How Many People Has Satan Murdered?

[Mindmaster]

And considering that the figure in question may be the source of the name, yet is actually effectively a completely different figure entirely in terms of role and relationships, I don't really count that.

IOW, Job's Shaitan is not the same as Western Christianity/Civilizaton's Satan/Lucifer.

Well, there are several ideas of what Satan is but there is a notion that there are more than one in the OT and they're right.

Ha-Satan or Satan was an angel the most important and powerful one. The title was actually applied to many beings all of them called Satans as well, as in plural -- however there was one chief guy. However, for the purposes of the study, it is quite clear that the bible passages are dealing with the big kahuna. Basically, it's best to think of this as a state's attorney prosecuting for the crown, and there are many juniors working in partnership with the person who holds the title.

However, the fallen angel bit is an invention. It's not in the bible at all, the only thing that is mentioned is the fall of the king of Babylon and there is no distinction drawn that he is Satan. The term "the morning star" is used to describe how the great man has fallen, but there is no connection between the two other than what is in people's heads.

Modern Christian bibles have been re-written to demonize the Satan character in some degree, and aren't really authentic on a scholarly note.

 

[Mindmaster]

Just referencing the Old Testament, there seem to be two uses of the title Satan, the one in Job is the second. Likewise, "serpent" had multiple meanings and not in every usage is the Hebrew word the same. Nachash in Genesis 3 is likely not the same meaning as literal serpent (snake) referenced regarding Moses throwing his rod to the ground and it becoming a "serpent" (literal creature). Then there is the firey serpent referenced elsewhere in the Bible, which comes from another Hebrew word than Nachash.

The Satan (or should I say Samael) serpent connection really doesn't present itself until the Midrash that happen much later. Christians mostly just borrowed the idea. The original understanding was Samael was "riding" the snake (possessing it) he wasn't actually the snake. (Again, this is way past the original writing... who knows why Samael has to ride the snake in the first place, but originally it is understood that it was that he was jealous that the Torah was placed with man.) The snake obviously allowed this, or something... it was punished by losing its legs and the ability to speak.

Past that, it's obvious that later writers just mined the serpent ideas for other stores. Who knows why..

 

[ThirtyThree]

Well, there are several ideas of what Satan is but there is a notion that there are more than one in the OT and they're right.

Ha-Satan or Satan was an angel the most important and powerful one. The title was actually applied to many beings all of them called Satans as well, as in plural -- however there was one chief guy. However, for the purposes of the study, it is quite clear that the bible passages are dealing with the big kahuna. Basically, it's best to think of this as a state's attorney prosecuting for the crown, and there are many juniors working in partnership with the person who holds the title.

However, the fallen angel bit is an invention. It's not in the bible at all, the only thing that is mentioned is the fall of the king of Babylon and there is no distinction drawn that he is Satan. The term "the morning star" is used to describe how the great man has fallen, but there is no connection between the two other than what is in people's heads.

Modern Christian bibles have been re-written to demonize the Satan character in some degree, and aren't really authentic on a scholarly note.

There is some debate regarding the fallen Cherub story. The king referenced in Ezekiel 28 was not a Cherub. He did not walk in the Garden of Yahweh and so on. Was the king being compared to another being? Was the reference to the fallen Cherub actually regarding Satan, referenced in Luke 10? The spirit behind the actions of both this king and Nebuchadnezzar?

 

[McBell]

John Milton sure changed Christiany....

 

[ThirtyThree]

John Milton sure changed Christiany....

Paradise Lost?

 

[Mindmaster]

There is some debate regarding the fallen Cherub story. The king referenced in Ezekiel 28 was not a Cherub. He did not walk in the Garden of Yahweh and so on. Was the king being compared to another being? Was the reference to the fallen Cherub actually regarding Satan, referenced in Luke 10? The spirit behind the actions of both this king and Nebuchadnezzar?

By rabbinical understanding, Samael was the most powerful of the Seraphim. He was possessed of twelve wings vs the normal six that angels of this class would have. He was a resident of the seventh heaven, and chief of the fifth heaven. To identify him as a cherub is incorrect, he is an archangel, or of that order.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

IOW, Job's Shaitan is not the same as Western Christianity/Civilizaton's Satan/Lucifer.

Speaking of "not the same" is there any particular reason why you refer to "Job" and "Shaitant"?

 

[ThirtyThree]

By rabbinical understanding, Samael was the most powerful of the Seraphim. He was possessed of twelve wings vs the normal six that angels of this class would have. He was a resident of the seventh heaven, and chief of the fifth heaven. To identify him as a cherub is incorrect, he is an archangel, or of that order.

Who is Samael? I have discussed with people who believe he is Satan?

 

[Riverwolf]

Speaking of "not the same" is there any particular reason why you refer to "Job" and "Shaitant"?

Are you referring to my usage of what I've been told the Jewish spelling to be of the latter, yet using the Anglic spelling of the former?

If so, that's just a simple oversight which I can easily correct if you think I should.

 

[Mindmaster]

Who is Samael? I have discussed with people who believe he is Satan?

Samael is his name, Satan is a title, etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you referring to my usage of what I've been told the Jewish spelling to be of the latter, yet using the Anglic spelling of the former?

If so, that's just a simple oversight which I can easily correct if you think I should.

Thanks.

BTW, I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the Jewish spelling ... of the latter" but the Hebrew spelling is אִיּוֹב; a rough transliteration would be 'iyyov'.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Samael is his name, Satan is a title, etc.

Samael is not a Cherub though, which causes me to question Ezekiel 28's reference? Then, perhaps this being was just being demonized more and more as history progressed? Few Christians I discuss with even desire to be accurate regarding the station of the being in Ezekiel. They prefer to classify Lucifer as a mere Angel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bastardizing Hebrew text never seems to get old.

 

[Riverwolf]

Thanks.

BTW, I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the Jewish spelling ... of the latter" but the Hebrew spelling is אִיּוֹב; a rough transliteration would be 'iyyov'.

I was referring to the transliteration of Hebrew into the Latin alphabet.

 

[Katzpur]

Question: How many people (in the Bible) has Satan murdered? Reference chapter and verse, please. Thank you.

I think he generally uses a hit-man -- you know, someone like Hitler or bin Laden, etc. That way, he gets off the hook.

 

[Mindmaster]

Samael is not a Cherub though, which causes me to question Ezekiel 28's reference? Then, perhaps this being was just being demonized more and more as history progressed? Few Christians I discuss with even desire to be accurate regarding the station of the being in Ezekiel. They prefer to classify Lucifer as a mere Angel.

The reference is to the king of Tyre. I have no idea what this has to do with Satan other than by a great stretch of the imagination. Again, it seems to just be a metaphorical embellishment, not actual connections. There are plenty of people that seem to be wanting to support that meaning, but it isn't authentic or actually written anywhere. Much like the Lucifer=Satan connection...

Ezekiel is just about the nuttiest part of the bible if you ask me...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

relevance?

Unless you are going to claim that Satan is a mindless robot of god....

According to Judaism, where the story of Job happens, he pretty much a mindless robot serving the will of god.

Biblically, is Satan free to do so as He sees fit (including murder humans) or does He have to seek permission from Yahweh?

It's inaccurate to say that "Biblically" Satan is anything because he is two totally and completely different characters in Judaism--where he is a very loyal and obedient angel of god who has a difficult and often unpleasant job to do--and Christianity--where we find he has been turned into a red-skinned, horned, hoofed boogeyman who waits in the shadows to lure people away from god and is eternally damned for his rebellion against god. In Judaism, he does nothing without god's permission and he works for god, whereas in Christianity he does what he pleases and works against god.

 

[EtuMalku]

Which "Satan" was the one referred to in Job? The fallen Cherub (and there is debate on that as well) or the employee of Yahweh?

Gosh . . . when did that transformation take place I wonder?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

-God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

Which was TOTALLY unfair to the census takers, as it's not like they could just change the numbers in Excel or anything.

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. -He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

And when an idolatrous and nationalist governmental leader, as well as his supporters, argue that Israel always had rights there, they always tend to skip over the parts where it clearly says they violently took it from others, even WITHOUT prior battles to establish the "bad guys" properly. Usually it's just "and there was this city with people we didn't like in it, so we nuked it".

He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

The paper pushers in Heaven must cry after every paragraph, LOL.

Biblically, is Satan free to do so as He sees fit (including murder humans) or does He have to seek permission from Yahweh?

If the Book of Job is correct and Satan is just Yahweh's employee, then I guess Satan can do things as long as its in his God-given job description. His job is to reveal the darkness in your own soul. The only way to counter this is to know thyself, so you aren't subject to spiritual blackmail. Job is actually "proof" that God was the subject of temptation, as Job is never really the point. The point was "can Satan get God to act immorally"? The answer, as verified when God notes Job doesn't deserve this, is "yes".

Modern Christian bibles have been re-written to demonize the Satan character in some degree, and aren't really authentic on a scholarly note.

Yes, I find it ironic that The Father of Lies never really lies in any of his scenes, making all those who claim he is the actual liars.

I think he generally uses a hit-man -- you know, someone like Hitler or bin Laden, etc. That way, he gets off the hook.

Satan is just middle management. God is the CEO.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Which was TOTALLY unfair to the census takers, as it's not like they could just change the numbers in Excel or anything.


And when an idolatrous and nationalist governmental leader, as well as his supporters, argue that Israel always had rights there, they always tend to skip over the parts where it clearly says they violently took it from others, even WITHOUT prior battles to establish the "bad guys" properly. Usually it's just "and there was this city with people we didn't like in it, so we nuked it".


The paper pushers in Heaven must cry after every paragraph, LOL.


If the Book of Job is correct and Satan is just Yahweh's employee, then I guess Satan can do things as long as its in his God-given job description. His job is to reveal the darkness in your own soul. The only way to counter this is to know thyself, so you aren't subject to spiritual blackmail. Job is actually "proof" that God was the subject of temptation, as Job is never really the point. The point was "can Satan get God to act immorally"? The answer, as verified when God notes Job doesn't deserve this, is "yes".


Yes, I find it ironic that The Father of Lies never really lies in any of his scenes, making all those who claim he is the actual liars.


Satan is just middle management. God is the CEO.

Indeed, I have yet to find a scripture where Satan lies.