Marcionism

Okay, Noah, that was one of the best posts we've seen thus far. Nice stuff.

When you touch on Marcion of Sinope, I can't help but get excited because the era in which he lived (150 yrs. prior to 200 yrs. after) is the time that cranks my tractor!

The cool thing about Marcion is that most all we know of him comes from those who hated him. His main infraction was the recreation of a NT text that only contained the supposed words of Christ and the Pauline texts. He didn't reject the God of the OT, but he did see that God as a separate God from the NT's. The Catholic church, in its early stages, separated from him after his father excommunicated him for sexual sins. This religious ouctast was already in hot water by the time his rogue views found parchment.

This biggest problem with Marcionism is the lack of creedence given to supposed prophecy fulfillment. I don't have a clue what is true, but I do know that the only way for Jesus to have credibility as "savior" is through prophecy. The Jews who followed and the Gentiles who proselyted did so because of the supposed fulfillment of prophecy in the OT. If the two, Christianity and Judaism, are in staunch contrast, as Marcion believed, then Marcion would have to establish a new list of criteria for Jesus' validity. It's not that that can't be done, it's that Marcion didn't do it. That left Christianity, in Marcion's structure, as no better than any other religion that began in the 1st century of the Common Era. Obviously, that does not sit well with anyone who wants to view his/her belief system on a continuum that ascribes critical importance to every point and event.

Enough of my babbling. I'll save it for another class.

Again, nice post, Noah.

Different gods in the Old and New Testament?

Throughout history this has been a bit of a hot topic. In the second century a major theologan named Marcion promoted this ideology. Of course he was denounced as a heretic by what later became the organized church. He was labelled as a Gnostic, though, I don't really think he fits that strict definition. Definitely a dualist though. He taught that Jesus was the savior, but that Christianity was distinct from and incompatible with Judaism. In Marcionism the true god had no previous interactions with mankind and sent Jesus to help free humans from the cruel and defective world created by the demiurge; the god of the Hebrew bible was considered a demiurge-type character and lesser than the god of Christianity. This aspect of his teachings was similar to gnosticism. The Gnostics considered Yaweh to be the creator, and therefore the de facto source of evil. This is not at all out of the realm of Judaic thought, as Yaweh is the source of all things good and bad for a large portion of the Old Testament. Take the following verses: Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and CREATE DISASTER; I, YHWH (Yahweh), do all these things.

Lamentations 3:38 - Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and EVIL come?

Jeremiah 26:3 - It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his EVIL way, that I may repent of the EVIL which I intend to do to them because of their EVIL doings.

1 Kings 21:29 - Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the EVIL in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the EVIL upon his house.

Some people even think that Yahweh of the Old Testament, and Satan in the New Testament are the same character. This is somewhat in-line with the Gnostic philosophy of the material world and its creator being evil, and the new Testament god being the beacon of light and truth that can free mankind from this. This philosophy is actually based on one of the verses we read in class on Wednsday, as well as another in Chronicles:

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.

compared with the following:

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Here it appears that Yahweh, and Ha Sheth'n, the accusing angel, or adversary, are doing the exact same thing, are the same character, are working together, or are different aspects of the same character. These certainly aren't the only interpretatons, but this is very interesting to think about. The chronicles verse also ascribes more power to Ha Sheth'n than is given him (or her) in other sections. Usually Yahweh has to approve of this character's actions (like in Job) or simply allow them. What do you guys think?

Dualism and Jesus as a Neo-Levite

It seems like there's a tendency to view YHWH as egomaniacal and elitist in our OT readings. We've commonly referred to the incongruence of the death of the "stick-picker" and the lenience shown to David in the blatant census disobedience as examples of these traits in God. My question is a little early, in regards to the syllabus, but what are your thoughts on the possibility of two near-totally different gods represented in the Bible? The god of the OT seems to be an oppressive, prideful, even racist despot. The god in the NT is addressed by characters as if s/he/it is far away and unapproachable. In fact, Jesus seems to act in an almost priestly fashion by saying that no one can approach god without first approching him (Jesus). Maybe I am mis-reading, but that sounds a lot like the priest-speak that we read in the Pentateuch! I wonder if there's any study on a deuteronomic approach to the NT.

Also, has anyone checked out the first three words of 1 Maccabees?! I've not spent any time in the Maccabees so I'm pretty pumped to see that Alexander the Great is mentioned in the Bible. You Catholics get all the fun histories!

Get together?

Hello all, sorry i've been unavailable for the past few days, but i'll be back in class on wed. I don't have class on tuesdays or thursdays, so those are good for me. Thursday I work in the writing center from 6-9 though. Monday and Friday I'm done with class at 2:50, but Wed. i have a night class from 6-8:45. See you guys soon.

Schedule

My schedule is pretty open. Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings after 5:30 pm are booked, but any other time should be workable for me.

Kathryn

Schedule

My schedule is free throughout the week after our class, except for Friday's. I usually have to be at work around noon that day.

~ Article on Prophecies ~

~ God canvassing for elections with all/mostly male supporters --is the idea that struck me while reading The Phenomenon of Prophecies. The conduct of leaders under constant speculation, the tug of power to institutionalise God as 'people of the Lord' and the nations conflict over the issue; sounds absurd to me! Looks as if people of those times had no inner voice to choose or distinguish on their own!! One followed and was expected to do so of whatever the 'power' said. The question of righteousness was not to be decided by the public. The following drew my attention:
"The canonical prophets had raised expectations of righteousness in their community and of fulfillment of the Lord's way in history that could not be realized in proximate and penultimate conditions and times." [Page 170*]

~ The second idea that came in my mind was God as the greatest example of patriarchal figure in the history of mankind. The story has a male God and mostly male servants/prophets!! Complete lack of women Gods (Goddesses). Why the gift of prophecy only to men? Women are subject to 'visions' but never chosen by God to deliver 'the vision' to others. Did God think women were incapable of influencing? Or is that a sexist attitude!!

Schedule

I have to work on monday, and thrudsday. Other than that, I am available any other day/time.

schedule

I am available on Friday, as well. I'll bring a change of clothes when I have to work.

Rebecca's schedule

The only day I can't meet is Monday. I have a class from 1:00-2:50.

so far

well m or f at 2 seems to be ok with the few responses--what about the rest of you?

Jennifer's Schedule

I am free MWF anytime after our class and TTH after 3:15pm. Weekends are negotiable.

~ My preference ~

I can do any day (Mon-Fri) after 14:00 hrs. Sorry Dr Atkinson, I've Dr Lott's class @ 13:00 hrs Mon & Fri. Hope 14:00 hrs is not too bad a time for you.

getting together

remember that we were going to try to schedule our get together via the blog. so when is everyone or most able to be there? i can do monday and friday afternoon, beginning at 1.

Tick-Tock, The Prophetic Clock

I'm sorry, first of all, for not commenting for so long. I read the prophecy article last night, and have a couple of comments. I know that the human race is bound and determined to destroy itself; almost like children on the playground feel the need to pick on the neighborhood dog. History shows that "everything that has a beginning, has an end." (The Oracle; The Matrix Revolutions) Ah movies...some of the greatest one-liners can be found in the mind of another. :)
In order to have faith in the idea that everyone has the same opportunity to survive after this life it is essential we have an idea of when, not just where, we will go post-mortem. Prophecy will rear its ugly head in the form of skeptics...followers...and people who think the world has lost the marbles that keep it spinning. When the marbles in the Chinese Checkers game have fallen off the board, the game must start over...with the loss of reality, and the foreclosure of the spot we have been promised has arrived...the time for prophecy will have ended. I truly believe the people of Earth should pay closer attention to the notion that, not only the text in which we develop our prophetic visions, but the physical evidence our own people has turned over could both have a necessary part in this golden dream we label as prophetic.

Prophets, Visions and Ghosts

I find it interesting that at one point in time people relied on prophets and such to make religious and day to day decisions. I know so many people who are dead set against such things. They believe so emphatically that these sort of things are of the devil that it is hard for me to believe that at one point in time people of an extremely early Christian religion. Also, there are so many chase in the bible of people talking to angels and spirits but today people have a hard time believing other people when they have seen a ghost.

~ Response to Dr Atkinson ~

Ruth as folktale, indeed seems so!! To me it also seems professing a hidden and known sub-culture among men: homosexuality, homoeroticism,...etc. Plus the interpretation of text can be quite individual because it is drawn from personal experience & knowledge, due to which the answers will always be overlapping.

~ Almighty brought misfortune?!! ~

I found it interesting when Naomi passes the blame of her loss to God and tells that the "Almighty" has brought her misfortune. Rather than evaluating her deeds, which was likely for a person during that period to do; she buck backs it to the "Lord". "Its all Your fault" ~really interesting!!

Ruth and Custom

How do you guys feel about the Jewish custom of levirate marriage or yibbum? The OED defines it as "the custom among the Jews and some other nations, by which the brother or next of kin to a deceased man was bound under certain circumstances to marry the widow". Essentially, its purpose was to keep the family name and line going. The first born son of the later union would still bear the deceased father's name and be entitled to all his property and/or possessions.

Keeping this custom in mind, you have to look at the story of Ruth a little differently. Apparently, Ruth is childless when she departs with Naomi from Moab. And her only brother-in-law dies alongside her husband. Her social status is pretty much nothing if she stays behind with the Moabites. She probably knows exactly what her options are when in comes to men in the community, and also the stigma of remaining un-remarried. Her best option is to try greener pastures. Ruth knows that her mother-in-law is returning to her "own country" where there are bound to be a few relatives to whom she could try and intiate the levirate custom. Why else would she rather die than leave Naomi's side? The Bible may try to sell Ruth as loyal, but I like to think she is just being practical.

Naomi was just as aware of the custom of levirate marriage as her daughter-in-law. She is the one that teaches Ruth to pimp herself out, giving her pretty exact instructions. Check out 3:1 through 3:16. Naomi knows the steps required in setting up the match between Boaz and Ruth. I think these steps, like rolling back the covering from the sleeping man's feet, must have been a part of the levirate custom. Otherwise, how would Naomi have been so sure of Boaz's reaction? As for Boaz, he does the right thing by marrying Ruth. He gets a smart wife and a nice chunk of land. Also, I think men could be punished for not carrying out this bizarre custom. But, I will have to research that some more.

~ Deity and Transcendent ~

In the Deity article, Hayes refers the Deity to be considered both transcendent and immanent as per common theologies. I came across something in reference to this in the Message of Myth episode of Joseph Campbell where he says that popular myths are mere stories to search meaning and significance, to touch the eternal and understand the mysterious. Here is a picture of Lord Buddha which has 3 faces. So what does such a deity reveal?!! Campbell gives a satisfactory description saying that whenever one moves out of the transcendent one comes to the field of opposites: male/female, this/that, dark/light, dead/alive, good/evil, not/is, right/wrong, being/not being, past/future, peaceful/wrathful... According to him everything is dual in time and the middle refers to the radiance of eternity and the spilt refers to the spilt as in good and evil. Are myths/deities in myths clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life of what we are cpable of knowing and experienceing within??!

Random Ruth Reflections

Alright, not sure how to throw this radical observation out here on the internet, but here's my attempt:

Does Ruth appear mentally disabled to anyone else? I've never heard this theory, nor thought so myself until now. Then again, I've never read Ruth before, only learned that she was a strong woman and a heroine. Reading the story, however, she reminds me of some of the people I work with who have mental retardation and other mental handicaps. I know this is bogus, but her character seems very dependent and innocent to me. Little things gave me this image, like the way the Boaz wants to protect her from the men, and how she follows Naomi's orders to the letter. Even at the end, her baby is given to Naomi to raise.

I'm not sure of the implications of this way of reading it, or if anyone else can even imagine her this way. I just didn't picture the daring woman I'd heard about before. I think Naomi's character is much more admirable, as she leaves everything and everything she knows to follow her husband into a foreign land, where she births two sons, only to have them and their father die. She then journeys back to her home, where I assume any semblance of rights or power she had through her husband are now gone with his death.

Well, there it is... my blasphemous interpretation of one of the most celebrated woman of the Bible. Yeesh.

ruth

Did anyone notice the line that Boaz says to Ruth (when she is in the field):
"I have told the men not to molest you."
It would seem that the men would do so had they not been told not to.

Ruth is like a folktale. What do you think the tale was supposed to teach?

Ruth and the reading for Friday

I agree with Jennifer. I have always loved Ruth. As a character, she is the kind of woman I would want to write into my own stories. I am amazed at how brave she is to leave her home and her family and go live with her mother-in-law out of devotion and loyalty to her. I could never do that. And once she is in Naomi's homeland, she does what she's got to do for the good of Naomi and herself. And she gets one of the best men in town just because she's a great woman. Good for her! This really is a good story, and I too have wondered why it would paint a woman in such a positive and different light than other women. But whatever the reason, I'm glad this book is in the Bible.

Today's reading in 1 Samuel seemed in such a contrast. Here we have had this empowering story about Ruth and this awesome bond she has with Naomi, and then we have the two wives of Elkanah, Peninnah and Hannah... Gone is the friendship, the bond, the closeness. Granted, the two women are sleeping with the same man so naturally there will be tensions, but it's still sad to me to see these two womens' interactions (Peninnah tormenting Hannah for not having any children) after reading Ruth. However, Hannah is still a good woman because it takes a very strong woman to be able to give her one and only child (at the time) completely to the Lord. I was glad that after this the Lord blessed her with more children in place of Samuel so she would still get to be a mother.

The whole slaying of Eli and his family because they were messing up the offerings was a little out there for me. All that fuss over some raw meat... But, in general, I have a hard time understanding some of the customs in the Old Testament and the way God acts because it is in such contrast to what I have always known of God.

And I never knew the Ark of God had been lost or taken. Reminds me of Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark!

Ruth

I also agree. It does seem like Ruth is somewhat assertive to be a female figure in the Bible. Also, one thing I found interesting is that when Boaz is speaking to the "next-of-kin," there is mention of a strange custom I had never heard of. "Now it used to be the custom when ratifying any transaction by which property was redeemed or transferred for a man to take off his sandal and give it to the other party; this was the form of attestation in Israel. Accordingly when the next-of-kin said to Boaz, 'you must take it over,' he drew off his sandal and handed it over." (verses 7-9) I have never seen this anywhere else in the Bible. However, it could be a common practice mentioned, and I've just never noticed. I am curious to find out if there is any historical truth to this custom, and if it is mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.

Assertive Women

I think I like Ruth more than any other woman that has been mentioned so far in the bible. She is assertive, loyal, and not afraid to get her hands dirty. She is a brave woman who is willing to leave her family to follow her mother-in-law into a strange land and religion. She is not afraid to work when she has too and when she finds a man that she wants she is not afraid to let him know. She is a woman to be admired and respected. Although, she is a better woman than I am when she gives her son to her mother-in-law. I am surprised that this is actually in the bible considering that pretty my all of the other women are so submissive. It seems that this story would undermined that kind of thinking. I know that she is still to an extent a piece of property but at least she is trying to take charge of her life.

Ruth and 1 Samuel

The story of Ruth has always been one of my favorite Bible stories, too. I love that she is the celebrated hero: In Ruth 4:15, the women say to Naomi that Ruth "has proved better to you than seven sons," and I love that! Ruth has such a crazy-strong devotion to her mother-in-law (more important than her devotion to God, which seems to be just an aspect of being devoted to Naomi) and I wonder what made this relationship so important to the purpose of this story. To encourage women to be more devoted to their in-laws? That's unlikely because Orpah isn't criticized for going back to "to her people and her god" (Ruth 1:15).

I also noted a lot of the simplistic style in 1 Samuel that Kathryn saw in Ruth. Some of the stories are so silly - Eli thinking Hannah was drunk when she was praying; Samuel repeatedly thinking Eli was calling him when it was the Lord, Eli's sons referred to as "scoundrels;" and, what has to be one of the most bizarre stories in the entire Bible, the golden tumours and rats [what??]!

The story of Eli's sons was similar to that of Pharaoh to me: "They would not listen, however, to their father's rebuke, for the Lord meant to bring about their death" (1 Samuel 2:25). Just as He hardened Pharaoh's heart, He kept them from listening to their father's counsel? This has bothered me for years because it just doesn't mesh with most Christian theology of a God who loves and wants to save all of humanity. (Paul brings up the Pharaoh issue in Romans 9:14-23).

1 Samuel has so many cool things in it. My biggest question, though, is why did the Lord appoint them a king, knowing it was not the best thing for them? If they're His chosen people, shouldn't He want to "save" them?

Style in Ruth

When I was a little kid I would read certain Bible stories instead of listening to the sermon in church. The Book of Ruth was always one of my favorites. Reading it again for the first time in years, I'm struck by the style the story was written in. It reminds me of a folktale-

Ruth 3:7-8"When Boaz had eaten and drunk, he felt at peace with the world and went and lay down to sleep at the far end of the heap of grain. Ruth came quietly, turned back the covering at his feet and lay down. About midnight the man woke with a start; he turned over, and there, lying at his feet, was a woman!"

The exclamation mark just makes it for me. It's no wonder I was drawn to it as a kid; the sentences are simple and the style is light and entertaining. Furthermore, it has none of those disturbing aspects (at least none that spring immediately to my mind) like most of the other things we've discussed- Sarai as a sister instead of a wife, Miriam's blight, etc. Anyway, those are my thoughts...

Kathryn

El & Elohim;

El was the supreme god in Canaanite religion. The Canaanite (Ugaritic) religion borrowed heavily from its more powerful neighbors, so El may derive from a number of Sumerian or Akkadian gods. El was also know as El-Elyon, meaning God Most High, and later El Shaddai, meaning god of the mountain. El supposedly lived on Mount Saphon, hence the "El Shaddai," name. He was a member of the Ugaritic pantheon and was later equated with Yahweh in Exodus 6 v2-3. One of El's sons, Ba'al Hadad, slays a sea monster, Lotan or Lawtan, according to Ugaritic texts. This is very similar to Yaweh's fight with Levithian in Isaiah 27.

El is also used to refer to a foreign god in several other places.

The plural Elohim is a very curious considering the use of the singular El. I've been unable to find any other examples of a majestic plural in ancient hebrew, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. If anyone knows anything else about this term I'd certainly be interested in where it may come from and what or who it originally refered to.

The most interesting bit of info I found regarding the term Elohim comes from Moses Maimonides in his Yad ha-Chazakah. Here Elohim is considered to be a class of angel, and not even a very high class of angel. This bit of info came from wikipedia though, so I'm not sure if its entirely accurate.

Here are a couple other websites that have useful information on this subject:
Encyclopedia Mythica
Jewish Encyclopedia

Never put that together.

Thanks Anna Beth for the info about why the Jewish people stopped sacrificing. For some reason my brain never put two and two together. It should have been obvious but for some reason it never has.

Sacrifice, response to Anna Beth

Jews today no longer offer sacrifices because they no longer have a proper place to do so. Yaweh is rather specific in his requests about where sacrifices can be offered, and the last place he specified was the temple in Jerusalem. When the Romans destroyed the temple around 70 C.E. the sacrificial rituals stopped, because offering a sacrifice improperly would be considered a sin. Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of the rituals that were performed there. This includes the sacrifice. This may sound cruel, but since the either the preists or the family of the man offering the sacrifice normally eat the animal, and it is slaughtered in a manner similar to that which animals are slaughtered for food (the draining of the blood through the carotid artery) it wouldn't necessarilybe considered cruel or wasteful.

Currently there is a mosque on the site of the old temple in Jerusalem which prevents the re-building of the temple.

Also, the practice of tithing has its roots in Deut. and Genesis, so it wouldn't really be a mistake to read that concept onto sacrifice. It was also common practice for a landowner to collect a 10% fee from those farming his land. Similarly if one king aided another in battle, and the latter was victorious, the king who came to his assistance was entitled to a percentage of the spoil. This process could easily be applied to a deity as well.

repsonse to Jennifer

I, too questioned why only Miriam was punished when Number 12:1 reads "Miriam and Aaron began to find fault with Moses." The Lord calls both of them out, but only diseases Miriam. Aaron actually says, "My lord, do not make us pay the penalty of sin..." (Numbers 12:11), even though he appears to be untouched. God's punishments seem so fickle. Abraham repeatedly lied about Sarah's not being his wife, and God wasn't angry with him at all; in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira lie and are struck dead. It frustrates me that there is no "standard."

I always think of sacrifices as the worshipers giving their best to God or the gods to show their dependence and trust that He or they would provide for them, in spite of what they gave up; but, I'm likely reading the later practice of "tithing" into that too much. As we talked about in class, animal sacrifices more realistically had a lot to do with feeding the priests.

I have a question: Why do Jews no longer offer animal sacrifices? I'm certainly glad that they don't, but if the reason why Christians don't is that Jesus was the "ultimate sacrifice," then what is the reason for the Jews? I'm sure there is a very elementary reason of which I'm not aware.

Miriam and Sacrifices

Why was only Miriam punished and not Aaron. It clearly states that they both disagreed with Moses being married to a Cushite woman but God singles her out for punishment. Also someone explain to me the importance of sacrifices? Why would the gods want them? It is unsettling to know that these people gave up their best animals as sacrifices especcially in during a time when it is apparent that food was needed.

deities

Yesterday I meant for us to talk some about the Deities article that we were supposed to discuss last Friday. But we got so into our discussion of law that it slipped my mind. Let's talk about the article some tomorrow; it is really interesting I think.

Azazel

In the passages from Enoch that we read, Azazel was one of the angels who mated with women to spawn the Nephilim. He also taught men how to make weapons of iron and bronze and women the art of beautifying their bodies with jewelry, makeup, and hair dye. For this he is cast into a hole in the desert and chained there with jagged rocks put on top of him. Also Enoch says with regard to Azazel: "To him ascribe all sin." This is why the ceremonial placing of sins on a goat who is let either into the wilderness or more likely off a cliff to die may have something to do with Azazel. Notably an alternate translation for his name is scapegoat. He is also considered the personification of impurity.

He is also purportedly the leader of the Sei'irim, goat demons who haunt the desert to whom many primitive semitic tribes offered sacrifices. Since he also is mentioned in Mandæan, Sabean, and Arabian mythologies, he may partially derive from a Babylonian deity that was later degraded by the aforementioned peoples. In Islamic demonology his name is changed to Iblis, or despair.

According to the Dictionarre Infernal Azazel is the guardian of goats, and today, Sept. 10th, was the Jewish feast of Expiation, in which the lots were cast for the two goats and one is set into the wilderness.

The worship of Azazel was common among the semitic peopls as Jeroboam appointed preist for the Sei'irim, but since this practice supposedly involved the copulation of women with goats, all these places of worship were later destroyed by Josiah.

Given the combination of his goat like traits, his ascription of all sin, as well as his dwelling under jagged rocks in the desert, one can see how this somewhat strange ritual in Leviticus may have evolved.

Leviticus 16

Okay, I know we weren't assigned this chapter of Leviticus, but Chapter 16 is too much fun not to comment on. Read it. I dare you. And then tell me this- who the heck is Azazel? The commentary says Azazel might have been a demon who, "in earlier times, was thought to be exorcised from the community" (123). Hmmm. That's way too little information for my liking.

Kathryn

Response to Joey and some revisions.

After checking out your response i did a little more reading and the hebrew name commonly translated to "Joshua" is "Yehoshua." A contracted hebrew-aramaic version is "Ye'shua," which was what Jesus was likely called. This name was later Hellenized into the Greek Iesous, transliterated into the latin Iēsus, and finally anglocized into "Jesus." So that makes more sense to me now. I had previously thought it was done to avoid confusion with the OT Joshua... who was quite a bit less than "Christ-like," with the ethnic cleansing and "sanctioned" raping that occured in Canaan. Strange that this very morbid and seemingly inexcusable story (most "excuses" involve either the Canaanites being considered descendants of the Nephilim or cite very dubious evidence of child sacrifice) appears in the OT when little archaelogical evidence suggests anything like that occuring in Palestine around that time period. Given that it may not have happened I am curious as to why a people would want to claim responsibility for such actions, if they did not commit them.

And my criticism of the word "symbology" is based completely on Willem Daefoe's character mocking someone for using that term in the movie Boondock Saints. Probably should've consulted a dictionary before adding that... oh well..

I thought it interesting that the narrator of these films completely left out Satan/Lucifer, since he seems to be easily the most dubious character in the entire bible and nearly entirely derived from Egyptian mythology.

Also I stated that there was little or no Egyptological evidence of Horus being born of a virgin. This may be true, but Ra (who was often equated with, merged with, or considered part of Horus), could possibly have been born of a virgin. The merging of Horus and Ra may account for what I originally percieved as an inaccuracy in the film. The following picture of an inscription at a temple reportedly describes the virginal birth of Ra(or possibly Horus).


But since I don't read heiroglyphics, i can't say with certainty. So the virgin birth theme may originate in Egypt, but as for the 12 disciples, I did not see anything to indicate that this originated in Egypt. Another interesting thing about Horus is his Annointing. He was annointed by Anubis, who also had a religious following. After this he was refered to has Horus Karast, meaning Horus the Annointed or Horus the Embalmed. Also, Marian iconography seems to borrow heavily from sculptures and pictures of Isis holding Horus. Take the following picture for example:


particularly note the awkward position of Jesus and Mary's right hand. The alteration of the Isis/Horus image to avoid the showing of Mary's breast, or avoid the implication breast-feeding certainly sounds like something Catholics might do, as they seem to frown on nudity...



Did anyone else watch the clips I posted? If so I'd certainly like to hear other's thoughts on them.

Noah

Response to Noah

Cool stuff you've got there! Here are a couple initial thoughts:

Most jews take a Hebrew and Greek or Latin name. Our text notes that in the footnotes of Ax 2. Yeshua is the Hebrew form of Jesus; both were common names. An interesting note: "Yeshua" is Hebrew for "Salvation" or "God Saves."

Symbology is a word with a slightly different meaning from the more commonly used Semiotics. I researched this while reading The Da Vinci Code. Symbology has an anthropological application where Semiotics is a more general study.

Interesting Documentary

here are some clips from the movie Zeitgeist that Dave mentioned in class last friday i believe. This is the first section, the later sections go on to material outside the scope of this class, but the first part you guys should find interesting. Oh, and I'll add some commentary below each section, because a few of the narrators claims, i believe, are not entirely factual, or are highly speculative.



The Egyptian god Set was not always the enemy of Horus, and I think he is confusing the Ra-Apep battle causing night and day, but as convoluted as Egyptian mythology is, it could just be a story I haven't read yet.
There is little Egyptological evidence confirming Horus' virgin birth or 12 disciples. I've also never seen or heard him referred to as the lamb of god outside of this film. Horus birthday is usually given between Dec 21st and 25th.
Mithra was born out of a rock in adult form. I suppose technically the rock was a virgin... I would hope at least.



His arguments about the different Ages are pretty interesting, but i don't think "symbology" is a word. I also believe he overstates some of the similarities between Egyptian and Judeo-Christian theologies.



There is still debate as to the reliability of the Jocephus texts, but I don't think it is considered an outright forgery. And there was a historic "Ye'shua," from Nazareth, why it was translated into Jesus instead of the traditional Joshua is a mystery to me. However, how much of this man's life is accurately represented in the Bible is a question that people will probably argue over forever. In my opinion, some people probably attached myths to the historical figure.

Hope you guys found this interesting.

I enjoyed the videos joey posted... oh those fundamentalists... they do entertain me though...

Noah

Funny Yet Sad

Another Helpful Tool

You should also check out http://www.e-sword.net/. There you can download a program that allows you to download MANY different texts and tools that will aid you in your study of the Bible. One of the more effective helps, for me at least, is the annotated KJV. It comes numbered with in-text references to the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldee languages. You can check in a matter of nano-seconds what the repsective word is in the particular text from which that translation pulled the word.

You can also download commentaries, maps, dictionaries, guides to life in ancient times, and works by sages like Josephus, Luther, Calvin, Foxe (Nancy thinks he is a psycho!), and, my favorite, the Westminster Confessions.

The best part - it's all FREE and legal! Honestly, this 'site is unbelievable.

--Also--

Thanks, Pratik, for the comment. Self-proclaimed prophets are exactly what fundamentalist nuts remind me of.

Response to Noah and Kellie

The only problem with your circumcision explanation is that it still limits this supposedly limitless God. If God can only recognize those of the circumcision, then how does he recognize "Satan" or the Pharoah?

Concerning Lot, I like what you have to say about the Deus Incognito motif, but the hospitality question separates from the question when the virgin surrender enters. God enters the scene in disguise in several places; in fact, Jesus does it, too, but no one offers God or Jesus virgins.

As for the Satan discussion, I've got more to talk about on that later. There's some rather significant textaual evidence that supports Lucifer as a king--not Satan. The idea that Satan is a fallen angel only works if Lucifer is Satan, but that all depends on the theory that he fell in a major war in heaven. In that myth, Satan was actually the worship leader in heaven. Interesting stuff that I hope to present on later.

This might come in handy...

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Interesting site... you can search more than 20 English version of the Bible (plus many other translations). It doesn't search topics, just actual passages and key words. It should come in handy when a particular verse is haunting your memory...

~ Christianity, Islam & Hinduism ~

I was impressed by the presentation focusing the similarities in Islam and Christianity. I had a strange conversation with my Muslim room-mate couple of days ago. We shared the similarities of Islam and Christianity leading to a debate as to which out of the two is a better expression of faith, truth, and God. We were discussing about the religious ceremonies followed by people of different religion. There are 330 million Gods and Goddesses (popular as deity) in Hinduism. He argued that God is just one and that 'Allah' is the ONLY God. He added that, "God forbid if I were a Christian..." He almost sounded that it was shameful to be a non-Muslim. He tried to correct himself by saying that he's happy that he is not a Christian. My question to him was, "Who told that Christians are unhappy?" The conversation took me to class where we've spoken how Bible as a religious text is read. This also is made me think of the power and impact of a book. The standards people draw from these texts and impose them on to others. It is like each one is a prophet himself/herself and one must believe it as the UTMOST truth. Strange, isn't it ??!

reply to Kellie's questions

The only potential explanation of the story in which Moses is almost killed by Yaweh I can concieve of is that it serves to emphasize the importance of the covenant of circumcision. Either Moses himself had not been circumcised and Yahweh, being conscious of this, was about to judge a sinner. Also, Moses' son at the time of this story had not been circumcised, and this may have been a neccessary requirement before Moses was to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. This is all speculation, but probably more satisfying than "God didn't recognize him in the dark."

The story of Lot offering his daughters up instead of the two visitors appears to be a re-telling of myth common to all cultures to spring up from the proto-Indo-European tradition, as well as the Egyptians. The motif of the divine visiting the mortal incognito is also common among the various mythologies prior to and after the Old Testament. The tale of Isis and the 7 Scorpions from Egyptian mythology comes to mind. In this particular myth Isis is disguised and traveling through the Town of Two Sisters. A wealthy nobleswoman sees them and shuts her door. A peasant girl then offers her home to Isis and her party. Long story short, the nobleswoman's son is stung by one of the scorpions, but Isis has mercy on him. The rich woman then gives all her money to the peasant girl and Isis. In Greek mythology there are many references to the "sacredness" of hospitality, such as the story of Demeter, the Furies being brought about by not obeying the laws of hospitality, and Zeus was a patron of hospitality. These Greek myths seem to derive from the earlier Sumerian Inanna (Akkadian Ishtar, mentioned in a previous post) and Enki. There is a theory that all of these myths ultimately derive from the proto-Indo-European religion mentioned earlier that involved sacred hospitality rites that are still present in some version in many religions.

This curious tale of Lot offering his innocent daughters to a gang of rapists is most likely the result of these cultural influences in tandem with the views of that time regarding both children and women as property.

It is also interesting that the serpent from Genesis is identified as Satan, but not until the book of Revelation. I came across that same verse when writing a previous post about the timeline of the fall according to passages in Genesis and Enoch. Judging from this, Satan could not have been the serpent. The reference to him as such likely comes from the many apocolyptic "serpent battle myths" from various cultural traditions by the time Revelation was written. An incomplete list includes: Ra vs. Apep in Egyptian mythology, Zeus vs. Typhon, Kronos vs. Ophion, Apollo vs. Python, Heracles vs. the Hydra and Ladon, Perseus vs. Ceto in Greek mythology; Indra vs. Vritra in Hindu mythology; Teshub vs. Illuyanka of Hittite mythology; Oraetaona, and later Keresaspa, vs. Azi Dahaka, and Ahura Mazda vs. Ahriman in Zoroastrianism and Persian mythology; Anu or Marduk vs. Tiamat in Mesopotamian mythology; Baal or El vs. Lotan or Yam-Nahar in Levantine mythology; even in Jewish mythology there is the pre-Satan evil serpent myth of Yahweh or Gabriel vs. Leviathan or Rahab or Tannin. Another interesting correletion is that in the closely related Levantine and Jewish mythologies the Levantine Lotan had 7 heads, as does Satan in revelation.

Hope this answered some of your questions.

In response to Karen's "On Satan and the serpent"

I remember looking all through the story about Adam, Eve, and the snake after someone brought up in class that Satan is never mentioned in this story. I re-checked the story because I felt betrayed because I've thought all my life that the snake was Satan. So I started thinking, "Well why on earth have I been told the snake was Satan when it doesn't mention that fact in the actual story?" I started researching and I found this:

(From our text) Revalation 12:9 - "The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent that led the whole world astray, whose name is the Devil, or Satan; he was thrown down to earth, and his angels with him. "

So the Bible does refer to the serpent that tempted Eve as Satan, just not in Genesis.

Such a contradiction

Ok, I've grown up in church all my life, and I'm having a really hard time with some of this stuff. I had no idea the Bible was so contradictory. I mean, you hear one thing in Sunday school, but when you really start looking at the text, especially within the confines of this class, you see that there are all sorts of discrepancies and, frankly, weird things that I never even knew about. Like the passage we discussed at the end of class on Wednesday - Exodus 4:24-26. Why in the world would God want to kill Moses? And like Joey brought up, since he is all-knowing, would he not have known that it was Moses that he had come upon, even if it was dark?

And with the story of Lot: I realize that he was trying to protect the angels/visitors that were in his home, but he offered those rapists his two virgin daughters and said "do what you will with them." What is that? That doesn't seem like righteous or worthy behavior.

Does anyone have any possible explanations to these questions?

In Response to "Why Fear God?"

Fear is a powerful motivator. Besides good common sense and decency, fear is what keeps us human beings in line most of the time. Its a little sad but true. In this same vein, the God of the OT uses his power as a dictator might. Dictatorship can be necessary, sort of. I am thinking of your standard child-parent relationship. A mother can't give her toddler free reign or chaos and quite possibly harm would occur. But, it is up to said mother to discuss free will with that same child later on down the road.

That's what the narratives of the OT and NT remind me of. It is almost as if God grows up with his/her creation. Much like a first time parent improves their technique from child #1 to child #2.

That brings me to the whole idea of God's gender. I am reminded of a scene in the The Color Purple when Shug and Celie are discussing their concept of a creator figure. Celie admits that she could never really connect to some big white man with a long white beard and sandals. (The standard mental picture I get when someone says "Our Father".) And Shug says there's her problem. There is more to a spirit than being just man or woman.

Seriously, if you were some omnipotent, all powerful being, would you stick to one appearance/one sex/one anything? Where would be the fun in that. Eh, I like to think God has a sense of humor too.

jennifer

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

In response to "Why Fear God."

Old Testament god really does inspire fear. Don't do what he says and he'll drown you in a flood, destroy your cities with fire, turn you into salt, bring plagues upon your people etc... He even claims to be a jealous god. These attributes certainly contrast with New Testament god, who, for the most part, is about peace, tolerance, love, and acceptance. I've often wondered why the two books are connected. It kinda makes me think of an analogy from 1960s America. A conservative WWII vetran father (in keeping with the male image of god) talks righteously of bombing Europe and Japan, city and jungle warfare in their respective theaters, the deaths of millions, respect for the establishment, obedience, etc. All the while his hippie son is walking around in sandals with long hair, a beard, and talking about peace and love. The analogy isn't perfect, but I do find it amusing. Also the "anglo-saxon" Jesus portrayed in many a church portrait does bear much resemblance to friends I've had of the "hippie" persuasion...

Noah

Why Fear God?

"God has come only to test you, so that the fear of him may remain with you and preserve you form sinning." Ex. 20:20

Why is God all about us fearing HIM/HER (I am one of those who have not decide what gender they believe God is)? Fear does not necessarily bring love and respect. Sure you can get people to do things for you by intimidating them into doing it but that does not mean they truly care for you. For a being that is supposed to want our love, our hearts, our faith, or worship, our absolute no questions asked obedience, fear seems to be the wrong way to get it. It is not genuine if it comes from fear. It seems to me that it would be better and easier to get people to believe in you through loving them also. Not through trials and hardship. My thoughts are kind of scattered. Its my birthday so I have other things running through my head also but my point is why would SHE/HE want us to live in constant fear of HIM/HER?

Egyptian Magicians, Satan, and Moses

I assume the Egyptian magicians are supposed to derive their powers from whichever god or gods they were worshiping in that area at the time. There is actually one specific type of magician in ancient Egypt, known as a scorpion charmer, whose responsiblity was to rid an area of poisonous reptiles or insects. This may have been why the inability to repeat the plague of gnats was so surprising to the magicians. Notably, this type of magic was not very high up in the hierarchy of Egyptian magic. Best I can tell Moses was supposedly born between about 1542-1292 B.C. This would put his time during the 18th dynasty in Egypt. I believe the main focus of worship was on Ra-Aton-Horus. Interestingly the Egyptian god Set I've mentioned previously was, during this time, considered an enemy of Ra-Aton-Horus(the patron of Upper Egypt, Set was patron of Lower Egypt), as he lost a battle with Horus at the begining of the 1st dynasty. However, Set regained popularity around 1300 B.C. in northern (lower) Egypt. I suppose it would be possible, given the very ambiguous date for Moses' birth that it could be closer to the 19th dynasty. This would have made the magicians participators in the worship of Set. If Moses was born closer to the 19th dynasty this could partially explain Egyptian magic being attributed to Satan, as some stories involving Satan seem to originate with Set. But this might be stretching a bit.

As for this magic being attributed to Satan, according to the bible's own timeline, this would not work. The fall, according to verses in Genesis and Enoch, would have occured around the time of Noah and the flood. However the chief angels noted in this fall are Samjazaa and Azazel. Satan, or the "angel prosecutor" Ha Sheth'n is not mentioned at all in this fall. Given their punishment of being cast out from heaven and separated from Yahweh eternally it would be impossible for "Satan" to be before Yaweh, with other angels at the beginning of Job. In that story "Satan," or as a footnote in my NIV copy of the bible says "the accuser," is before Yaweh and seems to be acting at his request. He must ask permission for each thing he does to Job and then reports back to Yaweh. This accusing angel may seem like a bit of a jerk, but he is certainly not bound with chains under a mountain apart from Yaweh. His job as prosecutor doesn't seem that far-fetched given some of Yaweh's attitudes towards human life and suffering as exemplified by other OT stories. More on this later...

Also, the story of Moses' birth seems to borrow heavily from an older Semitic tale involving Sargon, King of Akkad. He was born in secret then placed in a "basket of rushes sealed with tar." He is then discovered by a man named Akiki, who raises him as his son. This tale is appears to be from the 3rd millenium B.C. Also, the Ten Commandments seem to be taken from the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the commandments by about 500-600 years. Consider the following:
Commandment #5: Honor your father and mother.
Code of Hammurabi 195: If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
Commandment 6: You shall not murder
Hammurabi 229: If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
Hammurabi 230: If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death
Commandment 7: Do not commit adultery.
Hammurabi 129-133: If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.
If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.
If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.
If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.
If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.
Commandment 8: You shall not steal.
Hammurabi 6: If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.
Hammurabi 8: If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.
Commandment 9: You shall not bear false witness.
Hammurabi 2: If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
Hammurabi 3: If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
Commandment 10: You shall not covet.
The last commandment is a bit strange as it is an attempt to regulate human emotion by law. This is somewhat curious, and doesn't have a direct parallel in the Code of Hammurabi. However a good argument could be made for any of the Hammurabi passages involving theft or adultery.

Most of these concepts would be pretty common for the area and time period.

Noah

I made it!!

I'm sorry for not having any posts, but not getting signed up on time, as well as other personal
issues, have prevented any postings. I have a question (moderately rhetorical) about
Sodom & Gomorrah. It was my impression that the two cities were turned to salt, but the text mentioned Lot's wife was the one who became a pile nature's preservative and only described the geographic area of the cities as being destroyed. Could this be a casualty of a different translation? As for the Book of Enoch...thank you Anna Beth...I personally feel as if this was intended to be the Hebrew Book of 'Revelation' as told by Enoch. There is so much death and destruction, I almost feel like I'm reading the ancient translation of a CNN Newsroom sketch. Did anyone else see this?

church sign

The sign is hilarious--especially considering the fact that many people scream "Oh God!" in bed when they are having sex.

Egyptian Magicians' Power Ex. 7-10

Funny picture, huh?!

I find that the magicians in Ex. 7-10 are ignored quite often in retellings of OT lore.

Where in the rip did the Pharoah's magicians get their power? Could this be an OT acknowledgment of "the gods" of Gen. 6? I've often heard this cited as an example of the power of Satan, but that would be an anachronism according to contextual clues.

What do you think?

BTW, Noah, bro', you are rockin' like Dokken! I would love to sip on more of your contributions! It's so nice to encounter your knowledge.

enoch

Yes, now that you mention Elijah, I recall that the medieval drama on this also includes him too. Do you remember where this story is--or is it in Revelation as you mentioned?

The medieval folks had so much more to work with in terms of biblical stories and there doesn't seem to be a difference between those non-canonical, canonical, or saint stories. The artwork and sermons treat them equally.

On the Bible and facebook. I have yet to see what a facebook site (or whatever) is. I cannot imagine doing something like it or myspace. I do try to see why this might be fun, but I am hard pressed to see the activity as fun.

Enoch not the only to be taken by God

According to what I've been taught in Sunday School, Enoch was not the only man in the Bible who was taken by God. In the KJV Elijah was also taken by God in a whirlwind (II Kings 2:11). And according to what I've been taught Elijah and Enoch will return during the apocolypse to do battle with the antichrist. Although the book of Revelations only say two prophets will do this, popular christian belief is that Elijah and Enoch are these two prophets.
Just some things I've heard growing up, take it as you will.

The Bible as Popular Literature

Did any other member of Facebook notice the top five books in the North Alabama network. Number one just happens to be the Bible, and number four is The Holy Bible.

Just something I noticed.

I love reading this!

Everyone is doing such a great job here. I really like reading everything. Noah's knowledge is really very helpful on some of these issues.

I've learned lots about the Church of Christ since I've been teaching here and so many of the students go there. Apparently, it is around 2 hundred years old. Campbell, I believe, was a founder in the 19th century. So it is not about 1000 years after Christ; it is about 1800 years later and only is American. I also understand that it has done a whole lot to erase its historical origins, so that it can be perceived as being much older.

nancy

random responses

I wish we could respond directly to each other's posts!

In response to Nancy's post about Enoch, Genesis 5:24 notes that "Enoch walked with God, and then was seen no more, because God had taken him away." (This was a popular Sunday school question: "Who was the only man in the Bible who never died?") His genealogy confuses me, though. In Genesis 4, his father is Cain, and his son is Irad. In Genesis 5, his father is Jared and his son is Methuselah. Shouldn't someone have caught that during the early editing process? It seems as though the different narratives are sloppily thrown together, as there are discrepancies between consecutive chapters.

In response to Jennifer's rant, I, too, am sickened by people who rip a Biblical passage out of context and spin it to mean what they want.... while completely ignoring the whole body of Scripture (After I left the CoC [you're right, Jennifer... it wasn't formed until the early 19th century], I was told by many people that I would go straight to hell because the church I now attend has a keyboard. Come on!) I think that people who call themselves Christians use Scriptures out of the context of God's love to condemn another group of people because it makes them feel holy and superior. ("You have no defence, then, whoever you may be, when you sit in judgement - for in judging others you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, are equally guilty" - Romans 2:1)

And, I didn't get the e-mail with the article!

a.b.k.r.

Women and the Bible

I have sent everyone an email with the chapter in the Bible as Lit. that Dr. Atkinson wanted us to scann and read.

Jennifer

to Jennifer

I agree with what you are saying. I also dislike when people use christianity as a tool for judgement and mistreatment of people who are not like them. If people would read the Bible for just what it is, a collection of stories meant to entertain, encourage and teach, they might not be so quick to use the Bible to harm others.

on Satan and the serpent...

I had an epiphany! If we look at the adam and eve story, as a literary work, satan would not have been the snake. You cant infer from the text that the snake is evil, just that it represents temptation. And later, we learn that "satan or lucifer" is a fallen angel (cast out by god). If this is "true" then at the time of the adam and eve story satan didnt even exist. and if so, he would have had no reason to tempt adam and eve, because he would still be in the grace of god.

"But given the course Christianity and all its divisions have taken, and many of them basing their differences on minor theological points not present in any "revealed" scripture, it appears the church has distanced itself from the Bible."
I fully agree with this. I have had the hardest time studying scripture in a church setting. I always get the feeling that people are focusing on one quote and justifying strange beliefs using this quote. Not to step on any toes here but one of my close friends is a member of the Church of Christ and she believes that they are the only church that will get into heaven. She can even pull out parts of scripture that says so. I find it hard to believe that a sect that was formed over a thousand (I am going on the assumption that the Church of Christ was formed after the protestants came to the new world. If I am wrong please enlighten me.) years after the christian religion began to form, will be the only sect amongst so many that will go to heaven.
People take the tiniest bit of scripture that has been verbally passed down, for only God knows how many generations before being written down. Then said STORIES are sorted through and compiled by a group of MEN (no offense) who were trying to construct order and power in their worlds (and power leads to corruption especially if the ones not en charge do not know any better). After all of this the stories are translated into different languages which turn alters their meanings. It is a good bet that a large number of these stories no longer reflect their originals. I am not just saying this about the old testament. The New one also show how perception, memories, and impact can change a single event. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell the story of the Life and Death of Jesus and none of them are exactly alike. Each is different according to how, when and where these people saw or heard about the events. Their are a great deal of similarities but they are not exact. People put into their writing and their reading their own beliefs and experiences therefore it is hard to take a single verse or even story and say that "this is what God says" because I am sorry but it is not.
During the American slavery people used the story of Noah's curse on his son Ham to justify slavery. There is nothing it that story that says the people that live in Africa will be the slaves to the world. It is simply the story of an Old man who is humiliated by his own actions and the fact that his son saw him. Noah is not God nor does he have any magical powers.
Even to day people are taking the Sodom and Gomorrah story and justifying their FEAR of the gay and lesbian community. I have read this section so many times because it is the section people give me when I ask where it says that it is a sin and in none of the times that I have read it have I seen or read anything that says God hates Gay people. I see where it says God hates rapists because to me that is all I see those me that come to Lots door as being. They remind me of those men in prison movies that gang up on the new prisoners and rape them. I am sorry I do not know of any gay man that is going to beat down someones door just to get to another man. Just because a gay couple moves into your neighborhood does not mean that they are going to come rape you in your sleep. I promise they do not want you.
Sorry for the rant but a close friend of mine and I were talking about her recent separation. Her girlfriend refuses to own up to being gay because of fear of what people will say so now even though they still live together she is just claiming that they are roommates. It is just a big mess. This lead us into a conversation that was very similar to what I just wrote down. It was fresh on my mind and well writing helps. If anyone agrees or disagrees or just has any pearls of wisdom please enlighten me. Maybe it will help relieve my anger and frustration.

Set/Satan

Satan, is derived from the hebrew "ha sheth'n," meaning "the adversary," I believe. The word satan is derived from the same root as the word "seteh," which means "to turn away." It is notable that seteh is a variant pronunciation of the Egyptian god Set (also Seteh. Sutekh, Setesh, Seth).

The location of Set worship being near the end of the Nile combined with these lexical similarities seem to likely be more than a coincidence. Also, the use of names of other deities to refer to what later becomes the new testament concept of "Satan," is quite present in the Old Testament. Examples include Beelzebub-a deity worshipped in Ekron, Levithian-a jewish mythological sea monster, Baal-though mainly used as a title it can refer to a number of deities worshiped around Carthage. This is continued in the New Testament with Lucifer, a latin translation of the greek (H)Eosphoros, or "Morning Star." This deity was likely derived from the Assyrian Ishtar or the Egyptian Astarte (a wife of Set).

The most interesting of these is Belial (also Baalat, Baalitor, Belit ili). This term is likely a perversion of the Babylonian goddess Belili, which was converted it to the hebrew Belial, a combination of the words "beli" and "yo'il" which together mean "worthless." This same goddess may have also served to be the basis for the pre-Eve figure of Lilith from jewish mythology.

Here it is important to indicate that the concept of "Satan" in the hebrew tradition differs greatly from the christian concept of "Satan". The phrase "ha sheth'n" is used to refer to many different adversaries. "Ha sheth'n" is also used to refer to the title of an angel in Yaweh's court, this angel is one of the "watchers" of mankind and his specific duty is to report the sin to god and act as a sort of prosecutor. This works with the definition of satan as "adversary," just in more of a legal-esque sense, with yaweh being the ultimate judge. This also puts the concept of christ being an "advocate" for humanity in better context.

I'm certainly not saying that Set is Satan (as some modern day theistic satanists believe). I just think the Christian concept of satan is an amalgamation of several characters from previous mythologies. While the word satan may have its roots with the god Set and some Christian stories may derive from Egyptian myths involving Set, the the New Testament character of Satan is much closer to that of the Egyptian Apep.

There is really no concept of Yaweh having an opponent before the Babylonian exile. Upon being rescued by the Persians and coming into contact with Zoroastrianism they may have adopted the Persians' concept of dualism. In Zarathustrianism the all benevolent Ahura Mazda battles the universally evil snake deity Ahriman continuosly. If Yaweh were involved in a similar sort of struggle, it could explain the Babylonian captivity. However, Yaweh is far from all benevolent, and Satan wasn't quite uniformly evil either. This makes Satan and Apep a much better match because both Ra and Yaweh inflicted brutal punishments on humanity and both Satan and Apep are evil chiefly because they oppose their counterparts.

There is quite a gap in time between the end of the exile and Satan really having a developed character. The vague dualism in Judaism eventually gave way to the developed character of Satan, but not until Christianity began to spread around the region. Satan likely picked up his Apep like traits when it spread through Egypt, about ten to twelve years after the death of Jesus. This was well before the New Testament was written, and notably the writer of the oldest canonical gospel, Mark, spread Christianity in Egypt. The notion of dualism was already there, and the very vague character of Yaweh's opponent left plenty of room for the locals to impress some of their pre-existing beliefs on the new religion.

Noah

Satan

I found Noah's arguments on the Hebrew-Egyptian tension interesting. I wonder about the Set/Satan connection though. The first thing I'd ask is about the ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek words for this entity. Then I'd see about the connection.

and on the Bible and church...we need to recall that the first people who thought themselves Christian--the original ones--didn't have a new Testament. They only had a church.