Talk:Devil in Christianity/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Devil in Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

See Talk:Satan for what this page is about. This page is under construction. I'm currently importing material from Devil, Satan, and other pages to create a basic Devil in Christianity page. I know that this page is currently redundant, but I don't want to delete material from other pages until this one is ready to be linked to. Jonathan Tweet 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready to call this page done. It's not perfect, but it does centralize the material better than it had been centralized. Currently, links to Devil in Christianity go to Satan. I'll change them so that they go here. Jonathan Tweet 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aquinas quote

how is this quote significant enough to have its own section without any sort of explaining text or background? the section title poses a question and the only content is a quote from the middle ages. more content is needed, maybe representing another viewpoint, maybe explaining, or the section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.168.230 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I would say that with the reference to Satan founding Islam gone the article is neutral POV again, so I removed the Neutrality check that I put up earlier since I can't really see any other issues where it leans toward any one POV. (Clarktracy 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Satanism

Removed reference to "satanism" because this article is about the Devil in Christianity, not the Devil in general. Jonathan Tweet 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

post-medieval

"It should be noted, however, that much of this history is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval popular mythology." I understand the idea here, but it's tacked onto the end of the paragraph and should be worked in organically. Jonathan Tweet 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Gnostics

I summarized this comment: "(Christians argue that this contention is disproved in the Bible text as it explains that God's perfect world ^[1] was corrupted and made imperfect by Adam and Eve's original sin; see Gen 3; Rom 5:12; Rom 8:22–23)." None of the verses quoted state that the Fall caused the world's imperfections, so they really don't belong here. Jonathan Tweet 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

References

^ Gen 1:31

john 10:10

the reference to verse ten of chapter ten in John is taken out of context. the author of this article uses it to support the idea that jesus is refering to satan as a thief. if one reads the previous verses it becomes evident that jesus says that all who came before him are theives and robbers (in that they enter the figurive flock by hopping a fence). he continues saying that thieves only come to steal and slaughter, but he comes so that people may have life and live it more abundantly.

the context in which the article's author uses the verse makes it as though it is a direct reference to satan and what jesus says of his dealings. it is not and should be removed or rewritten.

Got it. Jonathan Tweet 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

New Testament

This material is well-meant but not supported in the NT per se. Needs to be shifted to a different section if it's worth keeping at all. "Satan himself or one of his allegiant demons offers a thought to the mind of a person (Luke 4:1-13). The thought is contrary to what God has deemed right and true. Thus, the person is urged to disobey and violate the commands of God. Temptation in itself is not sin. Yielding to temptation and acting on the thought, violating any command or statue of God, is sin." Jonathan Tweet 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ..

This section is a good preliminary starting point but could be much more nuanced. The recent book Satan: A Biography by Henry Ansgar kelley, concludes that the NT accounts of Satan do not differ theologically from Hebrew accounts; he is a tempter and accuser doing God's will. Jeffrey Burton Russell's older four volume work on the history of the devil supports this view. The suggestion that Satan goes against God's plan in the NT is misleading; it confirms later Christian beliefs about Satan, but is not supportable by NT texts. The conflation of Satan, the Serpent, and the tradition of Fallen Angels occurs after NT times, as well as the notion of Satan as opposed to God, and is broadly datable. Please see the above sources for clarification. Mark Cedar Love (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics of the Devil

This section lays a claim, although qualified by "some Christian scholars", that is blatantly anti-Islam, that the entire Islamic faith was founded by the devil pretending to be Gabriel. To keep a neutral viewpoint we need to approach this section in such a way as to not give Christianity more validity than other faiths. This is why I posted the dispute on the neutrality of the article. (74.195.181.181 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I've just reviewed the article for the first time in a while, and it seems to have slipped toward Christian POV. This reference to Islam being inspired by Satan is an example. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph:

Some Christian scholars believe that this is how Islam started. According to Islam, Muhammad went into a cave, and the angel Gabriel gave him a new revelation. Many scholars believe that Satan or another demon gave him the revelation, pretending to be Gabriel. This follows the prophecy of 1st Timothy 4:1

because there is no citation and expresses an anti-Islamic sentiment that cannot be validated from a neutral POV. (Clarktracy 18:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Concrete Proof the devil exists?

himself as an angel of light and convinces people to follow him in that way

There may be now proof that the 'original sin' did indeed happen and that its consequences are with us.

According to biblical sayings, 'the light'...normally refers to 'truth'...but how can truth lie ?

Well in the book "The Jesus Christ Code' you may find a solution that someone else may find acceptable, and it fits into the 'original sin' story...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the Light = Half-truth = Devil

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of the iconography (copied from WP:RD/H)

The Devil, like everything else, has a history. If you ever visit the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, you will see him depicted in a sixth century mosaic, sitting to the left of Christ, helping to separate the sheep from the goats. To the right of Christ sits an angel; but the only difference between him and the Devil is that the latter is depicted in blue and the former in red; both have halos and wings, and both have similar expressions on their faces. Now, travel one hundred kilometers to the west, and seven hundred years into the future, you will find him again, this time in the Florence Baptistery, as depicted by Fra Angelico. From angel in blue he has become the beast, devouring sinners by the handful. The question then arises, what happened in the intervening period, why has he moved from the periphery to the centre, and why has he become so loathsome? Is this the kind of figure that God would have admitted to his council, as he does in the Book of Job? The answer, of course, is to be found in the changing nature of western Christianity, and the kind of preoccupations that had emerged over the course of time, preoccupations that imbued Satan with a new malignacy and purpose.

In his modern guise the Devil only really begins to emerge around the time of the First Crusade. This was a time when the Christian west began to focus on new enemies, both from within and from without. Those who were different were isolated, persecuted and occasionally murdered, whether they be Jews, lepers or heretics. And, bit by bit, yet another malignant enemy was added to the old-those who were perceived to be practitioners of witchcraft. Of minor concern to the early church, witchcraft became steadily more important, and was most often associated with sexual excess. Behind all this one begins to detect the new shape of Satan. He is the consort of depraved women-and it was mostly women who were accused of witchcraft-and along with his erotic attributes he acquires a tail and cloven hooves, a confirmation of his bestial lasciviousness, and an echo of Pan and the Greek satyrs. By the fifteenth century he finally makes his appearance as a goat, horns and all, worshipped by heretics and witches. He is to be found depicted thus in stained glass, stone and paintings, from Fra Angelicio to Albrecht Dürer, as well as in literature. He was a monster born of the monstrous, very much a reflection of the historical mood which gave him shape. Clio the Muse 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the devil did was not represented by the guise of a goat until Eliphas Levi drew Baphomet (which doesn't represent the devil), and people associated that with Satan/the Devil. Can you cite some of your claims? Canutethegreat (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] Gen 1:31

[1]