Re: Satan, etc.
- --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>Of course, we have yet to see the finished product, but once the
> When it comes to the issue of Satan and Lucifer (which are not
> necessarily the same thing), we have to be even more careful. The
> fact that some Gnostic texts (not all) viewed the serpent in the
> Garden as good does not make for much of a connection with modern
> understanding of the myth. For one, the texts that do see the
> serpent as good to not equate the serpent with "Satan". In fact,
> off the top of my head I can't think of any Gnostic texts that even
> mention "Satan". We have to understand that in those days it was
> not an obvious connection between the serpent and Satan as it is
> for modern Christians.
Gospel of Judas is fully available in reliable form for our
inspection, we may well find use of "Satan" near the opening of those
pages. As you may recall from the facsimiles we've seen, it appears
at least once as a parenthetical notation in the drafts "released"
thus far (along with other Greek terms NOT of Coptic origin), so I
would assume that the name actually appears in the text. As you
point out though, that usage still portrays this "Satanas" in a very
negative light, and as clearly NOT stemming from the "family line" of
the Father and Allogenes.