Jesus and Satan--Any Common Ground?

by WTWizard 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  WTWizard

  The Watchtower Society has repeatedly said that Jesus and Satan have nothing in common. But, look at their basic actions and see for yourself.

  Satan was setting the first human pair free. Free from what? God's rules--including rules that Satan saw that He was going to create, that would create problems and stagnation where none needed exist for the human race. And Satan is vilified in the Bible for this.

  Jesus was setting humans free. From what? God's rules--including rules that the Pharisees and organized religion started. He was also setting them free from external authorities that were going to create problems and stagnation where none needed exist. And Jesus was exalted for this.

  Why the discrepencies in how they are treated in the Bible? After all, they both did essentially the same liberating work. But, Satan was an invisible creature that God could blame instead of Himself for all man's problems. Jesus masterfully crafted his works so that any attempt to vilify him would have brought Jehovah the reputation of being a Tyrant (and a well-deserved one). Besides, Jehovah already had Satan to use as His scapegoat. No need to create more problems for Himself where none needed exist--besides, He could use Paul to corrupt Jesus' real teachings so He could use them to usurp value from mankind. Satan had no such "friend" that could corrupt his teachings--and thus Satan was more blatantly liberating than Jesus once everything is finished.

  And, from what I have seen in the Bible, only Jesus and Satan refused to initiate the use of force, threat of force, coercion, or fraud against another being or their property. That is more than can be said about Jehovah, who is responsible for murdering whole nations for the heinous crime of not serving Him.
• 

  oompa

  I think the Bible evidence is that they are both virgins................oompa
• 

  Alpaca

  Both Jesus and Satan have reputations and notoriety far in excess of that which is deserved....

  IMHO!!!

  Alex
• 

  Rapunzel

  Which "Satan" are you talking about? The concept, or idea, of Satan underwent a significant evolution in Jewish, and subsequently Christian, thought. For example, whoever the "author" of the Genesis account was, he decidedly did not conceive of the Edenic snake as being anything approaching what we now conceive of as "Satan." The characters of "Satan" and "Jesus" both evolved over time. To take up the character of "Satan" once again, it is possible to trace its development throughout time. The period of Babylonian exile was a crucial point in time. It was then that the Jews were introduced to Manichean, cosmic dualism. To a great extent, the character of "Satan" was "born" there.

  As for the character of Jesus, he too evolves and changes. These two concepts were never static; they were in constant flux. They remain in flux. Just as there is a physical science called "archeology," there is also an archeology of knowledge. This archeology of knowledge involves locating conceptual epistemes and tracing their diachronic development.
• 

  WTWizard

  Which "Satan" are you talking about?

  The Satan that saw Jehovah was eventually going to start making harsher rules. It starts with a little problem, and Satan saw it was probably going to escalate to a big problem if he did nothing. And, doing his job as custodian of the human race, he stopped it before that could happen. And Jehovah went and punished him for doing that.

  From there, Satan has gained an undeserved reputation as a being that possesses and harasses innocent people. From what I have seen, every time that is supposedly happening, science can explain it. Where people blame Satan, I blame God for keeping them ignorant on the true scientific principle. As we realize more of what is actually going on, Satan is getting less and less of a terrifying reputation (and God is getting a deserved reputation of trying to impede science).

  And religion is doing an even better job. Religion relies on faith, and is usually static. Science is trying to prove itself and will continually test hypotheses, and is usually progressive. One day when we have a perfect understanding of how things work, Satan will be seen as totally innocent and God as a Tyrant. That is, if the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger is not successful at controling all knowledge.
• 

  Narkissos

  That's a very interesting question: I believe there is a correlation between the enduring moral and metaphysical dualism in orthodox Christianity ("God" vs. "Satan"), on the one hand, and the failure to integrate real antagonism within the "divine" on the other hand (as the rejected Gnostic patterns did). Catholic theologian Christoph Theobald has made some interesting observations on this topic.
• 

  Alpaca

  Rapunzel,

  Thanks for your comments. There are so many areas of my formal education that are deficient. From which discipline does the idea of an archaeology of knowledge come from? Who first advanced the theory?

  Have you read Karen Armstrong's, "History of God" ???

  Cheers,

  Alex
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Jesus and Satan--Any Common Ground?

  They are both sons of God

  They are both mighty angels

  They are both powerful

  They have both been down to earth
• 

  Narkissos

  Alpaca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
• 

  Rapunzel

  Hi, Alpaca - Sorry for the delay in responding. As Narkissos has kindly pointed out, the idea of an archeology of knowledge has been described by the French philosopher, Michel Foucault in a book that he wrote with the same title. Foucault also wrote about the topic of insanity and how "insanity" has been perceived and conceptualized throughout the various time periods. Foucault also wrote a multi-volume [I believe it was three volumes] study of human sexuality. Like Derrida and Lacan, Foucault is usually classified as a "post-structuralist" thinker. I suppose that Foucault could be called a "post-structuralist" historian/sociologist. As I remember, Foucault also published a study of the prison system. Of course, Foucault's works were originally publised in French. However, most of writings are available in English.

  To answer your other question, yes, I have indeed read Armstrong's book. I found it very interesting. If you do read Foucault, you may find him more difficult to approach than Armstrong. I emphasize the word may because it is totally possible that you will prefer Foucault [if you read him]. It is all a question of personal tastes and inclinations. I found his study of insanity especially interesting, but that's just my tastes.

  In any case, I would recommend that you read Foucault, if you can avail yourself of the opportunity. You might also pick up a "companion" [I think that Cambridge publishes an explanatory volume about Foucault] to Foucault. These companion tomes serve well to elucidate his more arcane theories.