Whom is The Bible's chief character?

[Tor-Hershman]

After vast thought, I've discerned that The Bible's main motive force, as far as humanity is concerned, is Satan.

Any thoughts on that proposition?

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
____________
:leaving: http://www.youtube.com/user/TOR1Hershman :gnorsi:

[cacian]

Are you suggesting that the bible's sole purpose was to promote Satan?
Because if that is what I think you are saying then you might not be far out from the truth.
I never saw it that way but you do make an interesting point.
What is the purpose of Satan if God was not around?
One seeks thrills from others that are alike and unlike and I guess this duality of lucifer versus god is what gave birth to the concept of religion.
Religion equals duality ie sin/salvation hell/paradise god/devil.

[SkyCetacean]

Satan is (possibly) the originator of the conflict, the antagonist one might say, but to claim that he's the primary character is like saying that Smaug is the main character in The Hobbit or that The Witch it the main character of The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe... An important character, yes, but not the primary one.

I think if you really study The Bible, everything relates to Jesus. The Old Testament is slowly building up to and foreshadowing his arrival, the Gospels tell his story, and the remainder of the New Testament is the reaction to his arrival on the scene. Alternatively, you could argue that the entire country of Israel is the "seminal character," as The Bible chronicles its rise from a single man to an empire to its fall under foreign lands to its eventual rebirth at the two arrivals of Jesus.

[BienvenuJDC]

Satan is (possibly) the originator of the conflict, the antagonist one might say, but to claim that he's the primary character is like saying that Smaug is the main character in The Hobbit or that The Witch it the main character of The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe... An important character, yes, but not the primary one.

I think if you really study The Bible, everything relates to Jesus. The Old Testament is slowly building up to and foreshadowing his arrival, the Gospels tell his story, and the remainder of the New Testament is the reaction to his arrival on the scene. Alternatively, you could argue that the entire country of Israel is the "seminal character," as The Bible chronicles its rise from a single man to an empire to its fall under foreign lands to its eventual rebirth at the two arrivals of Jesus.

Well said.

[mona amon]

I agree with SkyCetacean.

Satan in the Bible is not a particularly interesting character, unless he's having a face-off with God, who's definitely the dominant one in the whole book. It's almost entirely about man and his relationship with God, rather than Satan vs God.

Of course, if you take each book separately, you'll find people who are the protagonists of their own books. Naomi and Ruth are the main characters in Ruth. Jonah's the main character in Jonah and Esther is very much the main character in Esther, the only book in the Bible in which God is never mentioned, to give just a few examples.

[Jackson Richardson]

The Bible is not a book. It is an anthology.

As far as I can recall, Satan is only a character in the Hebrew Scriptures in the book of Job.

The tempter in Genesis is the serpent. It is not identified in the text with the Devil. There is no reference to the fall of any angels there.

[cacian]

The Bible is not a book. It is an anthology.

As far as I can recall, Satan is only a character in the Hebrew Scriptures in the book of Job.

The tempter in Genesis is the serpent. It is not identified in the text with the Devil. There is no reference to the fall of any angels there.

What is sin in this case?
Because Satan is often quoted as being the reason why one sins.
The whole point of being saved is because of sin.

[Jackson Richardson]

I can sin against God and my neighbour and take my own responsibility for it. I don't have to put the blame on something else.

The chief character of the New Testament is Jesus Christ, not only as an historic C1 itinerant rabbi, but as "the express image of the Father", "the Alpha and the Omega", the one "in the beginning with God": all those ideas which later Christian orthodoxy was to express in the classic doctrines of the Trinity.

The Hebrew scriptures (which for Christians are the Old Testament) obviously does not refer to Jesus, if you are a Jew or non-Christian. As an anthology of the surviving literature of a people over some thousand years, it will not have a chief character, any more than a selection of American literature and history over two hundred years has a chief character.

For Christians, at least Orthodox or Catholic Christians reading before the introduction of the recent fundamentalist attitude that a text can only have one meaning and that one literal, the Hebrew scriptures all point to Christ, often symbolically or allegorically. The gospels themselves compare Christ to the serpent raised on a pole in the wilderness to heal the Israelites, and to Jonah in the big fish for three days to point to Christ's burial.

Apart from Job, there is only one reference to Satan in the Old Testament, in Zechariah.

[Tor-Hershman]

Well, there is no such thing as "Sin."
Crimes, yes - Sin, no.

Now, Rugger Lad, makes a very good point sooooo we'll relabel thus,
Bad Thingy as Serpent/Satan or the antithesis of God/Good.

Father/Son/Holy Ghost - Serpent/Satan/Holy Feces - okay?

Now, me point is...
without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after"
THE END.





Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

Oh yeah, the Louvin Brothers did an album entitled "Satan Is Real," I did the parody.

[Jackson Richardson]

Well maybe. But Christianity (and Judaism) is/are not dualistic, ie it does not believe Good and Evil are equal forces in the world.

In one sense anything definite is defined by its opposite (I'm not totally convinced by this) so if I'm active, it means there's the possibility of resting, if I'm kind, it means there's the possibility of being nasty to others (and that's sin even if it's not a crime). But Christian mystical tradition and orthodox theology reckon God is beyond category - s/he is not defined by the opposite, because all being is a result of God's being.

But God is not beyond good and evil ultimately because the Good is the nature of God. At the beginning of Genesis God sees all he has made, and behold it is very good.

[Tor-Hershman]

Well maybe. But Christianity (and Judaism) is/are not dualistic, ie it does not believe Good and Evil are equal forces in the world.

In one sense anything definite is defined by its opposite (I'm not totally convinced by this) so if I'm active, it means there's the possibility of resting, if I'm kind, it means there's the possibility of being nasty to others (and that's sin even if it's not a crime). But Christian mystical tradition and orthodox theology reckon God is beyond category - s/he is not defined by the opposite, because all being is a result of God's being.

But God is not beyond good and evil ultimately because the Good is the nature of God. At the beginning of Genesis God sees all he has made, and behold it is very good.

There ain't ANY may be (maybe, baby, or nay),
the 100% fact of The Bible
IS
"...without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

[Jackson Richardson]

The Fall is not primarily to do with sex. It's to do with alienation from God.

Without sin, alienation, mortality, transience and the rest, whether put in religious terms or not, there be no interesting literature of any sort whatsoever.

PS. You might look at William Blake and find him interesting.

[Tor-Hershman]

Sin is as Batman is, just a fantasy.

There ain't ANY may be (maybe, baby, or nay),
the 100% fact of The Bible
IS
"...without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

[Jackson Richardson]

You said that already. We'll agree to disagree. You may find some support for your views looking at William Blake, as I said.

[Tor-Hershman]

You said that already. We'll agree to disagree. You may find some support for your views looking at William Blake, as I said.

You, Rugger Lad, say that you DISAGREE with ME!?!?

Then, what do you say would happen if no being/thing temped Eve and the apple was never eaten...what then?

Just HOW do you disagree with, NOT MYSELF, but.....The Bible.

"Without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

I'll keep sayin' it as long as you keep tryin' to hijack this thread.

[Charles Darnay]

I'm impressed the thread made it this far without anyone pointing out the grammatical flaw in the title.

[SkyCetacean]

Sin is as Batman is, just a fantasy.

There ain't ANY may be (maybe, baby, or nay),
the 100% fact of The Bible
IS
"...without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."
That's the hundredth time you've said that, it seems like you haven't thought this out very thoroughly. If you want to make that argument then God has to be the pivotal character, (Which could be) as nothing in the Bible could've happened without him having "created the heavens and the earth."

In truth, almost all Biblical characters have at least some importance to the narrative, but that doesn't mean that they're all main characters, it just means it's a well-crafted story. Could man have survived without Noah? Would Israel have been made without Abraham? Would it have been freed without Moses? Would it have become a nation without Joshua? Almost all of the characters play a part, and that's why picking a main character of the Bible is a thorny business, but I think, as I've said, that if you really study the Bible the parallels drawn from the beginning to the end are about Jesus. He is that which all builds to and all builds from.


The Bible is not a book. It is an anthology.

The chief character of the New Testament is Jesus Christ, not only as an historic C1 itinerant rabbi, but as "the express image of the Father", "the Alpha and the Omega", the one "in the beginning with God": all those ideas which later Christian orthodoxy was to express in the classic doctrines of the Trinity.

The Hebrew scriptures (which for Christians are the Old Testament) obviously does not refer to Jesus, if you are a Jew or non-Christian. As an anthology of the surviving literature of a people over some thousand years, it will not have a chief character, any more than a selection of American literature and history over two hundred years has a chief character.

For Christians, at least Orthodox or Catholic Christians reading before the introduction of the recent fundamentalist attitude that a text can only have one meaning and that one literal, the Hebrew scriptures all point to Christ, often symbolically or allegorically. The gospels themselves compare Christ to the serpent raised on a pole in the wilderness to heal the Israelites, and to Jonah in the big fish for three days to point to Christ's burial.
This is a wonderful point, and I think it's useful to analyze the placement of the Old Testament both with and without the context of the New Testament, it takes on totally different meanings. However, for the sake of this thread, we're talking about The Bible, so the Old Testament is put in the context of the New Testament.

[Tor-Hershman]

How many times has The Bible been reprinted?
I bet it's a bit over a hundred.

"Without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

[BienvenuJDC]

How many times has The Bible been reprinted?
I bet it's a bit over a hundred.

"Without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

Reprinted? Are you trying to say it's been revised over and over again?
Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? There isn't much if any discrepancy between those scrolls, the Septuagint, and the other scripts. It has been preserved wonderfully since the first writings by Moses in 1500 BC.

You can't make up your own facts.

[mona amon]

"Without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

Well, nothing wrong with a happy ending, is there?

Anyway, the serpent was not Satan/Devil/Beelzebub/Lucifer/whatever. Nowhere in Genesis is this said or implied. It states quite clearly that the serpent was just a beast that God had created, but more cunning and crafty than the rest.

Anyway, even if it was Satan/Devil/Beelzebub/Lucifer/whatever, so what? It's great achievement lies in tempting the woman to disobey God. It could not make anyone do anything. Eve and Adam chose to listen to the serpent and disobey God of their own free will. You might want to change that point you keep harping about to
Without Adam and Eve disobeying God of their own free will, The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after"


Reprinted? Are you trying to say it's been revised over and over again?

Bienvenue, I think he was responding to people saying he was repeating the same point a hundred times, so he retorted that the Bible has been reprinted a hundred times.

[cacian]

How many times has The Bible been reprinted?
I bet it's a bit over a hundred.

"Without Serpent/Satan The Bible would end on Page 2 with something as this...
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed and they lived happily ever after
THE END."

Why naked? just and they were both happy ever after or something fairyial.
No need for husband and wife either.

[Bonsai Ent]

You could just as easily argue that the main character is Eve because if she didn't eat the apple non of it would have happened...

I think using relevance to narrative causality as a technique for ranking characters is methodologically flawed.
You could remove ANY of the characters from the first part of genesis and put an end to the whole story.
Satan isn't really explored in any detail in the bible, he's a McGuffin.

[SkyCetacean]

Why naked? just and they were both happy ever after or something fairyial.
No need for husband and wife either.

The nakedness symbolized innocence. The reason they took to wearing clothes was because they gained knowledge of good and evil, they felt guilty about their nakedness.

[RetsixArp]

After vast thought, I've discerned that The Bible's main motive force, as far as humanity is concerned, is Satan.

Any thoughts on that proposition? ...I'm wonderin' how we moved from "chief character" in thread title to "main motive force" in text. I'm guessin' they're the same?

"Chief character" is God, the Lord, etc. He appears pretty much thruout the O.T. (Ruth is an exception.) Other characters carry on dialogs w/ Him: He's there @the Beginning; He's still there @the End (of the O.T.), altho by then He's all tuckered out keeping His charges in line & even alludes (in Amos?) to leaving the premises altogether. & In the N.T., He has.

[cafolini]

Satan is a fallen angel who derives its power from those trying to fight him. He has no power otherwise. The story of Job clarifies the situation. Job in his vision listens to God's voice: "what can we gain from trying to fight him?"
Taking heed, Job abandons the idea and God restores his previous existence with riches just as unheard as the poverty he had been condemned to in trying to make Satan important by fighting him stupidly. That's the purpose and meaning of the story of Job.

[cacian]

The nakedness symbolized innocence. The reason they took to wearing clothes was because they gained knowledge of good and evil, they felt guilty about their nakedness.

Naked is not innocent in my eyes. Naked is vulnerability because it exposes us to the element without nothing on us to say who we are.
I do not consider gaining good or evil. I see it as natural.
I only gain understanding and knowledge is something I develop through time and understanding.
I do not get given knowledge. I make knowledge then I am it.

[cafolini]

Snakies in my teeth indeedy
but i'm not so focking greedy. ~ William Burroughs

[SkyCetacean]

Naked is not innocent in my eyes. Naked is vulnerability because it exposes us to the element without nothing on us to say who we are.
I do not consider gaining good or evil. I see it as natural.
I only gain understanding and knowledge is something I develop through time and understanding.
I do not get given knowledge. I make knowledge then I am it.

But the Bible posits that nakedness is innocence, that good and evil were attained after eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (I'm not going to argue about whether the bible means that literally or figuratively, the point is that it was gained and not natural).

Your positions on the subject do not change the Bible's position on the subject.

[cacian]

But the Bible posits that nakedness is innocence, that good and evil were attained after eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (I'm not going to argue about whether the bible means that literally or figuratively, the point is that it was gained and not natural).

Your positions on the subject do not change the Bible's position on the subject.

Well the whole point of the bible is that you are able to challenge it.
In order words what is the point of a book if I am not to read it?
Reading is by definition absorbing words written which then are automatically put into question. Reading is art and art requires putting things into reformation meanings I would only agree that we have both read the same book if we have are to think differently of it.
There is no point of both us reading the same book if we are to agree the same about it too. It makes it pointless.
So the bible only begins when I scour it because everything in it is going to be questioned because I have read it.
I have no intention of changing the bible but I am definitely changing its meaning regardless of what it sets out to say. If the bible wants me to read then it should be prepare itself to be criticised like any other writers and books. The bible is no different. What is the role of a critic otherwise?
And so naked is vulnerability according to me whether the bible agrees with it or not.

[cacian]

snakies in my teeth indeedy
but i'm not so focking greedy. ~ william burroughs

lol ..

[namenlose]

I have no intention of changing the bible but I am definitely changing its meaning regardless of what it sets out to say. If the bible wants me to read then it should be prepare itself to be criticised like any other writers and books.

Changing the meaning of a book and criticizing it are two completely different things. You can't, as SkyCetacean stated, say the nakedness of Adam and Eve represented vulnerability and not innocence when the opposite is suggested in the book — or better, you can, but should not be taken seriously for it. However, you could argue that the intention of the work is distinct from the usual approaches towards it, but that would demand from you much effort and knowledge about the text you are commenting upon.

In other words, you can't decide how metaphors are utilized and you can't disagree with them, even though you can argue against interpretations and criticize the efficience of the original metaphors. In the case of Genesis, the argument is that the nudity of the first human beings represented a state of primal innocence, which became vulnerability after the perpetration of the first sin. Do you feel inclined to argue against this interpretation?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's God. He's the only constant through the new and old testament.

[namenlose]

I concur, although Christ is probably more important in the New Testament.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree.

[Ser Nevarc]

It's God. He's the only constant through the new and old testament.

Yep, totally consistent character. You got it!



Back on topic: to the OP, I don't know if we can call Satan the main character (or protagonist) of the Bible, but you're on the right track. Without him it wouldn't be much fun.