Are Satan And Lucifer The Same Being?

[Aero]

That is advice especially for young/ weaker Christians who do not already have a strong faith and familiarity with the bible. I do not expect non-Christians to take that seriously.

The bible does have passages that were already dealing with early stages of Gnostic "Christianity".
E.g. description of ascetic, self-denying, punishing the flesh type: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2:18-23&version=KJV
Description of indulging flesh " matter is evil, spirit is pure, therefore all is permitted"
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/534/1-John-3-4.htm

Clear contrast between Gnosticism and Christianity https://www.crossroad.to/charts/gnosticism.html

I think that's interesting because I've talked a little bit about that sort of stuff. But I was talking about weapons that went beyond the concept of "Sin" or Karma. Some Ancient Gnostic cults did believe that they couldn't Sin in the flesh. But I don't agree with that. They were talking about actual lawlessness. Like abolishing all authority whatsoever.

As far as I can tell if I go punch someone in the head, I will face consequences. I am a "sinner" or "Guilty". My flesh being a useless prison has no bearing on the consequences for crime. But if I astral project someone in the head, or send a message through "Lucifer" than that's not a Sin. I'm not guilty per say. I am above the consequences in this world. Only the actual God can judge me for what my spirit does.

 

[elsbet]

Who I wonder about is- Prometheus. Is Prometheus the devil or is Prometheus sort of like Christ-like in a way?

That's the one I wonder about. I think it's interesting how some people associate him with Jesus and some with the devil.... what do y'all think?

I myself am not really sure either way. From what I read, he was a revolutionary who sought to liberate mankind and was punished for that reason.

"Christ-like"

That's it, exactly. An imitation, at best. I think there's an article on the main site, featuring the statue in N.Y., at Rockefeller Center.

I'll see if I can find, and link it for you.

 

[elsbet]

@Etagloc

Okay, he equates him to Lucifer (accurately, in this pov), but by those who subscribe to his virtue, he is a saviour, of sorts.

Article is here: Sinister Sites - Rockefeller Center

 

[rainerann]

Gnosticism doesn't promote Lucifer, nor does it have negative things to say about Christ. They just don't believe he was resurrected. In fact they don't have much to say about Christ, Satan or Lucifer at all. They taught about something called the Demiurge. Which is defined as "a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual"

And I believe they were right about a lot of things. The idea that there is this eternal battle of good vs evil going on is just an entertaining story. Considering that "good" wouldn't even exist without "evil", people are obviously just giving themselves something to occupy their thoughts. Like people aren't satisfied with their lives, so they created some grand story about a war in the stars. But such a war doesn't exist.

Everything is connected, and everything is one. The Demiurge shouldn't be considered as some sort of separate entity. But a part of the overall construct of the supreme God. A barrier through which the highest form of spirituality can be achieved. So there is no evil force out there for people to fear. There is just materialism vs spirituality.

Technically, it isn't true that the early Gnostic writings didn't discuss the resurrection. In fact, most of the early Gnostic writings are a lot closer to the teachings of Christianity than the modern interpretations of Gnosticism that I hear.

Here is the Gospel of Marcion that talks about the empty tomb from Gnosis.org http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel6.html#Dead

I don't really think that most of the modern discussion of Gnosticism is actually what Gnosticism was. From what I can see in the early church, Gnosticism is actually just bringing the same message of Christ to a different region and the authenticity of these writings is often more difficult to confirm. There were different teachers in this region. In establishing a canon, these teachers were not included. However, the region has had a Christian presence since the time of the early church regardless.

A canon is just a measure or a primary reference. It creates a method of rejecting false teaching and reducing confusion about core beliefs. Many of the Gnostic writings from the early church mirror many of the writings in the New Testament and recognizing this is the function the canon is supposed to accomplish.

However, it also might be the creation of canon that has created some confusion on the history regarding Gnosticism that has created these modern interpretations that do not actually identify with the early Gnostic writings.

The Gospel of Thomas is very similar to the Gospels in the New Testament. It includes most of the teachings in a different writing style. However, it doesn't include the crucifixion. This could be a reason it was considered as a part of the canon. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Gospel of Thomas is suggesting that there was no resurrection or that the teachings are false. It is just not useful as a reference if it is not complete.

This sites gives a brief overview of the autheticity and reliability of the documents including all early Christian writings whether they are considered Gnostic or are part of the New Testament.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

 

[JoChris]

Docetism was one of the earliest Gnostic heresies. https://readingacts.com/2012/03/20/1-john-and-docetism/

 

[JoChris]

Technically, it isn't true that the early Gnostic writings didn't discuss the resurrection. In fact, most of the early Gnostic writings are a lot closer to the teachings of Christianity than the modern interpretations of Gnosticism that I hear.

Here is the Gospel of Marcion that talks about the empty tomb from Gnosis.org http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel6.html#Dead

I don't really think that most of the modern discussion of Gnosticism is actually what Gnosticism was. From what I can see in the early church, Gnosticism is actually just bringing the same message of Christ to a different region and the authenticity of these writings is often more difficult to confirm. There were different teachers in this region. In establishing a canon, these teachers were not included. However, the region has had a Christian presence since the time of the early church regardless.

A canon is just a measure or a primary reference. It creates a method of rejecting false teaching and reducing confusion about core beliefs. Many of the Gnostic writings from the early church mirror many of the writings in the New Testament and recognizing this is the function the canon is supposed to accomplish.

However, it also might be the creation of canon that has created some confusion on the history regarding Gnosticism that has created these modern interpretations that do not actually identify with the early Gnostic writings.

The Gospel of Thomas is very similar to the Gospels in the New Testament. It includes most of the teachings in a different writing style. However, it doesn't include the crucifixion. This could be a reason it was considered as a part of the canon. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Gospel of Thomas is suggesting that there was no resurrection or that the teachings are false. It is just not useful as a reference if it is not complete.

This sites gives a brief overview of the autheticity and reliability of the documents including all early Christian writings whether they are considered Gnostic or are part of the New Testament.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

I am surprised that link doesn't mention the books of 1 John or 2 Peter (2nd chapter similar to Book of Jude).

 

[rainerann]

Docetism was one of the earliest Gnostic heresies. https://readingacts.com/2012/03/20/1-john-and-docetism/

hmm, interesting. Where would there be an actual writing suggesting that this was a belief in the early church? From what I can tell in this article, it is suspected that John was addressing this issue in the book of 1 John. However, it also says that this would have potentially been in response to a Jewish denial of the crucifixion that was introduced into the congregation. So I don't know whether to count this as a Gnostic teaching or the persecution of the church by a group of Jews who felt threatened by teaching about the crucifixion for their own sake.

 

[rainerann]

I am surprised that link doesn't mention the books of 1 John or 2 Peter (2nd chapter similar to Book of Jude).

Which one?

 

[JoChris]

I think that's interesting because I've talked a little bit about that sort of stuff. But I was talking about weapons that went beyond the concept of "Sin" or Karma. Some Ancient Gnostic cults did believe that they couldn't Sin in the flesh. But I don't agree with that. They were talking about actual lawlessness. Like abolishing all authority whatsoever.

As far as I can tell if I go punch someone in the head, I will face consequences. I am a "sinner" or "Guilty". My flesh being a useless prison has no bearing on the consequences for crime. But if I astral project someone in the head, or send a message through "Lucifer" than that's not a Sin. I'm not guilty per say. I am above the consequences in this world. Only the actual God can judge me for what my spirit does.

I am amazed that you believe you can send a message through Lucifer (i.e. Satan) and see no wrong in it.
God's Word clearly condemns the use of all forms of the occult in both Old and New Testament. God speaks through the bible.

Christians cannot fellowship with darkness without becoming severely punished for it eventually.

 

[JoChris]

Which one?

2nd chapter of 2 Peter is similar to Jude.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Relationship-Jude-2-Peter

hmm, interesting. Where would there be an actual writing suggesting that this was a belief in the early church? From what I can tell in this article, it is suspected that John was addressing this issue in the book of 1 John. However, it also says that this would have potentially been in response to a Jewish denial of the crucifixion that was introduced into the congregation. So I don't know whether to count this as a Gnostic teaching or the persecution of the church by a group of Jews who felt threatened by teaching about the crucifixion for their own sake.

If you like ancient books that show they were having to fight against early forms of Gnosticism:

Examples from very late 1st - mostly 2nd century church leaders:
From Polycarp: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.vii.html

Ignatius to Ephesians: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.vii.html

Ignatius to Trallians: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iv.xi.html

Just keep going down the list and you'll see there are other forms of heresies too.

I just remembered this 19th century textbook, obviously written long before the Nag Hammadi texts were found in 1945.
https://archive.org/stream/gnosticheresieso00mansrich#page/n7/mode/2up

 

[Aero]

Technically, it isn't true that the early Gnostic writings didn't discuss the resurrection. In fact, most of the early Gnostic writings are a lot closer to the teachings of Christianity than the modern interpretations of Gnosticism that I hear.

Here is the Gospel of Marcion that talks about the empty tomb from Gnosis.org http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel6.html#Dead

I don't really think that most of the modern discussion of Gnosticism is actually what Gnosticism was. From what I can see in the early church, Gnosticism is actually just bringing the same message of Christ to a different region and the authenticity of these writings is often more difficult to confirm. There were different teachers in this region. In establishing a canon, these teachers were not included. However, the region has had a Christian presence since the time of the early church regardless.

A canon is just a measure or a primary reference. It creates a method of rejecting false teaching and reducing confusion about core beliefs. Many of the Gnostic writings from the early church mirror many of the writings in the New Testament and recognizing this is the function the canon is supposed to accomplish.

However, it also might be the creation of canon that has created some confusion on the history regarding Gnosticism that has created these modern interpretations that do not actually identify with the early Gnostic writings.

The Gospel of Thomas is very similar to the Gospels in the New Testament. It includes most of the teachings in a different writing style. However, it doesn't include the crucifixion. This could be a reason it was considered as a part of the canon. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Gospel of Thomas is suggesting that there was no resurrection or that the teachings are false. It is just not useful as a reference if it is not complete.

This sites gives a brief overview of the autheticity and reliability of the documents including all early Christian writings whether they are considered Gnostic or are part of the New Testament.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

I don't think I can argue with most of your premise. I remember talking about wanting to be a christian mystic and being shut down and called a cultist. But it's true, the people who started this Gnostic thing were Christians. A lot of the same themes are all there if you look hard enough.

The way that they describe the divine, matter and the soul are all drastically different than the Bible though. Jesus may be very similar, but the Gods and lesser Gods are all different. It gets to be like night and day. They don't just consider the old testament irrelevant, but think that "lesser" god should be destroyed.

The difference in terminology is key here I think. A creator God, and a Supreme God. And Even Marcion described two different Christs. One that served a function for the creator God, and one for the Supreme God. It's all very interesting, but I think most people read from the Nag Hammadi Library. Like the Secret Book of John. Where Sin is describes as an inherent trait of humanity. Part of an actual plot against humanity, and we lost that fight. I don't think Christ died for our sins in any text.

 

[rainerann]

I don't think I can argue with most of your premise. I remember talking about wanting to be a christian mystic and being shut down and called a cultist. But it's true, the people who started this Gnostic thing were Christians. A lot of the same themes are all there if you look hard enough.

The way that they describe the divine, matter and the soul are all drastically different than the Bible though. Jesus may be very similar, but the Gods and lesser Gods are all different. It gets to be like night and day. They don't just consider the old testament irrelevant, but think that "lesser" god should be destroyed.

The difference in terminology is key here I think. A creator God, and a Supreme God. And Even Marcion described two different Christs. One that served a function for the creator God, and one for the Supreme God. It's all very interesting, but I think most people read from the Nag Hammadi Library. Like the Secret Book of John. Where Sin is describes as an inherent trait of humanity. Part of an actual plot against humanity, and we lost that fight. I don't think Christ died for our sins in any text.

Right but a lot of this is commentary on these writings. For example, the gospel of mary doesn't imply anywhere that she was in a relationship with Jesus. It seems like this connection is made just because a girl wrote a gospel.

In fact, the gospel of mary discusses more about her sense of discrimination for being a follower of Jesus and a woman.

So it more often than not seems like writings outside of the canon are subjected to rumor rather than adhering to the teachings in the actual writing.

 

[Aero]

I am amazed that you believe you can send a message through Lucifer (i.e. Satan) and see no wrong in it.
God's Word clearly condemns the use of all forms of the occult in both Old and New Testament. God speaks through the bible.

Christians cannot fellowship with darkness without becoming severely punished for it eventually.

Most people have established that Lucifer isn't the Satan of the bible. So there's no use trying to guilt trip me over it. Because I feel guilty about plenty of things, but getting a message from the light bringer isn't one of them.

You speak about the occult but your superstitious behavior is more in line with cult patterns. Can't you differentiate from two different names and two different concepts? All cults are just the same apparently. What I'm saying is, you seem like the one who will ride or die over these beliefs. Not me.

 

[Aero]

Right but a lot of this is commentary on these writings. For example, the gospel of mary doesn't imply anywhere that she was in a relationship with Jesus. It seems like this connection is made just because a girl wrote a gospel.

In fact, the gospel of mary discusses more about her sense of discrimination for being a follower of Jesus and a woman.

So it more often than not seems like writings outside of the canon are subjected to rumor rather than adhering to the teachings in the actual writing.

I looked at the Gospel of Mary briefly and noticed that too, and large sections were just missing. So maybe there was some stuff about Jesus. I wasn't trying to downplay his significance in the Gnostic religion. Because it's part of what attracted me to it in the first place.

 

[rainerann]

2nd chapter of 2 Peter is similar to Jude.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Relationship-Jude-2-Peter



If you like ancient books that show they were having to fight against early forms of Gnosticism:

Examples from very late 1st - mostly 2nd century church leaders:
From Polycarp: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.vii.html

Ignatius to Ephesians: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.vii.html

Ignatius to Trallians: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iv.xi.html

Just keep going down the list and you'll see there are other forms of heresies too.

I just remembered this 19th century textbook, obviously written long before the Nag Hammadi texts were found in 1945.
https://archive.org/stream/gnosticheresieso00mansrich#page/n7/mode/2up

I agree with you that they are describing the spread of false teachings in the early church and I agree with their definition. I have a copy of The Complete AnteNicene Fathers on my Kindle and have read through Polycarp and Tertullian's writings.


The problem I have is that there is no direct connection to the writings we call gnostic a lot of the time. So I think the definition has become too broad and is used to define every false teaching that was present and to define early writings that were no included in the canon.

 

[JoChris]

I agree with you that they are describing the spread of false teachings in the early church and I agree with their definition. I have a copy of The Complete AnteNicene Fathers on my Kindle and have read through Polycarp and Tertullian's writings.


The problem I have is that there is no direct connection to the writings we call gnostic a lot of the time. So I think the definition has become too broad and is used to define every false teaching that was present and to define early writings that were no included in the canon.

It was in very earliest stages then.
I agree the definition of gnosticism can be very broad. Just like cancer in a way, so many different varieties and varying levels of severity within Gnostic "Christianity".
Off top of my head I can think of one identifying characteristic: knowledge NOT faith is " the way" to God.

 

[JoChris]

I agree with you that they are describing the spread of false teachings in the early church and I agree with their definition. I have a copy of The Complete AnteNicene Fathers on my Kindle and have read through Polycarp and Tertullian's writings.

You are way more organized than me then! I rely on the webpages.

I found this modern book helpful to help me work through my hyper-Charismatic deprogramming phase: http://www.discernment-ministries.org/StrangeFire.pdf

 

[JoChris]

God says that his people perish for a lack of knowledge, so it is partially true in a sense.

Hosea and Solomon helpfully give what the Gnostics leave out.
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Proverbs 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

 

[JoChris]

No one can keep the law, only the law can be truly fulfilled by true love

Matthew 22:37-40

37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’c 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’d 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I don't think any human is capable of truly love others unless they live up to a person's expectation, standards, like-mindedness and agreement. I don't think humans can love without God granting them that gift.

That is right! All are sinners, who need a Saviour. Only Jesus led a sinless life, only Jesus kept God's law perfectly.

 

[Aero]

I'm trying to think of how to describe a message from Lucifer. From what I can tell in Gnosticism it was a super rare thing. They believed that a person could achieve equal power to the "creator" God. And I think that's what the Lucifer symbol represents. Maybe it's just a message of that power. That the true Satan has some real competition. They walk among us too.