Is Satan both the Holy Spirit and God’s wife or Asherah?

[Greatest I am]

Is Satan both the Holy Spirit and God’s wife or Asherah?

In the beginning, if we follow the more common Christian dogma, we find the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit alone in the whole universe.

For some reason, the Holy Spirit holds the highest rank and we know this because we can curse both the Father and Jesus and be forgiven but we will not be forgiven for cursing the Holy Spirit. Jesus, as man’s forgiving force thus put’s the Holy Spirit above himself and God the Father.

As above so bellow. In my family the only one both my children and I defer to is my wife and their mother.


In pondering what Eden was like and why God would have done the foolish thing of casting Satan to Eden, one can only say that that must have somehow been God’s best move. God would not put an enemy in his garden so Satan must have been good and not evil. This is irrefutable. The only worthy helper then for God would have been the Holy Ghost and it must then be who we know of as Satan and if God deferred to her then she is his Asherah or wife.


In esoteric terms this also makes sense as we have to go through fire/Satan to reach God. Note the burning bush.
In real terms, we all know that to move the man of the house to buy, it must first be sold, generally speaking, to the woman.

210b Rod Spine = Serpent Kundalini - YouTube

Eve had to go through Satan/fire to reach wisdom and a moral sense that as God said was as sophisticated as Gods own moral sense. That is why Adam followed so sheepishly. As Man’s guide, Satan was given the power to deceive the whole world and God gave Satan dominion over the whole earth. A huge reward from God to Satan and this passing on of such a great power also makes me think Satan is God’s wife.

God in Job is seen as under Satan’s control as it has God stating that Satan moved him to do evil. Logic then says that Satan is in control of God. To this point, as shown, we have God deferring to Satan yet again.


Who have men of power ever deferred to?

Only their wives or other men of power. Kings have always fought for Queens, family and country.

From our human POV, we see God deferring to Satan both in punishment of cursing and also in Eden . If both men and God defer to women as the usual form, then Satan logically is God’s wife or Asherah.

Asherah thus rules heaven and earth and if as above so below then women on earth should rule over men.

There is a hymn that says of Adam’s sin that it was a happy fault and a necessary sin.
God made sure it happened by putting his best in charge of the earth and Eden. His wife or Asherah, Satan. God’s greatest love is Satan just as a man’s greatest love is his wife hence the great rewards heaped onto Satan by God.

I know that we are all conditioned to think of Satan as a mean man tempting us. Please try to think of him as a her the way Michael Angelo and the Pope did.

Michelangelo's Adam, Eve and the marvellous ... | * Michelangelo di L?

There can be no other logical explanation for God putting Satan in Eden and why God rewarded Satan so nicely. God does not reward evil, he rewards good, --- and so Satan must be good and if so then his being God’s wife or Asherah is quite logical.

Do you agree or do you think God rewards evil?

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I've got to say I see the characters in these stories as quaint. A little history... one or two things I think I mangled in our conversations -

Ahsherah appears in the bible as the "Queen of Heaven." Polytheism survived throughout Judah (and earlier, Israel,) for a long time, despite a constant campaign to remove it. Particularly after the return from Babylonian exile, there was a great deal of complaining that the "people of the land" had returned to semi-pagan ways. The God of Israel, in those days, had quite a bit more competition, what with your Baal and your El (incorporated, in their plurality, as another name of God, a plural used to signify the singular, Elohim.) Asherah may account for this "Queen of Heaven" character, just one such thing remaining from the days of the Abrahamic faiths' polytheistic past (and for Christians, earlier forms of their continuing polytheism.)

It's a matter of our imperfect language that we ascribe male and female attributes to "gods" and "goddesses." God, of course, is all of us, so all genders.

But within Judaism, certainly, the assumption of one masculine God leaves out the feminine half of anthropomorphism. The final ousting of the polytheistic lay faith in Israel, probably quite late, say, the time of the Maccabean revolt, left Judaism with a problem -- specifically because, although we Jews had enough sense not to make images of "God" and progressively avoided anthropomorphizing him, he was still a him. So what to do with the feminine?

In Judaism, she reappears as the shekhinah; the Christians stuff her into the Virgin Mary, who becomes so compelling that cults of Mary have to be toned down by official church action.

As to one artist's rendition of the serpent as female, I'll leave it to the Christians to argue that one out.

As to God "casting" the Serpent into the garden, from a gnostic point of view, it's a natural - the Serpent is doing for Man what God won't. God forbids the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent says, no no, go ahead, eat, eat. And what does the serpent give man? Knowledge! Well, that's perfect for a gnostic point of view.

The real question, to have learned debates about the old stories, is why plant the trees (Life, and knowledge of good and evil), then curse man and woman for doing what he damn well knows they're going to do?

Because we're reading primitive stories passed down from very old sources, who weren't yet steeped in all this messy Hellenistic concern with omni-this and omni-that.

Enter the theologians to clean it all up - certainly, God is omniscient, but separates things from his own knowledge to allow free will. Well, that takes care of that. I don't think that's why the story was written as it was written, but I appreciate the imaginative leap. It is very similar to the mainstream idea that God first must make some nothingness -- everything else being full of God, you see -- in which to create (outside of himself) the world (later the universe, once we understood there was one).

Feh, it's a story -- on the order of the cosmological creation story... speaking of, let's look at Gen. 1:6 - 11

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

(Cf the Babylonian creation story):

Creation Stories

After subduing the rest of her host, he [Marduk] took his club and split Tiamat's water-laden body in half like a clam shell. Half he put in the sky and made the heavens, and he posted guards there to make sure that Tiamat's salt waters could not escape. Across the heavens he made stations in the stars for the gods, and he made the moon and set it forth on its schedule across the heavens. From the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land, which he placed over Apsu's fresh waters, which now arise in wells and springs. From her eyes he made flow the Tigirs and Euphrates. Across this land he made the grains and herbs, the pastures and fields, the rains and the seeds, the cows and ewes, and the forests and the orchards.

Of course, the Jewish version has cleaned up the other gods, who were, in the older story, were the stuff that creation was made of.

Similarly, Noah and Gilgamesh match up quite well, right down to releasing a bird to ensure that the flood waters have receded.

These stories go culture to culture, morph, change to suit the underlying philosophy -- which in Judaism's case, is the need for monotheism and God's preference for a certain sort of morality in each story.

So the early survival of the feminine (the "Queen of Heaven" character, likely Asherah) and its resuscitation in later guises, seems inevitable in retrospect. You have an insistence on monotheism, and a popular need for the recognition of the Mother. The Shekhinah works, Mary works.

As to GIA's need for a feminine to defer to, I am not certain that's a universal need, Clan of the Cave Bear notwithstanding. But it certainly shows up as the Great Goddess in a number of cultures.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

I've got to say I see the characters in these stories as quaint. A little history... one or two things I think I mangled in our conversations -

Ahsherah appears in the bible as the "Queen of Heaven." Polytheism survived throughout Judah (and earlier, Israel,) for a long time, despite a constant campaign to remove it. Particularly after the return from Babylonian exile, there was a great deal of complaining that the "people of the land" had returned to semi-pagan ways. The God of Israel, in those days, had quite a bit more competition, what with your Baal and your El (incorporated, in their plurality, as another name of God, a plural used to signify the singular, Elohim.) Asherah may account for this "Queen of Heaven" character, just one such thing remaining from the days of the Abrahamic faiths' polytheistic past (and for Christians, earlier forms of their continuing polytheism.)

It's a matter of our imperfect language that we ascribe male and female attributes to "gods" and "goddesses." God, of course, is all of us, so all genders.

But within Judaism, certainly, the assumption of one masculine God leaves out the feminine half of anthropomorphism. The final ousting of the polytheistic lay faith in Israel, probably quite late, say, the time of the Maccabean revolt, left Judaism with a problem -- specifically because, although we Jews had enough sense not to make images of "God" and progressively avoided anthropomorphizing him, he was still a him. So what to do with the feminine?

In Judaism, she reappears as the shekhinah; the Christians stuff her into the Virgin Mary, who becomes so compelling that cults of Mary have to be toned down by official church action.

As to one artist's rendition of the serpent as female, I'll leave it to the Christians to argue that one out.

As to God "casting" the Serpent into the garden, from a gnostic point of view, it's a natural - the Serpent is doing for Man what God won't. God forbids the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent says, no no, go ahead, eat, eat. And what does the serpent give man? Knowledge! Well, that's perfect for a gnostic point of view.

The real question, to have learned debates about the old stories, is why plant the trees (Life, and knowledge of good and evil), then curse man and woman for doing what he damn well knows they're going to do?

Because we're reading primitive stories passed down from very old sources, who weren't yet steeped in all this messy Hellenistic concern with omni-this and omni-that.

Enter the theologians to clean it all up - certainly, God is omniscient, but separates things from his own knowledge to allow free will. Well, that takes care of that. I don't think that's why the story was written as it was written, but I appreciate the imaginative leap. It is very similar to the mainstream idea that God first must make some nothingness -- everything else being full of God, you see -- in which to create (outside of himself) the world (later the universe, once we understood there was one).

Feh, it's a story -- on the order of the cosmological creation story... speaking of, let's look at Gen. 1:6 - 11

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

(Cf the Babylonian creation story):

Creation Stories



Of course, the Jewish version has cleaned up the other gods, who were, in the older story, were the stuff that creation was made of.

Similarly, Noah and Gilgamesh match up quite well, right down to releasing a bird to ensure that the flood waters have receded.

These stories go culture to culture, morph, change to suit the underlying philosophy -- which in Judaism's case, is the need for monotheism and God's preference for a certain sort of morality in each story.

So the early survival of the feminine (the "Queen of Heaven" character, likely Asherah) and its resuscitation in later guises, seems inevitable in retrospect. You have an insistence on monotheism, and a popular need for the recognition of the Mother. The Shekhinah works, Mary works.

As to GIA's need for a feminine to defer to, I am not certain that's a universal need, Clan of the Cave Bear notwithstanding. But it certainly shows up as the Great Goddess in a number of cultures.

PFnV

Informative. Thanks for this.

We created them, male and female.

The we from the reading I have done is an androgynous God like many of the older God's were thought to be. So what you say of the need for a feminine character I do not agree with. But I see you mixing tradition so we might agree at the core if we take the icons out. I don't think there is a drastic difference on how we view God but we both have our biases in thinking.

I think spirituality, apart from religions, is fairly simple. Bring the children Jesus said. We have just complicated the hell out of it till no one understands much of anything. Hence all the myriad of cults and sects.

I do not need a female to defer to in the sense I think you say it. I do recognize that that is the right moral position we should all take. In that sense, since it aids survival of the species, it become our moral duty.

Do you believe in the law of the sea that says man should defer to women and children and should that law not follow us even on land?

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

My understanding of the "Law of the Sea" has more to do with the difference between territorial waters and the so-called "high seas." I confess, I've no idea what "Law of the Sea" says men defer to women.

If you mean "Women and Children first!" when you hit an iceberg, let's say I'd hate to be the jerk to shout back "F&*# THAT! I want a LIFEBOAT!!!" So I'd certainly toe that customary line.

Certainly when you hit an iceberg, there's a clear-cut "self-or-other" choice. I think I'd uphold our custom in that regard. I know that when I've known a violent attack was underway against a woman, I have responded similarly.

But when it comes to "deferring," I don't think there's any reason for women to have first claim on men or vice versa. If there are "natural" spheres for each is another thread; I can only say that I've known the "nature" of individual women, not every woman. I know my own nature. Who defers to whom has always struck me as a balance between two individuals, not a gender-determined exchange. It's as silly to say men must defer to women as vice versa, IMHO.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

PS, on your point about an androgenous God, I'd love to know whether the somewhat humorous reading of the English translation actually works in the Hebrew original....

"Male and female, he created them"

It would certainly clean up the two-creation-story problem without need for the legendary Lilith.

Of course, once again, I should underscore the regard in which I hold the stories and legends. They can point us toward the truth, but they are manifestly not the ultimate truth in and of themselves.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

My understanding of the "Law of the Sea" has more to do with the difference between territorial waters and the so-called "high seas." I confess, I've no idea what "Law of the Sea" says men defer to women.

If you mean "Women and Children first!" when you hit an iceberg, let's say I'd hate to be the jerk to shout back "F&*# THAT! I want a LIFEBOAT!!!" So I'd certainly toe that customary line.

Certainly when you hit an iceberg, there's a clear-cut "self-or-other" choice. I think I'd uphold our custom in that regard. I know that when I've known a violent attack was underway against a woman, I have responded similarly.

But when it comes to "deferring," I don't think there's any reason for women to have first claim on men or vice versa. If there are "natural" spheres for each is another thread; I can only say that I've known the "nature" of individual women, not every woman. I know my own nature. Who defers to whom has always struck me as a balance between two individuals, not a gender-determined exchange. It's as silly to say men must defer to women as vice versa, IMHO.

PFnV

You misunderstand my position. It is not so much women demanding what is right from men. It is men stepping up to their duty of putting others first.

That is what a moral man would do. It is our duty to the species and gives sanctity to the family.

The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com | TED Blog

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

PS, on your point about an androgenous God, I'd love to know whether the somewhat humorous reading of the English translation actually works in the Hebrew original....

"Male and female, he created them"

It would certainly clean up the two-creation-story problem without need for the legendary Lilith.

Of course, once again, I should underscore the regard in which I hold the stories and legends. They can point us toward the truth, but they are manifestly not the ultimate truth in and of themselves.

PFnV

We all have our ultimate truths as each consciousness will have it's own way of understanding things.

This clip speaks of the early interpretation and the meaning of a few words that may interest you. It is long and you may not have the interest I had in viewing it all but if you start at about the 10 minute mark you will see what guided my words.

Gnosis - Secret Gate to Garden of Eden. - YouTube

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'm at 9 something... this thing says that "Bere**** b'ra elohim" "really" means not "in the beginning, God creates..." but "in wisdom, God creates..."

and credits that particular reading to the Zohar (and calls it "the Hebraic translation.")

Believe me, the Kabbalists take a lot of liberties in translations; they made a sport of it through gematriya. Gematriya works thus: If A has a value of 1, B has a value of 2, C has a value of 3, and D has a value of 4, then "cab" has a value 6. "Abba" also has a value of 6. If the text said "They had sex in a cab," the skilled gematriyist says it really means "They had sex in Abba," and insists that it means Abba was playing in the background when the people in the story had sex.

I suspect that one such substitution is at work where your voiceover says that Bere**** b'ra elohim means "In wisdom, God creates..."

The Hebrew for wisdom is, and was, chokhmah. It is a significant enough "attribute" of God that it is a sephira, one of the 10 lights making up their "tree of life" of sephiroth. Something tells me that since they hold other words constant, they asked what value is left over if you change "Elohim" to another name of God, perhaps the tetragrammaton, or perhaps El el yon, "God most high." I don't know.

In any event, I'm going on. But I'm starting out already feeling like I'm on the "Ancient Aliens" show, where every round stone head must be wearing a space helmet.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh christ on a crutch. Elohim is a plural used as a singular throughout a whole stratum of the Hebrew bible. Sticking in the fact that ELH gets you the feminine is like saying "The plural of chat is chats, so it's not just the plural, it also involves headgear."

Come on dude. It's not the 14th century anymore.

The overdub goes on to confuse the proper name of God (although it's improperly pronounced) with "the angel who oversaw the creation of earth." (Jehovah is a latinized/germanicized version of the Name.)

The later stand-alone proper name is blended into uses of elohim, usually read by serious scholars as an attempt to blend two layers of source material, not to indicate that God is an angel, and the earlier elohim layer, probably pointing to a henoist/polytheist preexisting belief system (Where "the Els" taken as a group devolve into a sort of "powers that be.") This is upheld when you see references throughout the Ancient Near East to various "Els" - El el yon, God Most High, shows up in the bible. There's bull-El, El of this place that place or the other place, etc. "El" or "Il" is the king of gods but also is identified with particular gods "of" this or that thing throughout the ANE.

Whether the use of the plural as a singular is due to the top-down insistence of "God, [who is] all these "gods" " or a drift of the usage of the very old word that was plural into the singular is unclear to me. In the latter instance, it might be equivalent, for example, to a place name like Hot Springs. The child learning the word would finally realize that it just means a single place, even though the rules of the language say that it should be a plural.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

PS, but I did ask for it... with "male and female he created them."

That was tongue in cheek

 

[Greatest I am]

PS, but I did ask for it... with "male and female he created them."

That was tongue in cheek

Which is why we have all the cults we have in the mainstream religions as well as all th other varieties that people make up including yours and mine.

Is it any wonder religions are on a downturn. People do not know who to believe and just believe nothing.

That is why I try to focus on morals as there can be an end point to those discussion. Discussions on different Gods or on God at all usually end nowhere.

Regards
DL

 

[nabwong]

The bottom line is, no one knows who or what satan is. Here is how I think about it.

While I was growing up, I was always taught to think that satan was a character or a species that could inflict direct harm to me. Of course, as a kid, you just take this wholesale. But now, I have to question this perspective.

1. I cannot confirm satan exists.

This is a factual statement if you are a religious person or atheist. You just physically can't. Nothing in your being or your sense can confirm this. So how to do I relate satan to my existence?

2. I can conceptualize satan in my context.

If we understand that the author of the scriptures is ever-living, then the message must be applied within my own context. I am not living in the time of Jesus or Moses or whomever else.

So if God represents Truth (of this universe), then satan represents the absence of Truth. So in any moment, when I interpret any situation or a verse like (and I paraphrase), "Kill satan" - it means to me to remove this falseness in my thinking or belief. It doesn't mean i'm gonna hunt down a character called satan and stone him to death.

In this way, I can apply this to any situation in my life no matter how great or small.


********************************

No offense to you, I realize that this might now relate to your question but if I think of it in this way, then to me, the original question becomes irrelevant.

 

[Greatest I am]

The bottom line is, no one knows who or what satan is. Here is how I think about it.

While I was growing up, I was always taught to think that satan was a character or a species that could inflict direct harm to me. Of course, as a kid, you just take this wholesale. But now, I have to question this perspective.

1. I cannot confirm satan exists.

This is a factual statement if you are a religious person or atheist. You just physically can't. Nothing in your being or your sense can confirm this. So how to do I relate satan to my existence?

2. I can conceptualize satan in my context.

If we understand that the author of the scriptures is ever-living, then the message must be applied within my own context. I am not living in the time of Jesus or Moses or whomever else.

So if God represents Truth (of this universe), then satan represents the absence of Truth. So in any moment, when I interpret any situation or a verse like (and I paraphrase), "Kill satan" - it means to me to remove this falseness in my thinking or belief. It doesn't mean i'm gonna hunt down a character called satan and stone him to death.

In this way, I can apply this to any situation in my life no matter how great or small.


********************************

No offense to you, I realize that this might now relate to your question but if I think of it in this way, then to me, the original question becomes irrelevant.

Sure but if one biblical character that represents falseness in wrong then the God who represents truth is also wrong. If you are going to take out the yin then the yang must also be taken out.

Regards
DL

 

[nabwong]

Sure but if one biblical character that represents falseness in wrong then the God who represents truth is also wrong. If you are going to take out the yin then the yang must also be taken out.

Regards
DL

Can you expound please? I don't understand what you wrote.

 

[Greatest I am]

Can you expound please? I don't understand what you wrote.

You said "it means to me to remove this falseness in my thinking or belief."

If you remove the falseness/evil from an issue then you also remove the truth because the truth/yin need it's compliment/yang or it ceases to exist.

That is why the ancients wrote of a tree of good and evil. Not a tree of good and another of evil. One tree only with a fruit of both good and evil or yin and yang.

Regards
DL

 

[nabwong]

You said "it means to me to remove this falseness in my thinking or belief."

If you remove the falseness/evil from an issue then you also remove the truth because the truth/yin need it's compliment/yang or it ceases to exist.

That is why the ancients wrote of a tree of good and evil. Not a tree of good and another of evil. One tree only with a fruit of both good and evil or yin and yang.

Regards
DL

Ahh.. now I understand. Of course we do not have THE TRUTH. But we can have truth. Remember we live in a relative world. Therefore there will always be some truth and false in our lives and decisions. BUT we can try our best to move closer towards truth and farther away from false. It's a scale. I recognize that no decision is absolute.

 

[Greatest I am]

Ahh.. now I understand. Of course we do not have THE TRUTH. But we can have truth. Remember we live in a relative world. Therefore there will always be some truth and false in our lives and decisions. BUT we can try our best to move closer towards truth and farther away from false. It's a scale. I recognize that no decision is absolute.

I disagree.

There probably can be absolutes within the bounds of reason and logic.

I do agree in the sense that there is nothing absolute about God unless you allow that he is absolutely a prick, if at all as depicted in the book of lies, the bible.

But we are going way off the O P. Let's return.

I say God is evil for rewarding Satan whom God named as evil.

Why does your God reward evil?

Regards
DL

 

[nabwong]

I disagree.

There probably can be absolutes within the bounds of reason and logic.

I do agree in the sense that there is nothing absolute about God unless you allow that he is absolutely a prick, if at all as depicted in the book of lies, the bible.

But we are going way off the O P. Let's return.

I say God is evil for rewarding Satan whom God named as evil.

Why does your God reward evil?

Regards
DL

If you can indulge me, please name one absolute thing in this universe.

Also, we don't have to resort to name calling. We can have a calm and rational discussion.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

If you can indulge me, please name one absolute thing in this universe.

Also, we don't have to resort to name calling. We can have a calm and rational discussion.

Conservation of matter/energy, at least so far as we presently know. Whether a big crunch or a dissipation to tiny sub-atomic bits zipping around all alone, I think that rule's supposed to go forever (whatever that means.)

 

[nabwong]

Conservation of matter/energy, at least so far as we presently know. Whether a big crunch or a dissipation to tiny sub-atomic bits zipping around all alone, I think that rule's supposed to go forever (whatever that means.)

That is what we've always perceived yes. But the universe is ever expanding which was only measured recently. And there is no way to measure all matter. So that is only a theory which cannot be proven, yet? Though I believe it's beyond man's grasp.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space