Trinity

[bahman]

And what is an order parameter?

Order parameter like external parameters (for example, temperture, valume) is an messurable quality (like comprasibility).

So order parameters is a measurable quality yet we measure phenomenon according to their states. Liquids in liters, gas in liters and solids in weight. States determine how we measure thus states are meaurable.

To observe a state is to observe a corresponding means of measurement which comes with it. States are inseperable from means of measuring.

It is not states. That is contrary. It is single state in which the system is vapor and liquid at the same time for example. It is one state of affair in which the system is different from vapor and liquid.

[Eodnhoj7]

Order parameter like external parameters (for example, temperture, valume) is an messurable quality (like comprasibility).

So order parameters is a measurable quality yet we measure phenomenon according to their states. Liquids in liters, gas in liters and solids in weight. States determine how we measure thus states are meaurable.

To observe a state is to observe a corresponding means of measurement which comes with it. States are inseperable from means of measuring.

It is not states. That is contrary. It is single state in which the system is vapor and liquid at the same time for example. It is one state of affair in which the system is different from vapor and liquid.

H2O as having multiple states, coexisting such as liquid and vapor, necessitates one phenomenon may exist in multiple states at the same time.

State: "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time."
State Definition: Google

Solid, liquid gas are states of water and these states are each measurable respectively.

[Nick_A]

The main reason that the trinity is not understood is because of the normal modern tendency to use inductive or bottom up reason. Understnding the trinity requires deductive or top down reason.

Consider Plotinus ides of the ONE. It is ineffble and beyond time and space. We experience it through dunamis or natural influences.

Here is where it becomes difficult. How can we perceive of emanations coming from outside time and space and involve into creation within the ONE which is a lawful structure bounded by time and space?

The ONE doesn't change but at the same time intentionally divides into creation by means of the three forces necesssry for creation to interact. The ONE and creation within it simultaneously take place This produces the first step of creation called nous. The ONE IS while creation follows the lawful cyclical process of EXISTENCE within the ineffable ONE.

A person cannot begin to appreciate how ONE and Three simultaneously exist from the bottom up. Yet if a person sincerely contemplates with deductive reason it leads to understanding the whole universal structure. We can understand for example how the soul of Man originates further down the scale of creation around the level of the Sun and what conscious evolution for Man on earth returning to its origin is as a cosmological possibility.

[Eodnhoj7]

The main reason that the trinity is not understood is because of the normal modern tendency to use inductive or bottom up reason. Understnding the trinity requires deductive or top down reason.

Consider Plotinus ides of the ONE. It is ineffble and beyond time and space. We experience it through dunamis or natural influences.

Here is where it becomes difficult. How can we perceive of emanations coming from outside time and space and involve into creation within the ONE which is a lawful structure bounded by time and space?

The ONE doesn't change but at the same time intentionally divides into creation by means of the three forces necesssry for creation to interact. The ONE and creation within it simultaneously take place This produces the first step of creation called nous. The ONE IS while creation follows the lawful cyclical process of EXISTENCE within the ineffable ONE.

A person cannot begin to appreciate how ONE and Three simultaneously exist from the bottom up. Yet if a person sincerely contemplates with deductive reason it leads to understanding the whole universal structure. We can understand for example how the soul of Man originates further down the scale of creation around the level of the Sun and what conscious evolution for Man on earth returning to its origin is as a cosmological possibility.

All we understand of knowledge is assertions, and these assertions have a trinitarian nature.

1. All assertions contain underlying assertions from which they are derived, thus necessitating an underlying assertion which forms it. This results in all assertions, as deduced from another assertion, as being an inherent middle assertion.


2. All assertions invert from one assertion into another, thus necessitating an inherent emptiness to each individual assertion. This results in all assertions, as directing from one assertion to another, as being an inherently void assertion.

3. All assertions as repeating through other assertions and inherently empty, mandate the assertion as a contextual loop. All assertions, as both repetitive and empty, are a loop where each assertion is inherently a context.

[gaffo]

quite welcome.

there is good and bad in both the OT and NT (i hate Paul (Sual) BTW - i personally view him a an opportunist/phoney using sophistry-good language (no doubt he was a smart and learned man).

worthless books include Sauls works in the NT and at least Levitus (Haggi offer little too) in the OT.

others are worthy of reading.

overall i do prefer the OT (Minor Prophet's works - i do not value much of the Torah - i view it as mostly "political propaganda" to justify why/how the jews took land from the Amalakite/ammontes/etc.............but parts of the Torah i do like - mostly Genesis story myself)

of the OT, i do value Amos the most, then close seconds for me are Jonah (champions Univseral Humanisn over tribalism - and written to counter Ezra's filth (Ezra's work is crap BTW - IMO - forced divorces bet jews and non - after just showing up after being gone for 70 yrs prior), and Job.

I do like Zachariah too (written at the same time as Haggi) - and around the same time as Ezra's screed.

of the NT, honestly, i do not dissike any of the works outside of Saul's (because i doubt that authors character - even if hes says some thing i may agree with - my suspision of his character makes me doubt what he says).

I'm neutral on most of the NT - there is nothing in the NT is evil is the stuff in Leviticus/Ezra.

but of the NT, i can only relate and value the Gospel of Mark - just becuase the main character - jesus - seems like a good man put into a situation beyond his control (and so seems like a person i would like and relate to as one like me).

------------

there other "books" outside the Canon, which IMO are worthy and should have been included in the "bible"

Jubaless i like the most (its theology of the "fall" corrupting all of the animal kingdom WRT to man - where when man was one of the animals he could talk to the animals and vise versa, but after the "Fall" carnivores were created - lions stopped eating straw and instead of sleeping with lambs - ate then (and man no longer could "talk" to animals/or vise versa).

BTW Jesus' references to the "kingdom of God" (the end days/final day/day of YHWH/etc)..the lion and lamb with sleep together (so no more carnivores) - i think Jesus' affirmed and know of the book of Jubaless - written 200 yrs before his time (no in the canon today - not in the Jew's nor Christian - but valued in his time as authorative).

Enoch - both the "book of" and "the secrets" of were others which are worthy, but "lost" via history and excluded in the canon.

as well as The Shepard of Hermis, a work worthy of inclusion in the Bible, but not included.

the didiche is another one BTW - worthy but excluded.

thanks for reply Sir!

Thanks for letting me know your opinion about books.

you are quite welcome Sir, "the bible" is a work of 70 different folks over 12 centuries - all with different characters and motives - writing to an audience of thier time.

if you keep those things in mind, it offers perspectives (not The Truth - lol) - but perspectives for stuff (some stuff only relivent to folks living in societies long dead, other times stuff that is timeless and of value to you and me here and now).

-- other works are the same - Koran, Bagivad Gita, Vig Veda/etc..............on person or culture has a monopoly on merit or crap - all share equally - all "holy books have both" - we all have a mind to read and determine which books offer only shit (Liviticus - IMO) or widsom.

peace and thanks for reply

[bahman]

quite welcome.

there is good and bad in both the OT and NT (i hate Paul (Sual) BTW - i personally view him a an opportunist/phoney using sophistry-good language (no doubt he was a smart and learned man).

worthless books include Sauls works in the NT and at least Levitus (Haggi offer little too) in the OT.

others are worthy of reading.

overall i do prefer the OT (Minor Prophet's works - i do not value much of the Torah - i view it as mostly "political propaganda" to justify why/how the jews took land from the Amalakite/ammontes/etc.............but parts of the Torah i do like - mostly Genesis story myself)

of the OT, i do value Amos the most, then close seconds for me are Jonah (champions Univseral Humanisn over tribalism - and written to counter Ezra's filth (Ezra's work is crap BTW - IMO - forced divorces bet jews and non - after just showing up after being gone for 70 yrs prior), and Job.

I do like Zachariah too (written at the same time as Haggi) - and around the same time as Ezra's screed.

of the NT, honestly, i do not dissike any of the works outside of Saul's (because i doubt that authors character - even if hes says some thing i may agree with - my suspision of his character makes me doubt what he says).

I'm neutral on most of the NT - there is nothing in the NT is evil is the stuff in Leviticus/Ezra.

but of the NT, i can only relate and value the Gospel of Mark - just becuase the main character - jesus - seems like a good man put into a situation beyond his control (and so seems like a person i would like and relate to as one like me).

------------

there other "books" outside the Canon, which IMO are worthy and should have been included in the "bible"

Jubaless i like the most (its theology of the "fall" corrupting all of the animal kingdom WRT to man - where when man was one of the animals he could talk to the animals and vise versa, but after the "Fall" carnivores were created - lions stopped eating straw and instead of sleeping with lambs - ate then (and man no longer could "talk" to animals/or vise versa).

BTW Jesus' references to the "kingdom of God" (the end days/final day/day of YHWH/etc)..the lion and lamb with sleep together (so no more carnivores) - i think Jesus' affirmed and know of the book of Jubaless - written 200 yrs before his time (no in the canon today - not in the Jew's nor Christian - but valued in his time as authorative).

Enoch - both the "book of" and "the secrets" of were others which are worthy, but "lost" via history and excluded in the canon.

as well as The Shepard of Hermis, a work worthy of inclusion in the Bible, but not included.

the didiche is another one BTW - worthy but excluded.

thanks for reply Sir!

Thanks for letting me know your opinion about books.

you are quite welcome Sir, "the bible" is a work of 70 different folks over 12 centuries - all with different characters and motives - writing to an audience of thier time.

if you keep those things in mind, it offers perspectives (not The Truth - lol) - but perspectives for stuff (some stuff only relivent to folks living in societies long dead, other times stuff that is timeless and of value to you and me here and now).

-- other works are the same - Koran, Bagivad Gita, Vig Veda/etc..............on person or culture has a monopoly on merit or crap - all share equally - all "holy books have both" - we all have a mind to read and determine which books offer only shit (Liviticus - IMO) or widsom.

peace and thanks for reply

Thank you for the information.

[gaffo]

Thanks for letting me know your opinion about books.

you are quite welcome Sir, "the bible" is a work of 70 different folks over 12 centuries - all with different characters and motives - writing to an audience of thier time.

if you keep those things in mind, it offers perspectives (not The Truth - lol) - but perspectives for stuff (some stuff only relivent to folks living in societies long dead, other times stuff that is timeless and of value to you and me here and now).

-- other works are the same - Koran, Bagivad Gita, Vig Veda/etc..............on person or culture has a monopoly on merit or crap - all share equally - all "holy books have both" - we all have a mind to read and determine which books offer only shit (Liviticus - IMO) or widsom.

peace and thanks for reply

Thank you for the information.

welcome again.

Amos the oldest surviving OT book (oral stories in Genesis are older - but the writing down of are around the time of Amos - maybe newer), Amos is also my personal favorite of all the works in the "Bible" (and utterly ignored). as is my second fav Jonah (much newer - probably around 200 BC (Amos is 800 BC) - also ignored generally.

at least my 3rd fav - Job (written around 250 BC - give or take a 1/2 century each side - there are no "markers" (mentioning of events to fixate when written is when is vague (BTW most Christians and Jews think it is much older - as old as Amos, due to it preamble (where Satan is one of the Caanite Heavenly court on par with YHWH - offering a Wager/etc) - IMO the author of Job write the preamble in "old style" like a poet - not doctrinally (why i think this? because: first off there was no "Satan" in Amo's time 800 BC - just YHWH and "other gods - none of which were Satan" - other god's per Amos' view existed, only not to be worshiped (for other foriengers to do so if they wish - prob they should denounce and turn to the one true YHWH - you get my point)

Secondly (after Satan as an evil being did not exist in older writtings of the OT, the fact he is written about in Job - unlike Amos - shows the former work is newer.

and it newer than Zarchariah - where Satan is first mentioned (that work was written around 500 BC, where Satan is not evil but a "prosecuting attourny" - a tester of the faithfull. (yes i know in Job Satan plays the same role - but in Job Satan is half way evil, unile Zach's work (Satan is Arhiaman(sp) - who was a deity adopted by the Jews after their captivity by the Persians in 587 BC and return by the Perians 70 yrs later.

I know Job is newer than Zach due to Satan's character being less Godly (in Zack he serves God - barely mentioned too - by Job he is a central figure and less godly too (he places a wager with God about Job - the act of placing a wager makes the assumption that Satan and God are not on the same side! - so by the time Job was written the view of Satan as a Prosecuting Attourny was no longer the view of most Jews as it was in Zack's time)

so that means Job must have been written after Zachariah - so post 500 BC................................and as i said the work of Job does not offer a timeline (there is no historical references - unlike Zach where that author talks all about the bullding of the 2 temple (so that means zack was written shorty after the Jews were freed by the Persians - Zach also mention Zarrabell is become the Jews great white Hope of liberaltion ( i suspect Zar might have let that idea expand his head, and the Persians killed him shortly after Zach's work - for there is no mention of Zar later in any work - and the Persians of course after defeating the Babylonians and freeing the Jews in captivity had a national interest in allowing semi- autounony - but not true freedom of the Jews - but rather a puppet state with tribute).

I do not think Job is say - 450 BC (nearly as old as Zach) - because, though Zar died (killed?) - either way he failed to liberate Israel, but the Israelis did live under Persian rule from 500 BC until the Macabeen brothers freed them around 100 BC.

I personally think Job was written due to the fact that the Jews know about Zarribabbel's failure, and that the Persians freed them from the Babylonians 250 centuries prior, but by 250 BC were questioning their own Faith (way are we a colony of Persia still after all these years? - after being "Freed" by Darius (Persian King that freed them from Babylions all those many centuries earlier).

I think the Jews were near the point of loosing there Faith - starting to think there God YHWH must be evil to allow thier occupation by a foreign empire (Persia), this loss of Faith took 2 centuries, and by the 250 BC i think it as critical, and the author of Job wrote his work to address it.

he answered it by saying there is not anwser as to why our god allows us to be rule over by an evil empire (nor why a moral god allows such evil)

instead accept it and be humble.

I guess his message worked, Judiasm did not die out and a century later the Machabees took control of Israel for a century or so (until the Greeks took it over) - then later the jews are independent - until the Romans - after taking over the Greeks retook Israel.


thanks for reply.

[bahman]

you are quite welcome Sir, "the bible" is a work of 70 different folks over 12 centuries - all with different characters and motives - writing to an audience of thier time.

if you keep those things in mind, it offers perspectives (not The Truth - lol) - but perspectives for stuff (some stuff only relivent to folks living in societies long dead, other times stuff that is timeless and of value to you and me here and now).

-- other works are the same - Koran, Bagivad Gita, Vig Veda/etc..............on person or culture has a monopoly on merit or crap - all share equally - all "holy books have both" - we all have a mind to read and determine which books offer only shit (Liviticus - IMO) or widsom.

peace and thanks for reply

Thank you for the information.

welcome again.

Amos the oldest surviving OT book (oral stories in Genesis are older - but the writing down of are around the time of Amos - maybe newer), Amos is also my personal favorite of all the works in the "Bible" (and utterly ignored). as is my second fav Jonah (much newer - probably around 200 BC (Amos is 800 BC) - also ignored generally.

at least my 3rd fav - Job (written around 250 BC - give or take a 1/2 century each side - there are no "markers" (mentioning of events to fixate when written is when is vague (BTW most Christians and Jews think it is much older - as old as Amos, due to it preamble (where Satan is one of the Caanite Heavenly court on par with YHWH - offering a Wager/etc) - IMO the author of Job write the preamble in "old style" like a poet - not doctrinally (why i think this? because: first off there was no "Satan" in Amo's time 800 BC - just YHWH and "other gods - none of which were Satan" - other god's per Amos' view existed, only not to be worshiped (for other foriengers to do so if they wish - prob they should denounce and turn to the one true YHWH - you get my point)

Secondly (after Satan as an evil being did not exist in older writtings of the OT, the fact he is written about in Job - unlike Amos - shows the former work is newer.

and it newer than Zarchariah - where Satan is first mentioned (that work was written around 500 BC, where Satan is not evil but a "prosecuting attourny" - a tester of the faithfull. (yes i know in Job Satan plays the same role - but in Job Satan is half way evil, unile Zach's work (Satan is Arhiaman(sp) - who was a deity adopted by the Jews after their captivity by the Persians in 587 BC and return by the Perians 70 yrs later.

I know Job is newer than Zach due to Satan's character being less Godly (in Zack he serves God - barely mentioned too - by Job he is a central figure and less godly too (he places a wager with God about Job - the act of placing a wager makes the assumption that Satan and God are not on the same side! - so by the time Job was written the view of Satan as a Prosecuting Attourny was no longer the view of most Jews as it was in Zack's time)

so that means Job must have been written after Zachariah - so post 500 BC................................and as i said the work of Job does not offer a timeline (there is no historical references - unlike Zach where that author talks all about the bullding of the 2 temple (so that means zack was written shorty after the Jews were freed by the Persians - Zach also mention Zarrabell is become the Jews great white Hope of liberaltion ( i suspect Zar might have let that idea expand his head, and the Persians killed him shortly after Zach's work - for there is no mention of Zar later in any work - and the Persians of course after defeating the Babylonians and freeing the Jews in captivity had a national interest in allowing semi- autounony - but not true freedom of the Jews - but rather a puppet state with tribute).

I do not think Job is say - 450 BC (nearly as old as Zach) - because, though Zar died (killed?) - either way he failed to liberate Israel, but the Israelis did live under Persian rule from 500 BC until the Macabeen brothers freed them around 100 BC.

I personally think Job was written due to the fact that the Jews know about Zarribabbel's failure, and that the Persians freed them from the Babylonians 250 centuries prior, but by 250 BC were questioning their own Faith (way are we a colony of Persia still after all these years? - after being "Freed" by Darius (Persian King that freed them from Babylions all those many centuries earlier).

I think the Jews were near the point of loosing there Faith - starting to think there God YHWH must be evil to allow thier occupation by a foreign empire (Persia), this loss of Faith took 2 centuries, and by the 250 BC i think it as critical, and the author of Job wrote his work to address it.

he answered it by saying there is not anwser as to why our god allows us to be rule over by an evil empire (nor why a moral god allows such evil)

instead accept it and be humble.

I guess his message worked, Judiasm did not die out and a century later the Machabees took control of Israel for a century or so (until the Greeks took it over) - then later the jews are independent - until the Romans - after taking over the Greeks retook Israel.


thanks for reply.

Nice reading. By the way, since when Satan was accepted as an evil character?

[gaffo]

Nice reading. By the way, since when Satan was accepted as an evil character?
[/quote]

Satan first shows up - serving YHWH but testing man (a tester of man's faith in God) in Zach's work (~ 500 BC)

Job was ~250 latter work (250 BC) - IMO. in it Satan is still playing the same role - tester of man's faith - but he seems more shady - Satan's role is more front and center, no longer serving YHWH, but challenging him via a wager (YHWH "wins" the challenge - but in Zach's work - where Satan is a VERY Minor character and mentioned literally 2-3 sentances........there is no "wining" involved, instead YHWH send Satan down to convict Zach is ungodly, Zach claims he is and both Satan and his God YHWH are glad for it). Unlike in Job where Satan is actiong in the same role (the accuser) - but for Himself, not for YHWH and Satan loses the "bet".

Job is a transition work - written when the doctrine of who/what Satan was - acting for god or against god? - in effect his actions as accuser is still the same as his early role found is Zach, but his nature has changed to one of self interest to win a bet agains God - so not actually serving God (but as the author of Job says in the preamble, where YHWH and Satan are both in heaven - they are more like crabby associates - not mortal ememies - so Satan and YHWH by Job time might not like each other, but that are not enimies (YHWH love man, Satan hates man (here is where Satan in job differs from Zach's work).

By the time Dead Sea Scrolls (150 BC) were written (War Scroll) Satan (they call him Belial (same deity)). Satan is evil and at war not only with man but with God too.

and of course by Jesus' time, all mention of Satan is evil incarnate is fully affirmed by all Jews of that time.

..............

so to answer your question (finally - lol), i'd say Satan became the enemy of God and evil incarnate by 200 BC.

I'm an Atheist BTW - not that it matters for me as a person - but so you know i do not believe in the deity of Satan nor YHWH = i just have always loved theology and how it changes via historical evolution.

[bahman]

Nice reading. By the way, since when Satan was accepted as an evil character?

Satan first shows up - serving YHWH but testing man (a tester of man's faith in God) in Zach's work (~ 500 BC)

Job was ~250 latter work (250 BC) - IMO. in it Satan is still playing the same role - tester of man's faith - but he seems more shady - Satan's role is more front and center, no longer serving YHWH, but challenging him via a wager (YHWH "wins" the challenge - but in Zach's work - where Satan is a VERY Minor character and mentioned literally 2-3 sentances........there is no "wining" involved, instead YHWH send Satan down to convict Zach is ungodly, Zach claims he is and both Satan and his God YHWH are glad for it). Unlike in Job where Satan is actiong in the same role (the accuser) - but for Himself, not for YHWH and Satan loses the "bet".

Job is a transition work - written when the doctrine of who/what Satan was - acting for god or against god? - in effect his actions as accuser is still the same as his early role found is Zach, but his nature has changed to one of self interest to win a bet agains God - so not actually serving God (but as the author of Job says in the preamble, where YHWH and Satan are both in heaven - they are more like crabby associates - not mortal ememies - so Satan and YHWH by Job time might not like each other, but that are not enimies (YHWH love man, Satan hates man (here is where Satan in job differs from Zach's work).

By the time Dead Sea Scrolls (150 BC) were written (War Scroll) Satan (they call him Belial (same deity)). Satan is evil and at war not only with man but with God too.

and of course by Jesus' time, all mention of Satan is evil incarnate is fully affirmed by all Jews of that time.

..............

so to answer your question (finally - lol), i'd say Satan became the enemy of God and evil incarnate by 200 BC.

I'm an Atheist BTW - not that it matters for me as a person - but so you know i do not believe in the deity of Satan nor YHWH = i just have always loved theology and how it changes via historical evolution.

Thanks for your writing.

[gaffo]

Nice reading. By the way, since when Satan was accepted as an evil character?

Satan first shows up - serving YHWH but testing man (a tester of man's faith in God) in Zach's work (~ 500 BC)

Job was ~250 latter work (250 BC) - IMO. in it Satan is still playing the same role - tester of man's faith - but he seems more shady - Satan's role is more front and center, no longer serving YHWH, but challenging him via a wager (YHWH "wins" the challenge - but in Zach's work - where Satan is a VERY Minor character and mentioned literally 2-3 sentances........there is no "wining" involved, instead YHWH send Satan down to convict Zach is ungodly, Zach claims he is and both Satan and his God YHWH are glad for it). Unlike in Job where Satan is actiong in the same role (the accuser) - but for Himself, not for YHWH and Satan loses the "bet".

Job is a transition work - written when the doctrine of who/what Satan was - acting for god or against god? - in effect his actions as accuser is still the same as his early role found is Zach, but his nature has changed to one of self interest to win a bet agains God - so not actually serving God (but as the author of Job says in the preamble, where YHWH and Satan are both in heaven - they are more like crabby associates - not mortal ememies - so Satan and YHWH by Job time might not like each other, but that are not enimies (YHWH love man, Satan hates man (here is where Satan in job differs from Zach's work).

By the time Dead Sea Scrolls (150 BC) were written (War Scroll) Satan (they call him Belial (same deity)). Satan is evil and at war not only with man but with God too.

and of course by Jesus' time, all mention of Satan is evil incarnate is fully affirmed by all Jews of that time.

..............

so to answer your question (finally - lol), i'd say Satan became the enemy of God and evil incarnate by 200 BC.

I'm an Atheist BTW - not that it matters for me as a person - but so you know i do not believe in the deity of Satan nor YHWH = i just have always loved theology and how it changes via historical evolution.

Thanks for your writing.

quite welcome Sir/Madam - which? for future reference via conversation's sake.

[bahman]

Satan first shows up - serving YHWH but testing man (a tester of man's faith in God) in Zach's work (~ 500 BC)

Job was ~250 latter work (250 BC) - IMO. in it Satan is still playing the same role - tester of man's faith - but he seems more shady - Satan's role is more front and center, no longer serving YHWH, but challenging him via a wager (YHWH "wins" the challenge - but in Zach's work - where Satan is a VERY Minor character and mentioned literally 2-3 sentances........there is no "wining" involved, instead YHWH send Satan down to convict Zach is ungodly, Zach claims he is and both Satan and his God YHWH are glad for it). Unlike in Job where Satan is actiong in the same role (the accuser) - but for Himself, not for YHWH and Satan loses the "bet".

Job is a transition work - written when the doctrine of who/what Satan was - acting for god or against god? - in effect his actions as accuser is still the same as his early role found is Zach, but his nature has changed to one of self interest to win a bet agains God - so not actually serving God (but as the author of Job says in the preamble, where YHWH and Satan are both in heaven - they are more like crabby associates - not mortal ememies - so Satan and YHWH by Job time might not like each other, but that are not enimies (YHWH love man, Satan hates man (here is where Satan in job differs from Zach's work).

By the time Dead Sea Scrolls (150 BC) were written (War Scroll) Satan (they call him Belial (same deity)). Satan is evil and at war not only with man but with God too.

and of course by Jesus' time, all mention of Satan is evil incarnate is fully affirmed by all Jews of that time.

..............

so to answer your question (finally - lol), i'd say Satan became the enemy of God and evil incarnate by 200 BC.

I'm an Atheist BTW - not that it matters for me as a person - but so you know i do not believe in the deity of Satan nor YHWH = i just have always loved theology and how it changes via historical evolution.

Thanks for your writing.

quite welcome Sir/Madam - which? for future reference via conversation's sake.

I would be happy to be called bahman. Bahman means an angel with good dead. I am male though.

[gaffo]

Thanks for your writing.

quite welcome Sir/Madam - which? for future reference via conversation's sake.

I would be happy to be called bahman. Bahman means an angel with good dead. I am male though.

Thanks for the clarification Sir. Angel huh? that kewl, Angels (the watchers) serve The Good. per the bible AFAIK the angels are male.

Jubalees - angels saw the fair mortal ladies and had intercorse with, and so polluted the earth and so YHWH sent his wrath (flood) to cleans (see also the verse in Genesis about this - "sons of god (angels) with the daughters of me and begot giants (Niphilim) and men of renoun"

-- though there are Succubuses and of course Lilith - but IMO these beings are creations of latter middle ages and not found in the original works of the "bible" or the appocripha. i.e the original works of judao christian and muslim books when mentioning angels, they are male.

thank for reply BTW

[bahman]

quite welcome Sir/Madam - which? for future reference via conversation's sake.

I would be happy to be called bahman. Bahman means an angel with good dead. I am male though.

Thanks for the clarification Sir. Angel huh? that kewl, Angels (the watchers) serve The Good. per the bible AFAIK the angels are male.

Jubalees - angels saw the fair mortal ladies and had intercorse with, and so polluted the earth and so YHWH sent his wrath (flood) to cleans (see also the verse in Genesis about this - "sons of god (angels) with the daughters of me and begot giants (Niphilim) and men of renoun"

-- though there are Succubuses and of course Lilith - but IMO these beings are creations of latter middle ages and not found in the original works of the "bible" or the appocripha. i.e the original works of judao christian and muslim books when mentioning angels, they are male.

thank for reply BTW

Oh, I don't remember doing those things. Thanks for writing.

[gaffo]

I would be happy to be called bahman. Bahman means an angel with good dead. I am male though.

Thanks for the clarification Sir. Angel huh? that kewl, Angels (the watchers) serve The Good. per the bible AFAIK the angels are male.

Jubalees - angels saw the fair mortal ladies and had intercorse with, and so polluted the earth and so YHWH sent his wrath (flood) to cleans (see also the verse in Genesis about this - "sons of god (angels) with the daughters of me and begot giants (Niphilim) and men of renoun"

-- though there are Succubuses and of course Lilith - but IMO these beings are creations of latter middle ages and not found in the original works of the "bible" or the appocripha. i.e the original works of judao christian and muslim books when mentioning angels, they are male.

thank for reply BTW

Oh, I don't remember doing those things. Thanks for writing.

well..........maybe you should get out more and partake............or not.....just saying.

you are welcome BTW.