Why did Lucifer and his angels rebel

[Stxitxchxes]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Stxitxchxes

Better question is where the basis of this belief in Satan rebelling comes from, as it's something the Jewish community has constantly looked at the Christian community for and gone, 'Huh?'

Mainly, from what I hear, the whole 'God cursing The Satan' for that forbidden fruit incident. It just doesn't seem very like God to punish people for following Him.

Chapter and Verse of the serpent being Satan, please, and then something else biblical to back up that states this as the spawn of the rebellion.

Protip: It's not there.  

[Stxitxchxes]

Tangled Up In Blue

Stxitxchxes

Better question is where the basis of this belief in Satan rebelling comes from, as it's something the Jewish community has constantly looked at the Christian community for and gone, 'Huh?'

I suspect it has to do with theodicy. Given that Satan's role in Christianity is that of a purveyor of evil, it's necessary for Christians to believe that he rebelled. Otherwise, he would be doing evil while still in the service of God, which would in turn lead to the conclusion that God actively works evil in the world. This is considered to be, shall we say, unacceptable.

Or, say, as Satan has been described in the Torah, and in numerous other Jewish texts, let alone his name meaning 'the Adversary', that Satan's purpose is to tempt man to evil, so that man has to work to be good and righteous. Something along the lines of G-d's sting operation on man to make him have to work to be free of sin, as a build upon being righteous being an active affair, not a passive one.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Stxitxchxes

Or, say, as Satan has been described in the Torah, and in numerous other Jewish texts, let alone his name meaning 'the Adversary', that Satan's purpose is to tempt man to evil, so that man has to work to be good and righteous. Something along the lines of G-d's sting operation on man to make him have to work to be free of sin, as a build upon being righteous being an active affair, not a passive one.

If God ordered The Satan to cause us to sin, how is that any different from me telling people to go out and sin. Like Tangled said, theodicy.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Stxitxchxes

Chapter and Verse of the serpent being Satan, please, and then something else biblical to back up that states this as the spawn of the rebellion.

Protip: It's not there.

Chapter and Verse of the messiah ever coming to earth.

Protip: it's not there. It has to be inferred through a non-literal interpretation of the text.

Chapter and Verse of God existing.

Protip: it's not there. It has to be inferred through a non-literal interpretation of the text.  

[Tarrou]

Stxitxchxes

Or, say, as Satan has been described in the Torah, and in numerous other Jewish texts, let alone his name meaning 'the Adversary', that Satan's purpose is to tempt man to evil, so that man has to work to be good and righteous. Something along the lines of G-d's sting operation on man to make him have to work to be free of sin, as a build upon being righteous being an active affair, not a passive one.

For the record, my reaction to the Christian idea of Satan tends to be 'Huh?' as well, although that has as much to do with my misanthropy as any theological considerations. My point is that, from my understanding of Christianity, the Jewish conception of Satan just isn't considered acceptable. Christians generally hold that God would never do anything evil, or tempt man to do evil, even by proxy. Never mind that a significant number of Christians hold to a theology that rejects the idea that man can work to be good or righteous. They are either made good and righteous or they are sinful and can never hope to do good. In such a system, there is no place for an adversary, and so you have Satan's shift from agent of God to rival.  

[Stxitxchxes]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Stxitxchxes

Chapter and Verse of the serpent being Satan, please, and then something else biblical to back up that states this as the spawn of the rebellion.

Protip: It's not there.

Chapter and Verse of the messiah ever coming to earth.

Protip: it's not there. It has to be inferred through a non-literal interpretation of the text.

Chapter and Verse of God existing.

Protip: it's not there. It has to be inferred through a non-literal interpretation of the text.

God Existing: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning of G-d's creating the heavens and the earth...

No non-literal interpretation needed, if you can commit an action, you exist as far as our perceiveable reality is concerned.

As for moshiach, if you're referring to prophecy of him coming:
Isaiah 11, the whole chapter. The only thing in it that requires any non-literal interpretation is the parable about the animals, and even then, it's conceiveable that it's meant to be somewhat literal.

Now, as for Satan being the serpent and there being anything biblical about the rebellion, this is a different matter. Satan is in no way mentioned in the parable of the serpent, and the rebellion doesn't have a single reference in the bible. There's no interpretation needed, because there are no logical lines to be drawn.  

[Stxitxchxes]

Tangled Up In Blue

Stxitxchxes

Or, say, as Satan has been described in the Torah, and in numerous other Jewish texts, let alone his name meaning 'the Adversary', that Satan's purpose is to tempt man to evil, so that man has to work to be good and righteous. Something along the lines of G-d's sting operation on man to make him have to work to be free of sin, as a build upon being righteous being an active affair, not a passive one.

For the record, my reaction to the Christian idea of Satan tends to be 'Huh?' as well, although that has as much to do with my misanthropy as any theological considerations. My point is that, from my understanding of Christianity, the Jewish conception of Satan just isn't considered acceptable. Christians generally hold that God would never do anything evil, or tempt man to do evil, even by proxy. Never mind that a significant number of Christians hold to a theology that rejects the idea that man can work to be good or righteous. They are either made good and righteous or they are sinful and can never hope to do good. In such a system, there is no place for an adversary, and so you have Satan's shift from agent of God to rival.

All fine and well, of course. The issue however is the theological problem with it. Philosophically, it's all sound. but Christianity, as the spawn of Judaism has created a theological conundrum out of this.  

[Jocken]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Stxitxchxes

Chapter and Verse of the serpent being Satan, please, and then something else biblical to back up that states this as the spawn of the rebellion.

Protip: It's not there.

Chapter and Verse of the messiah ever coming to earth.

Protip: it's not there. It has to be inferred through a non-literal interpretation of the text.

Chapter and Verse of God existing.

Protip: it's not there. It has to be inferred through a non-literal interpretation of the text.

It is a fallacy to say that just because there is often no good "literal" word-for-word translation from Hebrew to English that the two languages cannot say the same thing. Whether it says "א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ." or "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the ideas are not lost in the translation. Simply because languages are differently spoken and structured does not mean they are incapable of expressing the same ideas.  

[Aetherius Lamia]

hmmm... y'know, i always wondered where it talked in the Bible of Satan rebelling. I always figured it was Catholic dogma/doctrine/canon somewhere. (I say all three 'cause I'm not entirely sure what the difference between them is.)

y'know, at 1 am i should just read and not speak. g'night.  

[PoppyDadswell]

he wanted god's power.obviously god allowed angels free will too.  

[promised_child]

pride