55 replies to this topic

[Peppermint Patty]

In the Talmud and Hasidic literature,  Satan is seen as an agent of God whose job is to tempt one into sin, and then turn around and accuse the sinner on high.   His job is to tempt us as best he can, deep down, however, he hopes we will resist his temptation.

I’ve always had a difficult time believing that Satan didn’t know that he was an integral part of the Plan of Salvation.  If he had not tempted Adam and Eve then the whole Plan of Salvation would have been thwarted.

Even now, all Satan would have to do is take his followers and walk away.  This would also thwart the Plan as opposition must exist in all things.

Is it possible the Talmud could be correct in regards to Satan?


Any thoughts?

[Rob Osborn]

I don't beieve Satan is part of the plan. Man in his "natural" state is perfectly capable of choosing to obey or disobey God. A natural man is one who by nature (regardless of Satan) will follow after the drive of the flesh. Little children, we are told, are not tempted by Satan and yet they fight, disobey and make bad decisions all based off of the nature of just being themselves without Satan's influence.

Opposition in all things gets misunderstood a lot. This doesn't necessareily mean there has to be a Satan in opposition to Christ in order for man to advance. Opposition means that there must be laws and wages one way or the other through obedience or a lack there of.

One could strongly argue that if Satan is an agent of God or is "needed" by God for us to advance, then God himself must be evil. I don't believe it is God's will that any of his children including Lucifer, before he fell, to come out in opposition to his ways. I believe in a God who trys to persuade all his children to become like God himself. The biggest obstacle before us is in overcoming the natural man- that part of us that is inherently evil by itself with or without Satan and his influence. His influence just compounds the problems of the natural man.

[blackstrap]

As has been stated elsewhere,there is a part of the temple ceremony that hints that Satan was not "necessary"to the plan.

[volgadon]

Good topic, PP. I'll post when I get some more time.

[Glenn101]

Peppermint Patty, on 26 January 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

In the Talmud and Hasidic literature,  Satan is seen as an agent of God whose job is to tempt one into sin, and then turn around and accuse the sinner on high.   His job is to tempt us as best he can, deep down, however, he hopes we will resist his temptation.

I’ve always had a difficult time believing that Satan didn’t know that he was an integral part of the Plan of Salvation.  If he had not tempted Adam and Eve then the whole Plan of Salvation would have been thwarted.

Even now, all Satan would have to do is take his followers and walk away.  This would also thwart the Plan as opposition must exist in all things.

Is it possible the Talmud could be correct in regards to Satan?


Any thoughts?

The scriptures tell us that deep down (and all in between) Satan wants us to be miserable like him.

2 Nephi 2:18

• 
  
• 
  18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

That scripture indicates to me that the Talmud is incorrect in this case.

I don't think that Satan can just walk away. I think that he is emotionally incapable of "letting go." He and his followers also they have committed themselves to a path of self destruction and are Hell bent (pun [bad] intended) on their own damnation and that of anyone else who is foolishe enough to be lured by their blandishments.

To illustrate my point, here is the scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants that explain how to discern an evil spirit.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 129

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

Now, those evil spirits have been able to hear those words spoken, so, if they could control themselves, they could deceive a mortal by just delivering a message and refusing to fall for the trap. It might have become an ingrained reaction.

That is my take on it in any event.

Glenn

[Ron Beron]

Peppermint Patty, on 26 January 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

In the Talmud and Hasidic literature,  Satan is seen as an agent of God whose job is to tempt one into sin, and then turn around and accuse the sinner on high.   His job is to tempt us as best he can, deep down, however, he hopes we will resist his temptation.

I’ve always had a difficult time believing that Satan didn’t know that he was an integral part of the Plan of Salvation.  If he had not tempted Adam and Eve then the whole Plan of Salvation would have been thwarted.

Even now, all Satan would have to do is take his followers and walk away.  This would also thwart the Plan as opposition must exist in all things.

Is it possible the Talmud could be correct in regards to Satan?


Any thoughts?

It is well assumed that the OT view of the satan held that it was part of the divine council and as such served at God's behest.  It wasn't until after the Babylonian diaspora and the Christian era that Satan (personal pronoun intended) became the evil duality of Jesus and therefore, God.  The Jewish Encyclopedia sheds a little light here...

Quote

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


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

Specifically, again in the Jewish Encyclopedia there is more information in regards to the Talmud...

Quote

The Angelology of the Talmud, moreover, proves that, according to the older view (until about 200 C.E.), punishment was inflicted by angels and not by Satan. In the course of time, however, official Judaism, beginning perhaps with Johanan (d. 279), absorbed the popular concepts of Satan, which doubtless forced their way gradually from the lower classes to the most cultured. The later a midrashic collection the more frequent is the mention therein of Satan and his hosts. The Palestinian Talmud, completed about 400, is more reticent in this regard; and this is the more noteworthy since its provenience is the same as that of the New Testament. Samael, the lord of the satans, was a mighty prince of angels in heaven (Gen. R. xix.). Satan came into the world with woman, i.e., with Eve (Yalḳ., Gen. i. 23); so that he was created and is not eternal. Like all celestial beings, he flies through the air (Gen. R. xix.), and can assumeany form, as of a bird (Sanh. 107a), a stag (ib. 95a), a woman (Ḳid. 81a), a beggar (ib.), or a young man (Tan., Wayera, end); he is said to skip (Pes. 112b; Meg. 11b), in allusion to his appearance in the form of a goat (comp. the goat-demons of the Bible), and it was as such that he was addressed with the words "an arrow between thine eyes" by one who wished to express contempt for him (Ḳid. 30a, 81a, et passim).


He is the incarnation of all evil, and his thoughts and activities are devoted to the destruction of man; so that Satan, the impulse to evil ("yeẓer ha-ra'"), and the angel of death are one and the same personality. He descends from heaven and leads astray, then ascends and brings accusations against mankind. Receiving the divine commission, he takes away the soul, or, in other words, he slays (B. B. 16a). He seizes upon even a single word which may be prejudicial to man; so that "one should not open his mouth unto evil," i.e., "unto Satan" (Ber. 19a). In times of danger likewise he brings his accusations (Yer. Shab. 5b et passim). While he has power over all the works of man (Ber. 46b), he can not prevail at the same time against two individuals of different nationality; so that Samuel, a noted astronomer and teacher of the Law (d. at Nehardea 247), would start on a journey only when a Gentile traveled with him (Shab. 32a).
Satan's knowledge is circumscribed; for when the shofar is blown on New-Year's Day he is "confounded" (R. H. 16b; Yer. Targ. to Num. x. 10). On the Day of Atonement his power vanishes; for the numerical value of the letters of his name () is only 364, one day being thus exempt from his influence (Yoma 20a). Moses banished him by means of the Divine Name (Grünhut, "Sefer ha-Liḳḳuṭim," v. 169). If Satan does not attain his purpose, as was the case in his temptation of Job, he feels great sorrow (B. B. 16a); and it was a terrible blow to him, as the representative of moral evil, that the Torah, the incarnation of moral good, should be given to Israel. He endeavored to overthrow it, and finally led the people to make the golden calf (Shab. 89a; Yer. Targ. to Ex. xxxii. 1), while the two tables of the Law were bestowed on Moses of necessity without Satan's knowledge (Sanh. 26b).

[Judd]

Like Slugworth?

[The Nehor]

An unwitting agent just as we are. We can play the part of Judas or of John. Either way we are helping the plan. The primary difference is which retirement package you get.

[bluebell]

Have you ever met someone who will do something absolutely guaranteed to create more misery for themselves than anyone else but they do it anyway because they are so angry and ruled by their desires for revenge that there is no reason in them?

I kind of see satan like that.

[Robert F. Smith]

Peppermint Patty, on 26 January 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

In the Talmud and Hasidic literature,  Satan is seen as an agent of God whose job is to tempt one into sin, and then turn around and accuse the sinner on high.   His job is to tempt us as best he can, deep down, however, he hopes we will resist his temptation.

I’ve always had a difficult time believing that Satan didn’t know that he was an integral part of the Plan of Salvation.  If he had not tempted Adam and Eve then the whole Plan of Salvation would have been thwarted.

Even now, all Satan would have to do is take his followers and walk away.  This would also thwart the Plan as opposition must exist in all things.

Is it possible the Talmud could be correct in regards to Satan?

Any thoughts?

Satan is essential to the Plan of Salvation.  Can one imagine Jesus not having to deal with the temptations of Satan?  The test we undergo here on Earth must be real, and not simply based on our own shortcomings -- that would be too easy.  See my paper on Satan at http://www.scribd.co...tes-on-the-Gods.

[CV75]

Peppermint Patty, on 26 January 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

In the Talmud and Hasidic literature,  Satan is seen as an agent of God whose job is to tempt one into sin, and then turn around and accuse the sinner on high.   His job is to tempt us as best he can, deep down, however, he hopes we will resist his temptation.

Any thoughts?

I think there is a difference between being an agent of God and being part of His plan.

An agent knows the mind of God, at least to the extent of being able to use His power, and being authorized / delegated by Him to act for Him or in His place. Jesus is the perfect example of this.

Being part of the plan does not require such knowledge, but only that God uses the person’s assertion of a contra-plan to His Own advantage. Satan does not know the mind of God (Moses 4:6), and is the perfect example of this.

Because there is one plan of God, and many possible contra-plans, He calls and chooses His agents and leverages the activities of the others; the others call themselves and just do their own thing.

Edited by CV75, 27 January 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Is it possible the Talmud could be correct in regards to Satan?

Sure:

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
2 Nephi 2:16

Not that Satan is called to the position, but that the job would ultimately fall to someone.  Probably had to be someone once high who could fall so low.  I don't necessarily advocate this hypothesis, but it does seem possible.

Edited by BCSpace, 27 January 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Grundelwalken]

Does every world created by God need to have a "Satan" character in order for the plan to be functional?  I do not believe it is necessary to have one person/spirit who can be an adversary to God's plan.  There are enough mortals who look for wicked ways to live without needing help.  The part of Satan being here to tempt the Savior may have merit but it also may be incidental to the whole plan.  

There are some who think that Satan was a calling and when all this is done, he will be exonerated from his work and progress as we do.  That is incorrect and is the worst possible kind of heresy.  He is evil and will always be (and has probably always been).  MW

[guitarist]

I don't think that Satan is an "agent" of God.  We have the book of Abraham (description of events that lead to rebellion in Heaven, the sheer number of those who kept not their first estate), Moses (temper tantrum at refusal to be worshiped), NT events of Satan tempting Jesus & countless other scriptures that indicate that Satan is doing this of his own free will & choice.  Jesus has also said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, would that not be what Satan would be doing if he were an "agent" of God?  I also agree wholeheartedly with Glenn 101 and what he said.

That said, I think that God's plan does need a Satan, or adversary.  We've been taught by Alma that there needs be opposition in all things.  But God knew that he wouldn't have to (nor should he) ask anyone to do it.  But that there was as a matter of course, going to be some who would rebel.  And God, being the ultimate efficient person, and always finding a way to make at least 1 use of anything, chose to utilize those who were already going to rebel one way or another into this plan.

[LeSellers]

guitarist, on 27 January 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I don't think that Satan is an "agent" of God.  We have the ...  NT events of Satan tempting Jesus & countless other scriptures that indicate that Satan is doing this of his own free will & choice.

Nor should we forget that Satan seeks to make "all men miserable like unto himself."

2 Nephi 2:5, 8, 27 said:

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever
•  •  •
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
•  •  •
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

The fact that he's miserable is a strong indicator that he's not serving God, no matter how important his role (assuming it is necessary, which I tend to accept, but not without question) might turn out to be.

guitarist said:

I think that God's plan does need a Satan, or adversary.  We've been taught by Alma father Lehi that there needs be opposition in all things.

We are here to see if we'll obey God in whatever things He commands us. Without opposition, is such a test even possible?

That said, I have no problem imagining that I'm quite capable of providing my own opposition. My natural man often (read: always) wants to do that which does not align itself with Father's desires for me. I hope I'm unique, but I doubt it. I am not wholly convinced that a Satan is necessary, but then, I hope he is, because if it's as easy as I assume it to be to sin without his evil influence, what, I wonder, would it to be like with it?

Lehi

[guitarist]

LeSellers, on 27 January 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

guitarist said:

I think that God's plan does need a Satan, or adversary. We've been taught by Almafather Lehi that there needs be opposition in all things.

We are here to see if we'll obey God in whatever things He commands us. Without opposition, is such a test even possible?

That said, I have no problem imagining that I'm quite capable of providing my own opposition. My natural man often (read: always) wants to do that which does not align itself with Father's desires for me. I hope I'm unique, but I doubt it. I am not wholly convinced that a Satan is necessary, but then, I hope he is, because if it's as easy as I assume it to be to sin without his evil influence, what, I wonder, would it to be like with it?

Lehi

Thanks for the correction, a brain fart led me to think it was a part of Alma's discussions around the Atonement.

You are certainly not unique in this, as I'm always having this problem too.  Though, since Satan is more active than ever right now (but has been active since the garden of eden), can we really say that the "natural man" on its own without his enticings would have made us evil ourselves?  We don't really have a frame of reference to test this.

[volgadon]

WHat this topic needs are some primary sources. I'll post them.

[Rob Osborn]

So, before Lucifer fell, the plan was already in place. It was known before Lucifer fell that we would need a savior. This to me says that the natural man is what causes us to fall and thus need salvation. It wasn't like the plan was presented and part of that plan included a need for one or more to fall first and tempt man.

[Duncan]

we wouldn't have fallen, this creating our own opposition, without Satan's tempting Adam and Eve, just so ya know!

[JDave]

Duncan, on 27 January 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

we wouldn't have fallen, this creating our own opposition, without Satan's tempting Adam and Eve, just so ya know!

Where is this taught?