Remember the end of Genesis 2? Adam and Eve were both naked and yet felt no shame. Innocence and purity. No guilt or embarrassment. Total harmony with God and with each other. God didn’t want them to be His robots so He gave them free will. Next is Chapter 3. EVERYTHING changed and the universe opened up to endless possibilities.

According to the story, the serpent (i.e., Satan) asked Eve a simple but provocative question, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Satan put a tiny bit of doubt in Eve’s mind -- could she really trust God?

When she responded, she embroidered God’s command a bit, “Well, God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'” (Umm, God hadn’t actually said anything about touching the fruit – just eating it.)

When God confronted them, the blame-shifting began. Adam blame-shifted twice! — he blamed God and Eve (“The woman you put here with me — she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it”). Eve blamed the serpent (“The serpent beguiled me and I did eat”). From that day on, the tendency of humans, when confronted with their sins, is to find someone else to blame — God, Satan (“The devil made me do it!”), or some other person (“Bobby made me do it!” or “She started it!”).

Eating the forbidden fruit, an act of their own free will, was what gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil. Was there really a serpent (Is Satan real?) or was that merely Eve’s blame-shifting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Eating the forbidden fruit, an act of their own free will, was what gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil. Was there really a serpent (Is Satan real?) or was that merely Eve’s blame-shifting?

---

The Adam and Eve story is one of the most well-known in the Bible with the theme of Eve's blame-shifting a common explanation of her actions. It's hard not to believe it represents a patriarchal society who generally saw women as something less than men who were confused about women. Over time, woman as mother yields to woman as temptress. Or vice-versa. That one is best left to the Freudians.

Is Satan real? A talking serpent is certainly not real, and later Satan enters the myth as an explanation of the serpent. Satan is not originally called by name probably because Satan has not yet entered the worldview of the writers, Genesis being earlier in time than the Satan character.

Satan is one of the many names of the devil which, in turn, is the representation of evil. Is Satan a person? No, but he is the personification of evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Satan is the representation of evil...the personification of evil.

---

But not an actual being, is just the name (excuse?) that humans have given to the evil (anti-goodness) inside them? Then how has Satan become such a major figure in Christianity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But not an actual being, is just the name (excuse?) that humans have given to the evil (anti-goodness) inside them? Then how has Satan become such a major figure in Christianity?

---

For the same reason any mythical figure has become a major figure. In the case of Satan, as a scapegoat or, as you put it, an excuse for the anti-goodness inside people.

What is more interesting - How does Satan get inside the Gospels testing Jesus in the desert?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

What is more interesting - How does Satan get inside the Gospels testing Jesus in the desert?

---

Maybe that was Jesus' human nature leaning toward the Dark Side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Maybe that was Jesus' human nature leaning toward the Dark Side?

---

Or maybe it was simply a story made up to make a point.

For instance, since there were only Jesus and the tempter there, how did the writer know about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Or maybe it was simply a story made up to make a point.

For instance, since there were only Jesus and the tempter there, how did the writer know about it?

---

As you stated in your first paragraph, maybe it's simply a story, an allegory, to make a point, to teach a truth. And that could be what was intended when the story of the Fall was written, that man can be -- and too often is -- his own worst enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

As you stated in your first paragraph, maybe it's simply a story, an allegory, to make a point, to teach a truth. And that could be what was intended when the story of the Fall was written, that man can be -- and too often is -- his own worst enemy.

---

Does this suggest that the Gospel story of Jesus being tempted is not literally true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Does this suggest that the Gospel story of Jesus being tempted is not literally true?

---

Good question! Matthew 4 starts out: "1After this, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2After fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, he finally became hungry."

Jesus finally got hungry after not eating for over a month??? Seems like the writer whipped up this story to make several points -- one of which was that Jesus was famished yet still refused Satan's suggestion to turn a stone into bread (which he could have done any time during those forty days).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Good question! Matthew 4 starts out: "1After this, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2After fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, he finally became hungry."

Jesus finally got hungry after not eating for over a month??? Seems like the writer whipped up this story to make several points -- one of which was that Jesus was famished yet still refused Satan's suggestion to turn a stone into bread (which he could have done any time during those forty days).

---

Good point. I'm surprised to discover that most major Christian denominations treat this story of Jesus in the desert as literally true when it seems so clearly to be an example of making a moral comment. After all, how could Jesus see all the kingdoms of the world from the temple mount? And I never could find out who would have been there with Jesus and Satan in order to write the "true" story down. Then there's the difficulty with Satan who wasn't real to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Good point. I'm surprised to discover that most major Christian denominations treat this story of Jesus in the desert as literally true when it seems so clearly to be an example of making a moral comment.

---

And why would the Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil?! (We pray, "Lead us NOT into temptation.") Sounds like a moral story, a sort of parable, is being told.

I wonder what else, if anything, has been edited in the Gospels to conform to the belief that was current by the time of the earliest copies being available which was a few centuries later - more than enough time to make changes to suit the then powers-that-be.

The first 2 chapters of Job suggest that Satan was considered a real being well before NT times.

And his main job isn't to tempt. It's accusing and deceiving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

The first 2 chapters of Job suggest that Satan was considered a real being well before NT times.

And his main job isn't to tempt. It's accusing and deceiving.

---

Not sure why you bring up those points. No one here has denied anything you wrote in your reply. As far as Satan being considered a real being well before NT times, I agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

The first 2 chapters of Job suggest that Satan was considered a real being well before NT times.

And his main job isn't to tempt. It's accusing and deceiving.

---

I got stuck on "was considered a real being." Does that mean humans used (and still use) Satan, like Eve did, as an excuse for their own sins? -- "the devil made me do it!"

Athos,
My point in bringing that up is partly to reaffirm that the biblical writers understood Satan to be a real critter before NT times, thanks for clarifying your thoughts on that. But more important, the main thing those chapters tell us - and so does Revelation when it gets to Satan - is that this being accuses people before God and calls for...something other than what God is currently doing with them. Revelation calls him the "accuser of the brothers."
So the whole "the devil made me do it" thing is pure cop-out. That's not what the devil does.
Hope that clears it up.

WG, quite the opposite. See my reply to Athos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

So the whole "the devil made me do it" thing is pure cop-out. That's not what the devil does.
Hope that clears it up.

WG, quite the opposite. See my reply to Athos.

---

WG doesn't need me to defend her, but her comment referred to what the people believe, not what the devil does. She also made a valid point of the devil as tempter in the story of Eve in the Garden.

I have more to write on your good answer above, but I'm rushed for time at the moment so it will have to wait.

Btw, I TOTALLY agree with the ideas expressed on your Facebook page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Athos,
My point in bringing that up is partly to reaffirm that the biblical writers understood Satan to be a real critter before NT times, thanks for clarifying your thoughts on that. But more important, the main thing those chapters tell us - and so does Revelation when it gets to Satan - is that this being accuses people before God and calls for...something other than what God is currently doing with them. Revelation calls him the "accuser of the brothers."
So the whole "the devil made me do it" thing is pure cop-out. That's not what the devil does.
Hope that clears it up.

WG, quite the opposite. See my reply to Athos.

---

All this is well and good. But I think we're getting off the original topic here.

"DOES SATAN REALLY EXIST?"

My answer is NO. Does anyone else have a yes or no answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

"DOES SATAN REALLY EXIST?"

My answer is NO. Does anyone else have a yes or no answer?

---

If he exists, where did he come from? Is he like God and has always existed, the antithesis of Good, or did God create him (a fallen angel? cf. Ezekiel 28)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If he exists, where did he come from? Is he like God and has always existed, the antithesis of Good, or did God create him (a fallen angel? cf. Ezekiel 28)?

---

Satan is a myth.

In Job, he acts as a prosecuting attorney. Later, the Hebrews picked up Satan from the Persians (Zoroastrianism) who developed dualism - a universe divided into good and evil. Satan becomes the personification of this evil - opposed to a good God.

Lucifer arrives as another name for the devil - primarily in the Christian world. More names are clearly mythological or literary. Dante, especially, gives life to the myth and his picture of Satan/Lucifer/devil is the modern one.

Both Satan and Lucifer have long pedigrees in several cultures - ancient and modern.

The myth is an answer to the most perplexing question in religious worldviews - the existence of evil in a world created by a loving God. The best answer, although essentially a non-answer, is in the Book of Job.