dduck! The unedited KJV verse reads:

I Jesus
have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches
. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

It doesn't change the meaning because I omitted the first part. Jesus was simply saying that he sent his angel (lesser in rank) to the churches - which are the seven angels (seven eyes) over seven churches in the Book of Revelation.

 

Most, I believe, take the phrase “bright and morning star” as a metaphor meaning roughly “hope for the future”.

 

Stars = angels:

 

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

 

Jesus was also called 'the Son of God':

 

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)

 

Satan is included with the 'sons of God' but mentioned in a different sense. But who were the other 'sons of God'?

 

morning stars/sons of god (synonyms) = angels

 

Lucifer = light bearer/shining one/morning star

 

 

 

It's no metaphor.

 

 

I don’t think the widespread acceptance that “Jesus is an angel” would much change the beliefs or behavior of Christians.

 

Then you don't know Evangelical Christians!! The Catholics would be less surprised because they venerate Mary.

 

Much stranger descriptions of Jesus have and continue to be entertained by wide and influential Christian communities – for example, Gnostic Christian sects:

 

The Gnostic Gospels are not accepted by Evangelicals, mainline Christian, Jehovah's Witnesses or many Catholics.

 

some of which consider Jesus a supernatural false prophet, and/or a purely supernatural being who’s physical appearance was entirely illusion, or the Aquarian Gospel, which considers nearly all of the Christian cannon to be a deceptive perversion of the actual message of Christ – without much affecting mainstream Christian beliefs or behavior.

 

I'm speaking of Christianity specifically.

 

An objective historic analysis of Christian beliefs and behaviors show that they do change significantly over time, but only slowly, along with the beliefs, natural and supernatural, of humanity in general.

 

Religion is an invention of man, not God and so inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is an invention of man, religion is how people worship the fictitious being or beings they have invented...

 

 

Religion is political through hierarchal leadership, which is most definitely not the Biblical model.

 

God's method is a democratic process, therefore, a government run on true democratic principles is the Biblical model and religion, unnatural.

 

 

How certain are you that God is fictitious?

 

Quantum theories of holographic multi universes is gaining credibility. What if we're the weird ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is political through hierarchal leadership, which is most definitely not the Biblical model.

 

I'd like to see you expand on this point.

 

 

God's method is a democratic process, therefore, a government run on true democratic principles is the Biblical model and religion, unnatural.

 

No, God's method is service to an all powerful tyrant, no democratic processes are involved. Can you change gods word by a vote?

 

How certain are you that God is fictitious?

 

Absolute

 

Quantum theories of holographic multi universes is gaining credibility. What if we're the weird ones?

 

Again, please expand on this, i don't understand what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quantum theories of holographic multi universes is gaining credibility. What if we're the weird ones?

 

...What? What is a 'holographic multi universe'? And I don't see how much of anything could be 'weirder' than "an omniponent being that existed before there was anywhere for him/her/it to exist created the universe in a week by using powers that he/she/it has. We know this from a book that is the work of someone (apparently the son of him/her/it) that showed up thousands of years ago and is impossible (or nearly so) to independently verify."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see you expand on this point.

 

A corporate/political mentality is one where there's a CEO (Pope, Pastor, Rabbi, etc.), then under him/her Vice-President: (Bishops, Cardinals, Elders, etc.), then Managers (Deacons, Priests, Nuns) and finally the people themselves. This kind of leadership has the elite few ruling the many.

 

Of course this is how it must work in corporations, government, etc. but it's not the Biblical model for churches.

 

Paul said:

 

"But do not be called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren.

 

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

10Neither will you be called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." (Matt. 23:8-10)

 

No, God's method is service to an all powerful tyrant, no democratic processes are involved. Can you change gods word by a vote?

 

Moses did, Abraham, did, David did (and others)...changed God's mind on a number of occasions.

 

A great misunderstanding of the Bible is that God rules here but that's not so.

 

The Bible says that Satan is the 'god of this world' - and yes, he is a tyrant.

 

God is not here. If he were it would all be perfect, no wars, disease, suffering. As it stands it's hardly perfect and God is strangely absent.

 

 

Again, please expand on this, i don't understand what you are saying.

 

From what I've been able to piece together (from the Bible and some Apocrypha), using the interpreting method I introduced on this thread, Satan is the ruling authority in this universe.

 

Apparently he created a psuedo-paradise where the rules that govern are 'the strong rule'. A political mentality easily takes over in this world because this pseudo-reality has a natural bent that way because Satan is that way.

 

The reason why the universe is so unfriendly to human habitation is because Satan is unfriendly.

 

God initially created everything but then something went drastically wrong and this universe was forfeited to Satan and he changed things.

 

Sounds too bizarre for words I know but this is what the Bible actually says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...What? What is a 'holographic multi universe'?

 

I'm not exactly sure how many universes there are speculated but here's some information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

The Bible and some Apocrypha only speak of our universe, of which Satan rules here. However, I haven't ruled out that our universe is possibly multi-layered.

 

Our universe is not a hologram per se but it's the only analogy that comes close to what it may be: a multi-layered, pseudo-paradise, where we're not really here, we're somewhere else and this is only a projection.

 

 

And I don't see how much of anything could be 'weirder' than "an omniponent being that existed before there was anywhere for him/her/it to exist created the universe in a week by using powers that he/she/it has.

 

I don't know where God came from - still working on that one.

 

From what I understand our universe is actually obscuring the real reality, which is eternal. We're the ones that are not real.

 

Creationism and ID are inaccurate representations of the Bible. God did not make the universe in a week; it's how many billions of years old? The actual translation of 'day' is 'to be hot'.

 

We know this from a book that is the work of someone (apparently the son of him/her/it) that showed up thousands of years ago and is impossible (or nearly so) to independently verify."

 

The Bible and Apocrypha were written by men but dictated by God. By following the interpreting method I introduced on another thread, I was able to show the repetitive nature of these words, not only that they repeat but explain themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A corporate/political mentality is one where there's a CEO (Pope, Pastor, Rabbi, etc.), then under him/her Vice-President: (Bishops, Cardinals, Elders, etc.), then Managers (Deacons, Priests, Nuns) and finally the people themselves. This kind of leadership has the elite few ruling the many.

 

Of course this is how it must work in corporations, government, etc. but it's not the Biblical model for churches.

 

Paul said:

 

"But do not be called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren.

 

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

10Neither will you be called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." (Matt. 23:8-10)

 

 

 

Moses did, Abraham, did, David did (and others)...changed God's mind on a number of occasions.

 

A great misunderstanding of the Bible is that God rules here but that's not so.

 

The Bible says that Satan is the 'god of this world' - and yes, he is a tyrant.

 

God is not here. If he were it would all be perfect, no wars, disease, suffering. As it stands it's hardly perfect and God is strangely absent.

 

 

 

 

From what I've been able to piece together (from the Bible and some Apocrypha), using the interpreting method I introduced on this thread, Satan is the ruling authority in this universe.

 

Apparently he created a psuedo-paradise where the rules that govern are 'the strong rule'. A political mentality easily takes over in this world because this pseudo-reality has a natural bent that way because Satan is that way.

 

The reason why the universe is so unfriendly to human habitation is because Satan is unfriendly.

 

God initially created everything but then something went drastically wrong and this universe was forfeited to Satan and he changed things.

 

Sounds too bizarre for words I know but this is what the Bible actually says.

 

 

This has to be some of the most outrageous interesting assertions i have ever read, I look forward to explanation of these things. I am familiar with the bible and I have never seen anything close to what you claim but i am willing to learn if you can show me where it says this.

 

Quite possibly you should start a new thread about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be some of the most outrageous interesting assertions i have ever read, I look forward to explanation of these things. I am familiar with the bible and I have never seen anything close to what you claim but i am willing to learn if you can show me where it says this.

 

 

I will add a response to this on my existing thread 'New Interpreting Method for the Bible and some Apocrypha' because it was due to this interpreting method that I discovered these outrageous ideas in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is not here. If he were it would all be perfect, no wars, disease, suffering. As it stands it's hardly perfect and God is strangely absent.

...

From what I've been able to piece together (from the Bible and some Apocrypha), using the interpreting method I introduced on this thread, Satan is the ruling authority in this universe.

 

Apparently he created a psuedo-paradise where the rules that govern are 'the strong rule'. A political mentality easily takes over in this world because this pseudo-reality has a natural bent that way because Satan is that way.

 

The reason why the universe is so unfriendly to human habitation is because Satan is unfriendly.

 

God initially created everything but then something went drastically wrong and this universe was forfeited to Satan and he changed things.

 

Sounds too bizarre for words I know but this is what the Bible actually says.

This has to be some of the most outrageous interesting assertions i have ever read, I look forward to explanation of these things. I am familiar with the bible and I have never seen anything close to what you claim but i am willing to learn if you can show me where it says this.

The core idea dduck appear to be describing – the universe being ruled by a malevolent diety – while strange to people acculturated to a mainstream religion, is a very old idea, conventionally called Gnosticism.

 

I think the conventional term is not as descriptive as another might be, because it refers to the activity of acquiring this prescribed worldview – gnosis, which can be briefly described as esoteric knowing – rather than the key features of the worldview, such as its malevolent false deity, conventionally called the demiurge. I prefer something like “demiurgism”.

 

The term demiurge appeared first ca. 360 BC in Plato’s Timaeus. Plato ascribes the idea to philosophers ca. 700 BC. Although demiurgism never had the large number of religionists that Judaism and Christianity did, it figured prominently in the early history of the Christian church, being one of the major conceptual competitors with “mainstream” Christianity that would, with the council of Council of Nicaea, give us the accepted books of the Bible’s New Testament in 325 AD.

 

There are volumes of writing about demiurgism, esoteric, religious, scholarly, and diverse fictional, artistic, and pop cultural contexts - My introduction to it to a 1995 episode of MTV’s Liquid Television series Aeon Flux The Demiurge, though the supernatural being depicted in that animated series is at best vaguely related to the philosophical and religious concept, so I had to read a good bit after seeing this pretty but somewhat nonsensical TV show.

 

A key feature of demiurgism, which I don’t believe has been sufficiently stressed yet in this thread, is that the “true” reality “above” the demiurges “false” one is not simply a different and/or better physical universe, but a non-physical one (if you’re familiar with Plato’s allegory of the cave, and Platonic idealism in general, this will be very familiar to you). It is not our universe’s capacity for wars, disease, suffering, etc, that makes it inferior, but the nature of any physical reality.

 

Heady stuff, this, despite it’s antiquity.

 

A great misunderstanding of the Bible is that God rules here but that's not so.

 

The Bible says that Satan is the 'god of this world' - and yes, he is a tyrant.

You might read that meaning into the Bible, dduck, but the Bible was purposefully written, per the Council of Nicaea I mention above and similar ecumenical councils before and since, expressly to exclude this interpretation.

 

It’s a Gnostic tenet, however, that such efforts will ultimately prove unable to prevent the triumph of demiurgism over the mainstream Judaic cosmogony (the Genesis story). That you find such a meaning in the Bible, lends support to this tenet – though you do admit to having contact with apocryphal, and I suspect even heretical, texts explicitly excluded from the Bible by ecumenical authorities, so perhaps their failure was not in the composition of the Bible, but in failing to utterly and completely suppress and destroy these proscribed texts and traditions. Even in the 3rd century, information wanted to be free.

 

Quite possibly you should start a new thread about this?

Just keep replying here. If there are no objections, I’ll move all the recent non-UB subject posts from this thread to a new one tomorrow or Thursday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The core idea dduck appear to be describing – the universe being ruled by a malevolent diety – while strange to people acculturated to a mainstream religion, is a very old idea, conventionally called Gnosticism.

 

Good point CraigD, it would indeed sound strange to mainstream religion. :)

 

I didn't get the idea from Gnosticism (though I have recently read it states):

"a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world"

 

While I agree with the quote, I got the idea from the Bible: I think Moontanman was more surprised by the idea that 'Satan is the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4)', which was the premise of my post (also "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph. 6:12)

 

I think the conventional term is not as descriptive as another might be, because it refers to the activity of acquiring this prescribed worldview – gnosis, which can be briefly described as esoteric knowing – rather than the key features of the worldview, such as its malevolent false deity, conventionally called the demiurge. I prefer something like “demiurgism”.

 

 

The Christian church of today is very different from the early church.

 

Again, I use the interpreting method presented in the Bible and Apocrypha, so far I've found no writings that speak of it. Solomon however, said that wisdom was the principle thing and that 'in all your getting, get wisdom' - and that 'fools despise wisdom'(Prov. 1:7) - so then fools would hardly be interested in it - in that respect the Bible and Gnosticism agree.

 

On other things though, Gnosticism (as presented by the Da Vinci Code) and others, appears very different from the Bible and Apocrypha, and doesn't mention exactly 'what wisdom is' - which if it knew, it should be able to clearly define.

 

A key feature of demiurgism, which I don’t believe has been sufficiently stressed yet in this thread, is that the “true” reality “above” the demiurges “false” one is not simply a different and/or better physical universe, but a non-physical one (if you’re familiar with Plato’s allegory of the cave, and Platonic idealism in general, this will be very familiar to you).

 

I have been saying this all along - the true reality is a non-physical (supernatural) one. Satan created this temporal/physical non-reality.

 

It is not our universe’s capacity for wars, disease, suffering, etc, that makes it inferior,

 

Wars, disease, suffering are result of imperfection, which is inferiority, whereas the Bible says that God is perfect - therefore, wherever God is, no wars, disease, suffering would exist.

 

Demiurgism sounds interesting. I will look it up further.

 

Many religions converge on some points and those things tend to grab my attention.

 

It’s a Gnostic tenet, however, that such efforts will ultimately prove unable to prevent the triumph of demiurgism over the mainstream Judaic cosmogony (the Genesis story). That you find such a meaning in the Bible, lends support to this tenet – though you do admit to having contact with apocryphal, and I suspect even heretical, texts explicitly excluded from the Bible by ecumenical authorities

 

Yes the Apocrypha is considered heretical in many Christian circles but you're assuming ecumenical authorities mean something to me!

 

It seems a hard thing for people to grasp that I can have an interest in the Bible without being religious!

 

 

Just keep replying here. If there are no objections, I’ll move all the recent non-UB subject posts from this thread to a new one tomorrow or Thursday.

 

I wonder if we could move it to where I suggested, 'Interpreting Method for the Bible and Apocrypha...' because that's the method I use to determine interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

computer connection is so slow...

 

Thanks for all the links CraigD. I had never heard of the Aquarian Gospel nor demiurgism. I had heard of the Pythegorians from whom Plato seemed to base many of his ideas. These early religions all appear to diverge on some key points. I believe they were much closer to the Bible and Apocrypha than present Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...