Undergoing review is the Theosophy article THE CHRISTIAN SCHEME—SATAN: JEHOVAH (Theosophy, Vol. 57, No. 7, May, 1969). Theosophy is an occult cult founded by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1875.
When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them here.
We will ultimately find out that Theosophists need to run their articles by a fact checker and a critical thinking reviewer since they fail on both accounts.
Coming from Theosophy, it is not surprising that Gnosticism is accepted as infallible, “Those who read them esoterically, are not reduced to fanciful speculations and hypothesis; they know how to read the symbolism therein contained, and cannot err.” Also, “Gnostic sects” that were “founded by an Initiate” contain “tenets [that] were based on the correct knowledge of the symbolism of every nation.”
Thus, they appeal to Gnosticism (and anything else they can selectively cite) as the premise for truth, as the article notes:
“IT is in the religious doctrines of the Gnostics that the real meaning of the Dragon, the Serpent, the Goat, and all those symbols of powers now called Evil, can be seen the best; as it is they who divulged the esoteric nature of the Jewish Substitute for AIN-SOPH in their teachings; of the true meaning of which the Rabbins concealed it, the Christians, with a few exceptions, knew nothing.”
From such faulty premises come faulty reasoning—and thus, will some faulty conclusions with a lot of stumbles along the way.
It is noted, “Surely Jesus of Nazareth would have hardly advised his apostles to show themselves as wise as the serpent, had the latter been a symbol of the Evil one” but it is quite simple: there is no reason to think that since Satan is described as a serpent then that means that anything serpentine is evil. Jesus was referring to an animal that possessed various great and good qualities: the original created kind of which was created by God Himself, by Jesus Himself.
We are told:
“…those who have faith in the Occult teachings believe that in the days of old there were such creatures as flying Dragons, or a kind of Pterodactyl, and that it is those gigantic winged lizards that served as the prototypes for the Seraph of Moses and his great Brazen Serpent.”
An endnote elucidates:
“See Numbers 21:8-9. God orders Moses to build a brazen Serpent ‘Saraph’; to look upon which heals those bitten by the fiery serpents. The latter were the Seraphim…the Brazen Serpent is Jehovah, the chief of the ‘fiery serpents.’ And yet, in II Kings 18, it is shown that King Hezekiah, who, like as David his father, ‘did that which was right in the sight of the Lord’ – ‘brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made … and called it Nehushtan,’ or piece of brass.”
The incoherence in these claims is really a very simple error. It is not “Serpent ‘Saraph’” but rather, serpent n.
Specifically, the reptiles that bit the people were “fiery serpents” which is saraph nachash.
Thus, saraph does not mean serpent but refers to them being fiery (not winged). The correlation to the paranormal beings Seraphim is not that both are reptilian but that both as fiery. How so?
In the case of serpents, this denotes that they are venomous since their bite causes a burning sensation—thus, fiery. In the case of the paranormal entities, they are seen in Isaiah 6, a Seraph (which is not described as having any reptilian features whatsoever) “had taken with the tongs from off the altar” which held a fire since it had “a live coal in his hand” and so they seem to be associated with fire being, as I term them, the keepers of the eternal flame, in a manner of speaking.
Thus, Moses made an image, it was later worshiped, so it was destroyed.
I wrote a whole chapter about Seraphim, which includes details on these issues, in my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.
We are also told:
“The appellation Sa’tan, in Hebrew sâtân, ‘an adversary’ (from the verb shatana, ‘to be adverse,’ to persecute) belongs by right to the first and cruellest ‘adversary of all the other gods’ — Jehovah, not to the Serpent, which spoke only words of sympathy and wisdom, and is at the worst, even in the dogma, ‘the adversary of men.’”
This denotes a form of the word-concept fallacy since, of course the one true God almighty of the Bible is satan—or rather, a satan. I state this at the basic level meaning of the word satan so that anytime God is adversarial against anything or anyone then He, by definition, is being a satan—that is the word. This is just like any human who is adversarial is being a satan when they are doing so.
Yet, this does not mean that the one true God almighty of the Bible is the ultimate personification of the adversary of humanity and God whom we call “Satan” among other terms/names—that is the concept.
The word-concept fallacy is to derive a concept from a word regardless of context. It is just looking up a word (which can have various definitions/usages) or its root (and the etymology can provide even more definitions/usages) and conclude that since X (selectively) means thus and such ergo, anything labeled X is thus and such.
For example, in modern day North America, I have been called a “giant” many, many, many times but that does not mean you can claim that I am the stuff of which tall tales are made since I am actually 6 ft. tall. The label (word) “giant” does not necessarily tell you much of anything about my height (concept)—especially in comparison to others.
It is asked and answered:
“…who was the first to create that original and henceforward universal tempter of man — the woman? Not the serpent surely, but the ‘Lord God’ himself, who, saying:– ‘It is not good that the man should be alone’ — made woman, and ‘brought her unto the man’ (Gen, 2:18, 22). If the unpleasant little incident that followed was and is still to be regarded as the ‘original sin,’ then it exhibits the Creator’s divine foresight in a poor light indeed. It would have been far better for the first Adam (of chap. 1) to have been left either ‘male and female,’ or ‘alone.’”
The article’s author does not think deeply enough to ponder who an omniscient being who exists beyond linear time interacts with it. He takes us through linear step-by-step experiences since that is how we function and learn.
The article also refers to this as the “Master’s and Creator’s blunder” that God would create a man alone, then note, “It is not good,” and then create a woman. Before Eve’s creation, Adam was tasked with naming animals but we are not told what he called them so, what is the point? It seems to be that animals were paraded before Adam so that he could realize that there was nothing like him. Thus, he is blown away when he first saw Eve. This was also about establishing a template for marriage.
By the way, as I wrote about in my book The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: and a History of Changes to Psychology and Psychiatry, they are tossing in the “have been left either ‘male and female’” term because they mistakenly think that originally, one dual-sexed being was created that later split. That is just a simple misunderstanding that Genesis 1 tells us about when God created, man and woman, male and female, Adam and Eve and Genesis 2 details when, where, how, etc.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.