Myths and fairy tales ?

[juliamajor]

Postexilic Period:

During and after the Exile, under the influence of Babylonian and Persian systems of belief, a great change becomes noticeable in the angelic lore of the Jews. The more the monotheistic idea took hold of the people—permitting no being to interfere with the absolute supremacy of YHWH—the greater became the need of personifying the working forces of life, and of grouping them in ranks around the throne of God to form His royal court. His transcendent nature demanded a more definite system of heavenly functionaries attending Him and awaiting His commands. Gradually the celestial government was formed after the pattern of the earthly one, as it presented itself, imposing and well organized, at the Persian court.

Angelology Systematized.

But it is chiefly from a closer contact with Babylonia and her system of upper and lower spirits that the influx of new elements into Jewish Angelology can be traced; and this is confirmed by the rabbinical tradition, “The names of the angels were brought by the Jews from Babylonia” (Yer. R. H. i. 2, Gen. R. xlviii.). Ezekiel (ix. 2) already sees seven angels of God in human form (see Toy’s notes, “S. B. O. T.” xii.): six to do the work of destruction, and the seventh the heavenly scribe sent toward the Holy City. While all the revelations he receives come directly from the Lord, in one instance an angel in the form of a man acts as a divine interpreter, when the plan of a new city is mapped out for the prophet (Ezek. xl. 3). The prophet Zechariah, on the other hand, receives all his divine instructions no longer from God directly, but through “the angel of the Lord who talks with him” (Zech. i. 9; 14, ii. 2; iv. 1, 5; v. 10; compare also I Kings, xiii. 18). Instead of the Lord there appears to him “a man riding upon a red horse” as chief among those who “walk to and fro through the earth” (ib. i. 8-10). The four smiths (ib. ii. 3, Heb. [R. V. i. 20]; compare Ezek. xxi. 36) as well as “the man with a measuring line” (Zech. ii. 5, Heb. [A. V. 1]) are angels; and the scene of the accusation by Satan of the high priest Joshua while “standing before the angel of the Lord” (ib. iii. 1) must be placed in heaven, parallel to the scene in Job, i. 6-12, ii. 1-6. However, “the seven eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth” (Zech. iv. 10), while betraying Babylonian influence, are only the symbolical representation of Divine Providence, and are not identical with the seven archangels or watchers, as Herzfeld (“Gesch. d. Volkes Israel,” iii. 287) and Kohut (“Jüd. Angelologie,” p. 6, note 17) believe.

It is in the Book of Daniel that a systematic classification of angels is first presented. In Josh. v. 15 reference is made to “the captain of the Lord’s host” (), still without name and individuality, and rather a mere manifestation of the Lord, as is seen from Josh. vi. 2. In Dan. x. 13, mention is made of “captains of the first rank,” A. V. “chief princes” (compare ib. xii. 1, “sar ha-gadol,” “the great captain,” A. V. “prince”) and “captains” (princes) of a lower rank, these being tutelary spirits of the nations, “the prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia” (ib. x. 20). Obviously, the underlying idea is the one expressed, if not already in Deut. xxxii. 8, at least in the Septuagint reading, “according to the number of the sons of God” (compare Targ. Yer. to the verse and to Gen. xi. 7, Ecclus. [Sirach] xvii. 17, Pirḳe R. El. xxiv., Isa xxiv. 21), that the seventy nations of Gen. x. each had their guardian angel in heaven; and that Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, ranks above the rest. He is one of the chief princes, his name signifying, “Who is like God?” being expressive of God’s greatness. The angel who interprets the visions to Zechariah appears in Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21, under the name of Gabriel (“the mighty man of God”). Above these two ranks a man-like being “clothed in linen,” whose fiery appearance overawes Daniel (viii. 15-17, x. 5-10, 16-18), and who swears “by him that liveth for ever” (xii. 7). He is probably identical with the angel who stands before the Lord,the malak panaw (Isa. lxiii. 9), according to the Masoretic text—not to be confounded, however, as is done by Oehler (p. 446) with “the son of man” mentioned in Dan. vii. 13, who is only a personification of Israel.

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1521&letter=A&search=angelology#ixzz0fSxKNTZf

 

[juliamajor]

Of particular interest is the name for angel (Dan. iv. 10, 14 [A. V. 13, 17]), which is taken by some (recently Behrmann) to be the Aramean word for (Obad. 1, “messenger”; Isa. lxvii. 9, “angel”), but which most commentators in accordance with tradition (Aquila, Symmachus, Jerome) explain by the term “watcher.” The 'ir we-ḳaddish (“watcher and holy one”), who comes down from heaven to announce the destiny decided “by the decree of the watchers and by the word of the holy ones,” evidently represents a high class of angels forming God’s “council of the holy ones” (Ps. lxxxix. 7, R. V.); while “thousands and ten thousand times thousands of angels stand before Him” to minister to Him (Dan. vii. 10, Heb.). Whether the name 'ir (from ur, “being awake”) is to be derived (see Herzfeld iii. 291, note 342, and Kohut, “Jüd. Angelologie,” p. 6) from the seven amshaspands, the Persian archangels—according to Bopp, “the sleepless ones”; according to Spiegel and Darmesteter, “the undying holy ones”—or not, the watchers certainly occupy a high rank in the Book of Enoch.

In the Book of Tobit the name of a third angel appears—namely, Raphael (“God healeth,” Tobit, iii. 17)—called thus after his mission. “God hath sent me,” he says, “to heal thee and Sarah, thy daughter-in-law. I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One” (Tobit, xii. 14-15). “He presented Tobit’s prayer on account of the latter’s blindness, and the prayer of Sarah on account of the humiliation of her parents,” and was sent to heal them both (ib. iii. 17), to remove the blindness of the one and bind the evil spirit Asmodeus, in order to give a husband to the other. He presented himself to Tobias as an ordinary man to accompany him (ib. v. 4), and ate with him (ib. vi. 5, viii. 1).

A Heavenly Hierarchy.

The process begun in Daniel, and continued in the entire apocalyptic literature, finally led to the assumption of a heavenly hierarchy of stupendous proportions. The mystic lore, intended only for the initiated few, dwelt on the prophetic theophanies (Ma’aseh Merkabah, “the heavenly throne chariot,” Ezek. i.-iii., viii., x.; Isa. vi. 1-3; see Ḥag. ii. 7); turning the imagery of the seer into gross realities, and greatly amplifying it in accordance with an expanded view of the universe and of its cosmic forces. Yet this angelic lore, the knowledge of which was the special property of the Essenes or Ḥasidim (Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 8, § 7), while the Sadducees rejected it (Acts, xxiii. 8), was not merely a theoretical speculation, but was also practical in so far as it enabled its possessor to control the spiritual forces by use of the specific names of the angels in incantations and conjurations. It was the application of this principle, derived from the Babylonian magi and Mazdaism, that brought about a well-developed system of Angelology such as is found already in the writings preserved under the name of Enoch. The strange story of the “sons of God” (in Gen. vi. 1-4), which, combined with Isa. xiv. 12-15, gave rise to the story of the fall of the angels, offered the means of establishing a relationship between the good and the bad angels and, through that, between legitimate and illegitimate magic. These two ideas then—the celestial throne with its ministering angels, and the cosmos with its evil forces to be subdued by superior angelic forces —are the determining factors of Angelology.

According to Enoch, xxi., as the text has now been critically fixed (see Charles, “Book of Enoch,” p. 357), there are seven archangels ('irin we-ḳaddishin, “holy ones who watch”):

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1521&letter=A&search=angelology#ixzz0fSxtZYSv

 

[juliamajor]

1. Uriel “God is Light”; compare II Esd. iv. 1], set over the world’s luminaries and over Sheol [compare Enoch, xxi. 5, xxvii. 2, xxxiii. 3, 4]; (2) Raphael, set over the spirits of men [compare Enoch, x. 4, where he is told to bind Azazel and to heal the earth with Tobit—iii. 17]; (3) Raguel [Ra’uel, “the terrifier”], who chastiseth the world of the luminaries; (4) Michael, set over the best part of mankind, over the people of Israel; (5) Sariel Æth., Sarakiel, Suriel, “God turneth”?], set over the spirits who seduce the spirits to sin; (6) Gabriel, set over paradise, the serpents [seraphim?], and the cherubim; (7) Jerahmeel “God is merciful”], whom God set over the resurrection [compare II Esd. iv. 36; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, lv. 3; Steindorf, “Elias Apoc.” p. 152].

Whether corresponding with the seven amshaspands of Persia or with the seven planetary spirits of Babylonia (see Herzfeld, Kohut, and Beer in Kautzsch’s “Apokryphen u. Pseudepig. d. A. T.” p. 251), these seven archangels recur in Enoch, xc. 21-22 (compare Pirḳe R. El. iv. and Hekalot, iv.; the Revelation of John, v. 6, and Hermas Sim. ix. 31; 6, 2; Vis. iii. 4, 1; see Spitta, “Zur Gesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristenthums,” ii. 361). Michael, named as the fourth, is probably meant to stand in the middle as chief (Luecken, “Michael,” p. 37). He is the leader of the seven (Enoch, xc. 21, 22).

Four Angels of the Throne.

On the other hand, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Fanuel (Penuel) are introduced as “the four angels of the face of the Lord.” After the watchers (“those that sleep not”) have been described (ibid. xxxix. 12, 13) as chanting the “Holy, holy, holy!” and mutually responding, “Blessed be the name of the Lord!” the following passage occurs (ibid. xl. 2):

“I saw on the four sides of the Lord of spirits four presences [faces] different from those that sleep not, and I heard the voice of those four presences as they gave glory before the Lord of glory: The first [as the angel of peace explained it afterward], Michael = “who is like God?”], merciful and long-suffering, blesses the Lord of spirits for ever and ever; the second, Raphael, set over the diseases of the children of men, blesses the Elect One [the Messiah] and the elect ones who cleave to the Lord of spirits [the pious ones]; the third, Gabriel “the mighty one of God”], set over all the powers, intercedes in behalf of the inhabitants of the earth [see Enoch, x. 9-10, 12-14]; and the fourth, Fanuel [Penuel = “turning to God”], set over repentance and hope of eternal life, prevents the Satans from accusing men.”

In Enoch, lxxi. 7-13, these four stand near the crystal throne of God, which, encircled by fire, is surrounded by the seraphim, cherubim, and ofanim (“wheels,” Ezek. i. 15), “those that sleep not, and guard the throne of His glory” amidst a thousand times thousand and ten thousand times ten thousand, the Head (Ancient) of Days being with the four. Four angels standing before the face of God as leaders of four troops of angels glorifying the Most High, who is seated in the midst of them, are mentioned also in Pirḳe R. El. iv. and Hekalot, vi.; but their names are given as Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, and Raphael (Sibylline Books, ii. 215). Compare the four archangels, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, in Enoch, ix. 1, xl. 2. They correspond with the four tutelary spirits or rulers of the four parts of the earth in the Babylonian mythology (Beer, following Jensen, “Cosmologie d. Babylonier,” p. 169). (For the twenty-four elders seated around the throne of God in heaven next to the four beasts and the seven spirits, Apoc. John, iv. 4, see Gunkel, “Schöpfung und Chaos,” p. 308.)

Then again mention is made of seven classes of angels (Enoch, lxi. 10 et seq.): (1) the cherubim,(2) seraphim, (3) ofanim, (4) all the angels of power, (5) principalities, (6) the Elect One (Messiah), and (7) the (elementary) powers of the earth and the water. They are endowed with seven angelic virtues—one more than is ascribed to the Messiah (ibid. lxi.; after Isa. xi. 2): “In the spirit of faith, of wisdom, of patience, of mercy, of judgment, of peace, and of goodness they glorify, saying: ‘Blessed is He, and may the name of the Lord of spirits be blessed for ever and ever.’”

A parallel to this is offered by the Testaments of the Patriarchs in Test. Levi, iii., where this description of the seven heavens is given:

“In the highest of which dwelleth the great Glory in the Holy of Holies, and beneath it are the angels of the presence of the Lord, who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the ignorance of the righteous. . . . And in the heaven below this are the angels who bear the answers to the angels of the presence of the Lord, and in the heaven next to this are thrones and dominions in which hymns are offered to God; in the third heaven there are hosts of the armies ordained for the day of judgment, to work vengeance on the spirits of deceit and of Belial; the second has fire, snow, and ice ready, all the spirits of retribution for the day of judgment; and the lowest is gloomy because it is near the iniquities of men.”

In another vision (ibid. viii.) Levi sees seven men in white raiment, the seven archangels, each consecrating him and investing him with some insignia of the priesthood; while Michael, “the angel who intercedeth for the race of Israel,” opens the gates of heaven for him, where he sees the holy Temple and the Most High upon a throne of glory (ibid. v.).

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1521&letter=A&search=angelology#ixzz0fSyLfnUc

 

[juliamajor]

Fall of the Angels.

Hebrew theology knows of no principle of evil such as is the Persian Ahriman. Satan is one of the sons of God (Job, i. 6, ii. 1). This makes the problem of evil all the more difficult. The Biblical story of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 1-4), implying the possibility of angels lusting and sinning, suggested the idea of a fall, not only of man, but of pure heavenly beings as well. Taken together with the (Babylonian?) mythology of Lucifer (Isa. xiv. 12), it seemed to take for granted the existence of evil spirits working antagonistically to God through the evil practises of witchcraft, astrology, and the like. Fallen angels became progenitors of hosts of evil spirits and seducers of men to crime and vice. Still, they were finally subjugated by the power of heaven, and punished by the archangels Raphael and Gabriel, and consequently a knowledge of their names would enable one to control them. This is the idea pervading the Enoch story of the fall of the angels, which rests on two different sources, now incorporated, in a fragmentary form, into one (Enoch, vi.-xv.)(post exilic-&apocryphal)/COLOR]. According to the one, Azazel (Lev. xvi. 10; Targ. Yer. Naḥmanides; also a Mandæan god, Brandt, “Mandäische Religion,” p. 198) was the leader of the rebellion, and the chief debaucher of women; and his place of punishment was in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, by the rocks of Bet Ḥaduda (see Charles, “Enoch,” p. 72), where the scapegoat was cast down: this shows the legend to be of ancient Judean origin (compare with this the reading of the chapter on incestuous marriages on the Day of Atonement, and the song of the maiden in Ta’anit, iv. 8). According to the other, Samiaza, or Samḥazai (Enoch, vi. 3-8, viii. 1-3, ix. 7, x. 11; compare Targ. Yer. Gen. vi. 4; Midr. Abkir in Yalḳ., Gen. 44; Hebrew Enoch in Jellinek, “B. H.” ii.), is the chief seducer. He forms the center of rabbinical groups of legends (see Grünbaum, “Z. D. M. G.” xxi. 225248). As the story is presented in Enoch, the two rebel leaders, when they take the oath on Mount Hermon to subvert the rule of heaven, have each ten chieftains and one hundred angels at their command. But the punishment they receive at the hands of Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel (Enoch, ix. 1; compare xl. 2) does not altogether annihilate them. Uzza (Samḥazai) and Azael (Azazel) still betray the secrets of heaven to King Solomon as they did in Enoch’s time (see Jellinek, “B. H.” ii. 86; compare with “B. H.” v. 173). Some angels were afterward guilty of betraying divine secrets heard from behind the curtain (, Ber. 18b), and were, therefore, expelled from their positions (see Gen. R. l., lxviii.).

Book of Jubilees, ii. 2, reads:

Creation of Angels.

“The angels of the face and of glorification, the angels of the elements of fire, wind, and darkness, of hail and hoar frost, thunder and lightning, of cold and heat, of winter and spring, summer and fall, of the abyss and night, of light and morning, were created on the first day.” (post exilic and apocryphal)Pirḳe R. El. iv. says that the angels were created on the second day. In Gen. R. iii. R. Johanan places the creation of the angels on the second day, referring to Ps. civ. 4. “He maketh his angels of winds” (“who maketh winds his messengers,” R. V.); R. Ḥanina, on the fifth day, classified them among the winged creatures (Isa. vi. 2).

According to the Slavonic Book of Enoch, God created them on the second day out of fire. The bodies of angels are radiant, their faces like lightning, their eyes as flaming torches (Prayer of Aseneth, xiv.; compare Pesiḳ. I. 3a; Cant. R. iii. 11; Matt. xxviii. 3; Luke, ii. 9; Acts, xii. 7). The food of angels is manna, of which Adam and Eve ate before they sinned (Vita Adæ et Evæ, 4; compare Akiba, Yoma, 75b on Ps. lxxviii. 25, and Yoma, 4b with regard to Moses).

Angels worship God at certain hours of the day (Apoc. Mosis, 17; Testament of Abraham, B, iv.; see James’s notes, p. 121; compare Sifre, Deut. 306; Gen. R. lxxviii.; Targ. Yer. Gen. xxxii. 27 and Ex. xiv. 24). There are 496,000 myriads of angels (the numerical value of the Hebrew word sovereignty, or 499,000, the equivalent of hosts) glorifying God from sunrise to sunrise (Tanna debe Eliyahu. R. xvii., xxxi.; Zuṭṭa, xii.; see ed. Friedman, pp. 32, 34, 193).

A guardian angel of Israel is mentioned in the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremy, 7. An angel carries Habakkuk by the hair of his head from Judea to Babylon to bring the pottage he has prepared for Daniel in the lions’ den (apocryphal additions to Dan. v. 36).

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1521&letter=A&search=angelology#ixzz0fSz0yTjl

 

[juliamajor]

the Bible.

Term used in the Bible with the general connotation of “adversary,” being applied (1) to an enemy in war (I Kings v. 18 [A. V. 4]; xi. 14, 23, 25), from which use is developed the concept of a traitor in battle (I Sam. xxix. 4); (2) to an accuser before the judgment-seat (Ps. cix. 6); and (3) to any opponent (II Sam. xix. 23 [A. V. 22]). The word is likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a distinct being was not then known. Such a view is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or “sons of God,” before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men’s sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5).

Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress.He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the “angel of the Lord,” who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity; but in I Chron. xxi. 1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 22; Isa. xlv. 7; etc.), it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism (Stave, “Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum,” pp. 253 et seq.). An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the “accuser, persecutor, and oppressor” (Schrader, “K. A. T.” 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible.

In the Apocrypha.

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fT1wNu7w

 

[juliamajor]

In the Apocrypha. (POST EXILIC)

The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called “Satan,” although previously he had been termed “Satanel” (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael. It is difficult to identify Satan in any other passages of the Apocrypha, since the originals in which his name occurred have been lost, and the translations employ various equivalents. An “argumentum a silentio” can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort (comp. Demonology, and Kautzsch, “Apokryphen,” Index

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fT2OSBQs

 

[juliamajor]

In the New Testament.

The high development of the demonology of the New Testament presupposes a long period of evolution. In the Gospels the beliefs of the lower orders of society find expression, and Satan and his kingdom are regarded as encompassing the entire world, and are factors in all the events of daily life. In strict accordance with his manifold activity he bears many names, being called “Satan” (Matt. iv. 10; Mark i. 30, iv. 15; Luke x. 18 et passim), “devil” (Matt. iv. 1 et passim), “adversary” (I Peter v. 8, ἀντίδικος; I Tim. v. 14, ἀντικείμενος), “enemy” (Matt. xiii. 39), “accuser” (Rev. xii. 10), “old serpent” (ib. xx. 2), “great dragon” (ib. xii. 9), Beelzebub (Matt. x. 25, xii. 24, et passim), and Belial (comp. Samael). The fall of Satan is mentioned in Luke x. 18, John xii. 31, II Cor. vi. 16, and Rev. xii. 9. He is the author of all evil (Luke x. 19 et passim; Acts v. 3; II Cor. xi. 3; Ephes. ii. 2), who beguiled Eve (II Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9), and who brought death into the world (Heb. ii. 13), being ever the tempter (I Cor. vii. 5; I Thess. iii. 5; I Peter v. 8), even as he tempted Jesus (Matt. iv.). The belief in the devil as here developed dominated subsequent periods, and influenced indirectly the Jews themselves; nor has it been entirely discarded to-day.

Satan and his host are mentioned comparatively seldom in the Talmud and Midrash, although the material on this subject is not without importance. In the older or tannaitic literature the name of Satan is met with but rarely. Thus in Ab. iv. 11 sin itself, and not Satan, is the accuser, the term κατήγωρ becoming a standing epithet of Satan in the New Testament, and being applied to him by the later Talmudic teachers also. In Tosef., Shab. xvii. (xviii.) 3 it is stated that the angels of Satan accompany the blasphemer on his way, according to Ps. cxv. 6, while a comparison of Gen. R. xxxviii. 7 with Sifre, Num. xxv. 1 shows how reference to Satan was introduced by the Amoraim into tannaitic sayings (Bacher, “Ag. Pal. Amor.” ii. 254); and in like manner “Satan” is substituted for “angel” in Ned. 32a.
Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fT3WJYBG

 

[juliamajor]

I have posted all this before but you apparently doubt my veracity.As I stated before the concept of Satan as understood today by Christians evolved from murky beginning .Understanding of Satan and of Angels has changed, evolved .Babylon,Persia was an influence on both demonology and angelology.Apocryphal-Post exilic writings (such as 1 Enoch, and book of Jubilees)also had a major influence on the changing faces of both Angels and satan.

 

[StAnastasia]

so why not publish it accurately and in full and also the creation conference against Evolution - these can all and much more can be found on the Ignis Ardens website under a special forum as Creation and science - twinc

The Gregorian University conference proceedings will be published this spring, I believe. I will let you know when I receive word that they have been published.

 

[Robintrinket]

You’d better tell that to Pope Benedict. Not only did he authorize the evolutionary statement in Communion and Stewardship…

StAnastasia

As I said before, he wasn’t Pope at the time he did that.

 

[Robintrinket]

If the deposit of faith is just a bunch of nonsense dreamed up by an ancient, nomadic tribal group - why do you believe it? (or do you?)

I’d prefer to put my faith in the inspired word of God over “150 years of research and testing” of the theory of evolution, or any other man-made ideas for that matter.

Very well put. This is what comes of the perspective that atheism is what is actually true, and if you believe in a religion, you must only believe it to be true for you–meaning that it is an illusion or fantasy in your mind. That is why politicians will say “Personally, I believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t want to impose my morality on others.” Their belief that killing an unborn child is wrong is not a reality–it’s only true for them (meaning it must be kind of a fantasy in their mind).

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I have posted all this before but you apparently doubt my veracity.As I stated before the concept of Satan.

Satan is not a concept and he’s not a theory - he’s a reality. Satan has been active in human affairs from the beginning (Genesis ch. 3) and, looking around us at the world today, it’s obvious that he’s very active in the world today.

 

[juliamajor]

Satan is not a concept and he’s not a theory - he’s a reality. Satan has been active in human affairs from the beginning (Genesis ch. 3) and, looking around us at the world today, it’s obvious that he’s very active in the world today.

I’m talking about growth and evolution of a concept.Concept does not= unreal.That is your interpretation.Satan is not mentioned by name anywhere in Genesis.The angel who blocks Balaam in numbers is called"ha Satan" ,“the Adversary”.this connotes a different way of looking at Satan than the Christian era.Satan as demonic formed over time- changed , morphed primarily after Exile thru babylonian and persian influence.That was the point of my posting.In the light of the NT you may interpret serpent to be Satan.but I’m not arguing NT.I’m arguing Hebraic scripture from a Judaic view. That’s all!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You are implying that the human soul “evolved” from a lower animal. In Humani Generis, this view is condemned in paragraph 36. It says that the Teaching Authority “does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter–for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

If “souls are immediately created by God”, yet we are supposed to have “evolved”, then where does “sin” come from?

 

[StAnastasia]

As I said before, he wasn’t Pope at the time he did that.

And this is important why?

 

[StAnastasia]

If “souls are immediately created by God”, yet we are supposed to have “evolved”, then where does “sin” come from?

Sin comes from our evolving awareness of morality.

 

[StAnastasia]

In your post, you referred to the inspired word of God as “a nomadic tale” and “the ancient cosmogonic myth of one tribal group” - clearly implying that it is not credible.

Yes, the Hebrews were a nomadic tribe. Yes, their creation story is an ancient cosmogonic myth. It is your interpretation, not mine, that I think it is not credible.

 

[ricmat]

Very well put. This is what comes of the perspective that atheism is what is actually true, and if you believe in a religion, you must only believe it to be true for you–meaning that it is an illusion or fantasy in your mind. That is why politicians will say “Personally, I believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t want to impose my morality on others.” Their belief that killing an unborn child is wrong is not a reality–it’s only true for them (meaning it must be kind of a fantasy in their mind).

Robin, you hit the nail on the head with your response above.

Satan is not a concept and he’s not a theory - he’s a reality. Satan has been active in human affairs from the beginning (Genesis ch. 3) and, looking around us at the world today, it’s obvious that he’s very active in the world today.

Mea Culpa - Amen to your post above. CCC #391 says the following.

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

The catechism here speaks of something more than a “concept”.

If “souls are immediately created by God”, yet we are supposed to have “evolved”, then where does “sin” come from?

Sin comes from our evolving awareness of morality.

Section 387 of the CCC speaks of the “reality of sin”, not an evolving awareness. You (StA) should read the catechism sometime and accept it as church teaching, instead of trying to mold a new catechism in your own fallen likeness and image.

[etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

[387](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/387.htm’)

**tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, **](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/387.htm’)

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Sin comes from our evolving awareness of morality.

That’s not what St. Paul says. Romans 5:12-17 “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned - sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. … For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through one man Jesus Christ.”

St. Paul says sin came into the world through one man (Adam). Not from “our evolving awareness of morality.” Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given Sin, like the devil, is not a concept or a theory that evolves over time. It is a reality. It came into the world through the disobedience of our first parents.

Jesus Christ wasn’t crucified and resurrected to redeem us from our “evolving awareness of morality.” He suffered, died, and was buried, and on the third day he arose again that there might be forgiveness of sin and redemption. If sin is just something in our heads, our “evolving awareness,” and not a reality, why did Jesus die on the cross?

Or do you also believe that St. Paul has been taken in by ancient nomadic myths and tales and that everything he says can be disregarded because we in the modern age are so much wiser than him? (Wasn’t the basis of original sin also pride?)

 

[StAnastasia]

Or do you also believe that St. Paul has been taken in by ancient nomadic myths and tales and that everything he says can be disregarded because we in the modern age are so much wiser than him? (Wasn’t the basis of original sin also pride?)

“Taken in” is your expression, not mine. St. Paul was not a biologist or a geneticist. Naturally his theology presupposed the scientific worldview of his time. He had no way of knowing the historical depth of human descent from hominid ancestors over millions of years.