Are all Gods anthropomorphic?

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,185
Brassicaland
#62
Nah. Probably just a fraternity hazing or an arachnophile with his pet. ;)

BTW "arachnophobe" is accepted but "arachnophphile" gets the dotted red underline. Poor spiders just get no love.:crying:
Let’s check for jumping spiders; many people think they are pretty darn cute.
 
Oct 2018
705
Adelaide south Australia
#65
^ Except for that! That would be, evil, unholy, Satan. :eek:
There is no specific form for the devil in Judaism, the base for Christianity:

"The Hebrew word "satan" (שָּׂטָן) translates to "adversary" and comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to oppose" or "to obstruct."


In Jewish thought, one of the things Jews struggle against every day is the "evil inclination," also known as the yetzer hara (יֵצֶר הַרַע, from Genesis 6:5). The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. However, using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common. On the other hand, the "good inclination" is called the yetzer ha'tov (יצר הטוב)."

Do Jews Believe in Satan?


The Christian portrayal of the Devil is a Church invention,.based on the Roman god Pan.. Originally, Satan was Lucifer, 'the ;shining one'. most beautiful angel, who fell from Heaven." As an angel, he was/is without form. As is often the case, Christians pinched that idea too

Lucifer (/ˈljuːsɪfər/ LEW-si-fər; "light-bringer") was a Latin name for the planet Venus as the morning star in the ancient Roman era, and is often used for mythological and religious figures associated with the planet. Due to the unique movements and discontinuous appearances of Venus in the sky, mythology surrounding these figures often involved a fall from the heavens to earth or the underworld. Interpretations of a similar term in the Hebrew Bible, translated in the King James Version as "Lucifer", led to a Christian tradition of applying the name Lucifer and its associated stories of a fall from heaven to Satan. Most modern scholarship regards these interpretations as questionable, and translate the term in the relevant Bible passage as "morning star" or "shining one" rather than as a proper name, "Lucifer".

Lucifer - Wikipedia


Islam today has 'Shaitan', however, here too the origin is Eblis/Iblis, perhaps a djin perhaps an angel, but an entity also without form .

Iblīs (or Eblis)[1] is a figure frequently occurring in the Quran, commonly in relation to the creation of Adam and the command to prostrate himself before him. After he refused, he was cast out of heaven. For many classical scholars, he was an angel,[2][3] but regarded as a jinn in most contemporary scholarship.[4] Due to his fall from God's grace, he is often compared to Satan in Christian traditions. In Islamic tradition, Iblis is often identified with Al-Shaitan ("the Devil"). However, while Shaitan is used exclusively for an evil force, Iblis himself holds a more ambivalent role in Islamic traditions.[5]
 
Likes: Todd Feinman
Nov 2016
400
Munich
#67
As to the Satan idea:

The question arises as to the connections between Mesopotamian and Zoroastrian-Persian ideas with a) the Genesis snake, b) the accuser Satan and c) the adversary Diabolus.

The Israelites came into contact with Persian mythologies and concepts of God during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The devil's conception of the wisdom book is based concretely on the Zoroastrian idea of the evil god Ahriman, which in this form does not apply to the earlier Satanic ideas in Tanach. So the two Jewish concepts of Satan have nothing to do with each other, they go back to very different imaginary complexes (Mesopotamian versus Zoroastrian).

The Wisdom Book linked the Persian-Zoroastrian Satanic idea with the figure of the seductive serpent as described in the Genesis text. Now this snake, too, has its model in a Zoroastrian myth in that Ahriman, in the form of a snake, in the myth of the first humans Meshia and Meshiane, tempts them to have sex with the help of a fruit and thus robs them of their bliss. However, in Genesis there is still no reference between the snake and an idea of the devil. Only in the wisdom book is this reference made. This was obvious in so far as Ahriman, as the god of darkness and opponent of the light god Ahura Mazda, the religious prototype of all later Satan ideas, is mythologically closely connected with the snake, it is on the one hand one of his attributes, but on the other hand can also represent him.

The apocalyptic idea had taken Judaism from Iranian Zoroastrianism, which imagined the end of the world as a decisive battle between the armies of the god of light Ahura Mazda and the god of darkness Ahriman, of course with the victory of the good God. For the first time influences of the Iranian apocalypticism on Judaism asserted themselves in the 2nd century BCE, namely in the book of Daniel and in the book of Enoch. Basic idea: The world is bad because it is ruled by dark powers (still to be read in Paul), but will be brought to salvation by a future intervention of the good God.
 
Likes: bboomer
Oct 2013
5,429
Planet Nine, Oregon
#68
^ Agreed. Nice summary! iirc, Zoroastrian priests used stomp out bugs and other crawling things as representatives off Angra Mainyu/ Ahriman.. That's what I heard in class thirty+ years ago.
 
Last edited:

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,185
Brassicaland
#69
As to the Satan idea:

The question arises as to the connections between Mesopotamian and Zoroastrian-Persian ideas with a) the Genesis snake, b) the accuser Satan and c) the adversary Diabolus.

The Israelites came into contact with Persian mythologies and concepts of God during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The devil's conception of the wisdom book is based concretely on the Zoroastrian idea of the evil god Ahriman, which in this form does not apply to the earlier Satanic ideas in Tanach. So the two Jewish concepts of Satan have nothing to do with each other, they go back to very different imaginary complexes (Mesopotamian versus Zoroastrian).

The Wisdom Book linked the Persian-Zoroastrian Satanic idea with the figure of the seductive serpent as described in the Genesis text. Now this snake, too, has its model in a Zoroastrian myth in that Ahriman, in the form of a snake, in the myth of the first humans Meshia and Meshiane, tempts them to have sex with the help of a fruit and thus robs them of their bliss. However, in Genesis there is still no reference between the snake and an idea of the devil. Only in the wisdom book is this reference made. This was obvious in so far as Ahriman, as the god of darkness and opponent of the light god Ahura Mazda, the religious prototype of all later Satan ideas, is mythologically closely connected with the snake, it is on the one hand one of his attributes, but on the other hand can also represent him.

The apocalyptic idea had taken Judaism from Iranian Zoroastrianism, which imagined the end of the world as a decisive battle between the armies of the god of light Ahura Mazda and the god of darkness Ahriman, of course with the victory of the good God. For the first time influences of the Iranian apocalypticism on Judaism asserted themselves in the 2nd century BCE, namely in the book of Daniel and in the book of Enoch. Basic idea: The world is bad because it is ruled by dark powers (still to be read in Paul), but will be brought to salvation by a future intervention of the good God.
If even early Judaism had Zoroastrian root, would it be impossible to dissociate between Abrahamic religions and Zoroastrianism?
 

Similar History Discussions