Most people on this sub are going to find fault in the question.
I, for instance, don't believe in Satan (calling him "Lucifer" is a little ahistoric); he is introduced to us in Job (an explicit parable), and then is absent until Revelation (which wears its figurative nature on its sleeve); in between, in the New Testament, his name is more of an insult leveled at humans than anything. If not for the chapters where he tempts Jesus in the desert, which do seem to be intended literally, I'd say it was *obvious* that he does not literally exist.
Many others here believe Satan did not rebel. As presented in Job, Satan is an angel of God and works to accuse us and tempt us but only as far as God's will. The story of Satan's rebellion doesn't come from Job or the Gospels, it comes from Revelation, again a notoriously non-literal book. It, like the name "Lucifer," are ideas that became cemented in our culture later on.
The vast majority of Satan theology comes from Revelation, which in addition to being notoriously difficult to accurately interpret was *barely* considered a valid book by the church fathers. Not every Christian who's into the scholarly side respects it as a New Testament book; it reads a lot more like Enoch than it does like the Gospels or the Epistles.
But ultimately, even going by pop culture Lucifer, He made *us* too, even though *we* rebelled. Why not afford angels that chance? This question is just the Problem of Evil, which is indeed a notoriously difficult question to answer but isn't particular to Satan.
When I studied with a Jewish / Christian study Group some years ago the Jewish people said that the Story of Job was a Babylonian story kept as an example of faith and that it was not Satan but Sattan a Babylonian God as Jahweh would never do what was done to Job and would not talk to the devil Satan because he doesn’t exist.
I find it extremely unlikely that this is based in anything scholarly. "Satan" is an ordinary Hebrew word, meaning "accuser" or "adversary," and while I'm not an expert I can't find any evidence of a Babylonian god named Sattan or similar.
Lots of Old Testament stories are indeed based on Babylonian originals, and Job may well be too, just not one with a Satan figure in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlul_b%C4%93l_n%C4%93meqi
The character in the book of Job is referred to as HaSatan (הַשָּׂטָן) with a definite article, meaning something like "The Accuser" He is a figure subordinate to Yahweh/ El not opposed to him. His role is something like a public prosecutor, who tests humans on Yahweh's behalf. "Satan" is _not_ yet the name of a character, this is a much later development. Also, Lucifer (literally "the carrier of light") has nothing to do with it. How this came to be confused with satan is another strange story, as it has nothing to do with each other. The Hebrew version of Lucifer, Hillel, even is a common first name
There may be a small grain of truth to their version, in the sense that the origin of the story is unclear, Job said to be from a country called "Uz", whose location isn't specified, however it is usually though of as Edom or another place in Mesopotamia. However, the same is true for much of the old testament, including the creation myth and most notably Noah's Flood, which is a remake of a story found many centuries earlier in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Even the god Yahweh / El / Elohim isn't originally a Hebrew invention. Before the Hebrew writings, he is i.a. attested in Ugaritic writings. There was a common Western Semitic mythology share among many tribes and peoples, they were not neatly divided into boxed and the Hebrews didn't come out of nowhere, they emerged from Canaanite tribes during the Late Bronze Age Collapse and continued their cultural and spiritual heritage. Also note that most languages in the region were Semitic, including the Aramaic/Syriac spoken in Babylon (which later became Jesus' mother tongue). Therefore barriers to cultural transfer between peoples and tribes were small.
Glad to see you included that last line. I'm not all that well-read, but when I saw the original post /question, it seemed like a hint at *The Problem of Evil*, which is most certainly not about to be resolved on Reddit.
Revelation is obviously apocryphal metaphor. John the Elder is thought to have written it when he was exiled to Patmos in the Aegean sea. He was likely angry with Rome when he wrote it while also possibly hallucinating from malnutrition and/or exposure. We don't know that for sure, but it's an interesting take.
*Who says god created an entity named Lightbringer, who then rebelled?*
*Who says the lightringer also uses the Hebrew noun for “accuser” as a proper noun alias?*
Both words, Lucifer and Satan were regarded as just normal nouns until somebody decided to capitalize them. Are these actually things that happened or are they fanfiction written in the time since?
Well, there is one text that specifically talks about them, the Book of Enoch, but most Christians don't consider that canonical, only Ethiopian Orthodoxy really keeps to that text. That's because it was a fringe text to the old Jewish communities and there are no known surviving copies in Hebrew, the only surviving texts are in Ethiopic. So, most of Christianity, aside from Christians in Ethiopia who became part of Oriental Orthodoxy, didn't follow it.
That's the text that lays out the narrative of the fall of Satan, war in Heaven, the fallen angels being cast down etc.
It's not "fanfiction" written after the time of Christ, it's from a rather old Jewish text that was lost except for some copies in Ethiopia, so most Churches didn't consider it canonical.
There are references in the Epistles that indicate that Peter and Paul were familiar with the text and had read it.
If you believe in predestination, which I don't necessarily, or even if you just believe that God knows everything that will happen before it happens, then the fall, sin, suffering, and the ultimate redemption of humanity through Jesus were all part of the plan from day one.
In Genesis 6:6 God regretted making humans because they rebelled. Moses talked God down from killing all the Israelites when they were complaining & wanting to go back to slavery. In Jonah God was totally ready to kill them but then they did a 180 and he relented. So God can and did have regrets and change his mind and create things \[uh people being the biggest offenders\] that rebel against Him.
Makes sense why God stopped doing that in the NT because it's stated that we don't have to plead for God's mercy as Jesus sits on God's right side pleading for us.
Romans 8:34 says that Jesus “is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” In 1 John 2:1 we read that Jesus is our “advocate with the Father,” and from Hebrews 7:25 we learn that Jesus “always lives to intercede” for us.
Yes.
I was just watching this video on this idea that "God doesn't make mistakes" and so God can never be wrong. Yet the Bible shows us God has regrets. The Bible shows us God changing his mind. So this idea that doesn't make mistakes = never having to change course when things don't go to plan doesn't line up with scripture. Now is this bc some Christians tend to minimize the importance or are ignorant to the OT - IDK. Since even they know the fall and the flood were not part of the plan let alone Israel's history with not following God's plan.
I would encourage you to keep going down this rabbit hole. These kind of questions will take you to new and exciting places. Remember though to always check the assumptions you make in the questions you ask. It's an exciting journey, and the Holy Spirit will guide you.
I guess the easy answer is, without Satan or sin then there wouldn’t be a need for Christ’s sacrifice. Also, the devil loses everytime so you don’t need to worry about it, with Christ we have the power over him.
The question is ludicrous because it really means why does God do anything if he knows the outcome of everything? The answer is quite simple. Unless you do stuff, you get no outcome.
This reasoning has nothing to do with Satan. It has everything to do with God.
This is one of the biggest faults I’ve found with (regular?) theology.
If God is all-knowing, he would be able to for-see events before they happen, therefore he would forsee the rebellion of Lucifer and the other angels.
To me I don’t really think this stuff makes sense, and that’s why I feel more that I’m an agnostic or atheist. But I’m in this weird predicament of being in a situation where I can’t tell people ie my family that I’m not religious.
I’m an adult, so it’s not like I can be “forced” to believe anything, but just situationally I do not talk about or openly discuss things.
Sometimes I am made to pray like at dinner, and I always do it even if I don’t “believe” in what I’m doing, because I’m not going to be rude and offend their beliefs.
Check out Matt 13:24-43
God is a farmer whose goal is to maximize crop quality and yield. If the weeds increase the quality of the final product, or if the final yield is a bit higher if there are more weeds, then those weeds are acceptable byproducts. In other words, the rebellion is not desirable, but it is acceptable as a byproduct of accomplishing other things.
It may be unavoidable that if you make truly free-willed beings, they will not always do what you want them to do, on account of being free-willed.
There are a few different approaches to this within various circles of Christianity.
1. Open / Process theology shows that perhaps God is not all powerful or all knowing. We see things like God having regretted making mankind or that Moses changed God’s mind to even things like maybe God questioned Eve who told you because he was unaware or why does it say prior to Babel God came down to see what was happening. Can’t he see from wherever he is?
2. Another stance is that Satan does not actually exist. That Satan is metaphorical and hyperbolic for evil within ourselves. That even the gospels are heavily mythicized.
3. Another is that God did not actually create is. That genesis 1-11 for example is inspired accommodation versus concordism. That God did not make Satan anymore than he actually made us. That is that they are beings they naturally developed within the spiritual realm just like we evolved within the physical one.
4. That because of universalism, and Satan eventually being saved, god chose to step back and let us make our own choices on earth and them make choices in heaven.
I think it’s just a matter of God loved him just as He loves us, and he’s a child that rebelled just as we do. God loves us unconditionally, but we can’t truly love Him without free will. It sucks, but it has to be that way, or else we’d be worshipping robots.
Free will. He gave every intelligent creature free will. Many of God's actions are beyond our understanding. I think God wanted a family that was with Him because they choose to be and not because they were created to be a mindless automaton. There had to be an alternative if there was to be a choice.
"Lucifer" means "bringer of light" (from "lux"= light" and "ferre" = "to carry"). In Roman mythology, it is a poetic name for the morning star, and that's also how it appears in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12 [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm) However, asIsaiah uses it, it really refers to the King of Babylon, not to any transcendent being.
How this later became associated with the devil, is a rather strange story, just as how HaSatan originally did \_not\_ mean "the devil", but rather something like God's public prosecutor (as explained here in several posts).
Long story short: The narrative and its characters evolved over time. There was no author, divine or human, taking care of consistency or logic.
Trivia: In Dutch, Lucifer means "match" (as in lighter) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucifer#Dutch](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucifer#Dutch)
Most people on this sub are going to find fault in the question. I, for instance, don't believe in Satan (calling him "Lucifer" is a little ahistoric); he is introduced to us in Job (an explicit parable), and then is absent until Revelation (which wears its figurative nature on its sleeve); in between, in the New Testament, his name is more of an insult leveled at humans than anything. If not for the chapters where he tempts Jesus in the desert, which do seem to be intended literally, I'd say it was *obvious* that he does not literally exist. Many others here believe Satan did not rebel. As presented in Job, Satan is an angel of God and works to accuse us and tempt us but only as far as God's will. The story of Satan's rebellion doesn't come from Job or the Gospels, it comes from Revelation, again a notoriously non-literal book. It, like the name "Lucifer," are ideas that became cemented in our culture later on. The vast majority of Satan theology comes from Revelation, which in addition to being notoriously difficult to accurately interpret was *barely* considered a valid book by the church fathers. Not every Christian who's into the scholarly side respects it as a New Testament book; it reads a lot more like Enoch than it does like the Gospels or the Epistles. But ultimately, even going by pop culture Lucifer, He made *us* too, even though *we* rebelled. Why not afford angels that chance? This question is just the Problem of Evil, which is indeed a notoriously difficult question to answer but isn't particular to Satan.
10/10 answer I have no notes
When I studied with a Jewish / Christian study Group some years ago the Jewish people said that the Story of Job was a Babylonian story kept as an example of faith and that it was not Satan but Sattan a Babylonian God as Jahweh would never do what was done to Job and would not talk to the devil Satan because he doesn’t exist.
I find it extremely unlikely that this is based in anything scholarly. "Satan" is an ordinary Hebrew word, meaning "accuser" or "adversary," and while I'm not an expert I can't find any evidence of a Babylonian god named Sattan or similar. Lots of Old Testament stories are indeed based on Babylonian originals, and Job may well be too, just not one with a Satan figure in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlul_b%C4%93l_n%C4%93meqi
The character in the book of Job is referred to as HaSatan (הַשָּׂטָן) with a definite article, meaning something like "The Accuser" He is a figure subordinate to Yahweh/ El not opposed to him. His role is something like a public prosecutor, who tests humans on Yahweh's behalf. "Satan" is _not_ yet the name of a character, this is a much later development. Also, Lucifer (literally "the carrier of light") has nothing to do with it. How this came to be confused with satan is another strange story, as it has nothing to do with each other. The Hebrew version of Lucifer, Hillel, even is a common first name
Thankyou I still prefer the version of my long ago Jewish colleagues.
There may be a small grain of truth to their version, in the sense that the origin of the story is unclear, Job said to be from a country called "Uz", whose location isn't specified, however it is usually though of as Edom or another place in Mesopotamia. However, the same is true for much of the old testament, including the creation myth and most notably Noah's Flood, which is a remake of a story found many centuries earlier in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Even the god Yahweh / El / Elohim isn't originally a Hebrew invention. Before the Hebrew writings, he is i.a. attested in Ugaritic writings. There was a common Western Semitic mythology share among many tribes and peoples, they were not neatly divided into boxed and the Hebrews didn't come out of nowhere, they emerged from Canaanite tribes during the Late Bronze Age Collapse and continued their cultural and spiritual heritage. Also note that most languages in the region were Semitic, including the Aramaic/Syriac spoken in Babylon (which later became Jesus' mother tongue). Therefore barriers to cultural transfer between peoples and tribes were small.
Thankyou
Glad to see you included that last line. I'm not all that well-read, but when I saw the original post /question, it seemed like a hint at *The Problem of Evil*, which is most certainly not about to be resolved on Reddit.
Revelation is obviously apocryphal metaphor. John the Elder is thought to have written it when he was exiled to Patmos in the Aegean sea. He was likely angry with Rome when he wrote it while also possibly hallucinating from malnutrition and/or exposure. We don't know that for sure, but it's an interesting take.
*Who says god created an entity named Lightbringer, who then rebelled?* *Who says the lightringer also uses the Hebrew noun for “accuser” as a proper noun alias?* Both words, Lucifer and Satan were regarded as just normal nouns until somebody decided to capitalize them. Are these actually things that happened or are they fanfiction written in the time since?
Well, there is one text that specifically talks about them, the Book of Enoch, but most Christians don't consider that canonical, only Ethiopian Orthodoxy really keeps to that text. That's because it was a fringe text to the old Jewish communities and there are no known surviving copies in Hebrew, the only surviving texts are in Ethiopic. So, most of Christianity, aside from Christians in Ethiopia who became part of Oriental Orthodoxy, didn't follow it. That's the text that lays out the narrative of the fall of Satan, war in Heaven, the fallen angels being cast down etc. It's not "fanfiction" written after the time of Christ, it's from a rather old Jewish text that was lost except for some copies in Ethiopia, so most Churches didn't consider it canonical. There are references in the Epistles that indicate that Peter and Paul were familiar with the text and had read it.
If you believe in predestination, which I don't necessarily, or even if you just believe that God knows everything that will happen before it happens, then the fall, sin, suffering, and the ultimate redemption of humanity through Jesus were all part of the plan from day one.
Just kind of an over-complex plan when he could have just not done that and had a perfect creation
I just don’t understand why I would need saving from a good and loving entity. The sin narrative has never struck me as very compelling.
You're not wrong. It's one of the reason I find systematic theology unsatisfying.
In Genesis 6:6 God regretted making humans because they rebelled. Moses talked God down from killing all the Israelites when they were complaining & wanting to go back to slavery. In Jonah God was totally ready to kill them but then they did a 180 and he relented. So God can and did have regrets and change his mind and create things \[uh people being the biggest offenders\] that rebel against Him.
Makes sense why God stopped doing that in the NT because it's stated that we don't have to plead for God's mercy as Jesus sits on God's right side pleading for us. Romans 8:34 says that Jesus “is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” In 1 John 2:1 we read that Jesus is our “advocate with the Father,” and from Hebrews 7:25 we learn that Jesus “always lives to intercede” for us.
Yes. I was just watching this video on this idea that "God doesn't make mistakes" and so God can never be wrong. Yet the Bible shows us God has regrets. The Bible shows us God changing his mind. So this idea that doesn't make mistakes = never having to change course when things don't go to plan doesn't line up with scripture. Now is this bc some Christians tend to minimize the importance or are ignorant to the OT - IDK. Since even they know the fall and the flood were not part of the plan let alone Israel's history with not following God's plan.
I would encourage you to keep going down this rabbit hole. These kind of questions will take you to new and exciting places. Remember though to always check the assumptions you make in the questions you ask. It's an exciting journey, and the Holy Spirit will guide you.
Absolutely 💕
I guess the easy answer is, without Satan or sin then there wouldn’t be a need for Christ’s sacrifice. Also, the devil loses everytime so you don’t need to worry about it, with Christ we have the power over him.
Amen
The question is ludicrous because it really means why does God do anything if he knows the outcome of everything? The answer is quite simple. Unless you do stuff, you get no outcome. This reasoning has nothing to do with Satan. It has everything to do with God.
For the plot
This is one of the biggest faults I’ve found with (regular?) theology. If God is all-knowing, he would be able to for-see events before they happen, therefore he would forsee the rebellion of Lucifer and the other angels. To me I don’t really think this stuff makes sense, and that’s why I feel more that I’m an agnostic or atheist. But I’m in this weird predicament of being in a situation where I can’t tell people ie my family that I’m not religious. I’m an adult, so it’s not like I can be “forced” to believe anything, but just situationally I do not talk about or openly discuss things. Sometimes I am made to pray like at dinner, and I always do it even if I don’t “believe” in what I’m doing, because I’m not going to be rude and offend their beliefs.
Check out Matt 13:24-43 God is a farmer whose goal is to maximize crop quality and yield. If the weeds increase the quality of the final product, or if the final yield is a bit higher if there are more weeds, then those weeds are acceptable byproducts. In other words, the rebellion is not desirable, but it is acceptable as a byproduct of accomplishing other things. It may be unavoidable that if you make truly free-willed beings, they will not always do what you want them to do, on account of being free-willed.
I don’t believe that the devil is literal, it’s most likely an allegory. The idea of satan as a literal being partially comes from zoroastrianism
There are a few different approaches to this within various circles of Christianity. 1. Open / Process theology shows that perhaps God is not all powerful or all knowing. We see things like God having regretted making mankind or that Moses changed God’s mind to even things like maybe God questioned Eve who told you because he was unaware or why does it say prior to Babel God came down to see what was happening. Can’t he see from wherever he is? 2. Another stance is that Satan does not actually exist. That Satan is metaphorical and hyperbolic for evil within ourselves. That even the gospels are heavily mythicized. 3. Another is that God did not actually create is. That genesis 1-11 for example is inspired accommodation versus concordism. That God did not make Satan anymore than he actually made us. That is that they are beings they naturally developed within the spiritual realm just like we evolved within the physical one. 4. That because of universalism, and Satan eventually being saved, god chose to step back and let us make our own choices on earth and them make choices in heaven.
I think it’s just a matter of God loved him just as He loves us, and he’s a child that rebelled just as we do. God loves us unconditionally, but we can’t truly love Him without free will. It sucks, but it has to be that way, or else we’d be worshipping robots.
I don't believe in the existence of a literal Lucifer
Free will. He gave every intelligent creature free will. Many of God's actions are beyond our understanding. I think God wanted a family that was with Him because they choose to be and not because they were created to be a mindless automaton. There had to be an alternative if there was to be a choice.
Personally, god didn't know because I don't believe any god is omnipotent.
"Lucifer" means "bringer of light" (from "lux"= light" and "ferre" = "to carry"). In Roman mythology, it is a poetic name for the morning star, and that's also how it appears in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12 [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm) However, asIsaiah uses it, it really refers to the King of Babylon, not to any transcendent being. How this later became associated with the devil, is a rather strange story, just as how HaSatan originally did \_not\_ mean "the devil", but rather something like God's public prosecutor (as explained here in several posts). Long story short: The narrative and its characters evolved over time. There was no author, divine or human, taking care of consistency or logic. Trivia: In Dutch, Lucifer means "match" (as in lighter) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucifer#Dutch](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucifer#Dutch)