Origin and Evolution of Satan (hell, angels, etc) from all points of view

[SerenityLives]

Hello all, I guess this is a spinoff from Origin of Christian God. Thanks to awareness, I have been doing some research on this topic. Feel free to start discussing regarding this topic. Some questions to start off are- were Lucifer and the Devil the same?; who was really the serpent in Genesis? Why is Satan protrayed differently in book of Job as opposed to later medieval views to his relation to Hell and Rebellion? How can these concepts be juxtaposed with other religions view of an adversary or a main bad guy? Feel free to ask and/or answer and add to the questions as needed.

P. S Quoting and introducing any non canonical bible book or other religious sources are welcome!

[ExChurchKid]

I've been interested in the Church of Satan (sorry, if you want more discussion on the ancient origins, feel free to ignore me, but I figured the Church of Satan would be a good place to get a modern viewpoint on him). From their website:


Founded on April 30, 1966 c.e. by Anton Szandor LaVey, we are the first above-ground organization in history openly dedicated to the acceptance of Man’s true nature—that of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our existence. To us, Satan is the symbol that best suits the nature of we who are carnal by birth—people who feel no battles raging between our thoughts and feelings, we who do not embrace the concept of a soul imprisoned in a body. He represents pride, liberty, and individualism—qualities often defined as Evil by those who worship external deities, who feel there is a war between their minds and emotions.
We Satanists are thus our own “Gods,” and as beneficent “deities” we can offer love to those who deserve it and deliver our wrath (within reasonable limits) upon those who seek to cause us—or that which we cherish—harm.


Side note: honestly, this sounds better than a lot of Christian pitches I've heard. Maybe I'm a Satanist?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

I've been interested in the Church of Satan (sorry, if you want more discussion on the ancient origins, feel free to ignore me, but I figured the Church of Satan would be a good place to get a modern viewpoint on him). From their website:


Founded on April 30, 1966 c.e. by Anton Szandor LaVey, we are the first above-ground organization in history openly dedicated to the acceptance of Man’s true nature—that of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our existence. To us, Satan is the symbol that best suits the nature of we who are carnal by birth—people who feel no battles raging between our thoughts and feelings, we who do not embrace the concept of a soul imprisoned in a body. He represents pride, liberty, and individualism—qualities often defined as Evil by those who worship external deities, who feel there is a war between their minds and emotions.
We Satanists are thus our own “Gods,” and as beneficent “deities” we can offer love to those who deserve it and deliver our wrath (within reasonable limits) upon those who seek to cause us—or that which we cherish—harm.


Side note: honestly, this sounds better than a lot of Christian pitches I've heard. Maybe I'm a Satanist?

Liberty and individualism? Sounds like the American Constitution 😂. But yes I agree we are like gods in our wisdom, and it basically follows the golden rule- Do unto others what you would want them to do to you. Satan was originally just another deity/angel in Jewish mythology. He was part of God’s Council. He was the one that would bring people or other beings to stand trial in God’s divine court. In the non-canonical books and agnostic books, Satan is portrayed very differently. Lucifer was a different character than Satan and was only combined into the “Devil” in the Middle Ages. It wasnt until much later that the “Serpent” in the Garden of Eden was also combined into the character of Satan/Devil. In Jewish mythology, the serpent was just an animal like any other in the garden, not an evil angel disguised. Lucifer’s name meant “Morningstar”, as did Jesus. God considered him a “lawyer” type figure by comparing viewpoints rgarding the character of Job in the Bible. BTw , Job is the oldest book in the entire bible, older than Genesis.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hello all, I guess this is a spinoff from Origin of Christian God. Thanks to awareness, I have been doing some research on this topic. Feel free to start discussing regarding this topic. Some questions to start off are- were Lucifer and the Devil the same?; who was really the serpent in Genesis? Why is Satan protrayed differently in book of Job as opposed to later medieval views to his relation to Hell and Rebellion? How can these concepts be juxtaposed with other religions view of an adversary or a main bad guy? Feel free to ask and/or answer and add to the questions as needed.

P. S Quoting and introducing any non canonical bible book or other religious sources are welcome!

This a big subject. Seems God went thru changes with Jesus, in that, he wasn't as devilish as He was in the OT.

And Satan went thru changes in the opposite direction, from a high ranking son of God, and in his inner circle counsel, to the Satan that temps Jesus in the wilderness, and to entering into Judas to betray Jesus. Then in Revelation a dragon, old serpent, the Devil, and Satan.

That's quite a devolution.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

This a big subject. Seems God went thru changes with Jesus, in that, he wasn't as devilish as He was in the OT.

And Satan went thru changes in the opposite direction, from a high ranking son of God, and in his inner circle counsel, to the Satan that temps Jesus in the wilderness, and to entering into Judas to betray Jesus. Then in Revelation a dragon, old serpent, the Devil, and Satan.

That's quite a devolution.

Yep, at least we might not have to worry about the evangelicals coming on here since they do believe Satan has an origin. But I dont want to jinx myself anymore.

And correct, I meant devolution. I guess there always has to be a nemesis in any religion, including Christianity. Thats why the fact that some on this forum think christianity has no myths is preposterous.

[zeek]

Historically, the transformation of Satan from the earlier Hebrew texts to the later ones and the New Testament ones seem to have been related to their exposure to Zoroastrianism during the Second Temple period.

During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[27][8][28] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][29] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8] In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ha-Satan in Job and Zechariah is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament from which the English word "devil" is derived.[30] Where satan is used to refer to human enemies in the Hebrew Bible, such as Hadad the Edomite and Rezon the Syrian, the word is left untranslated but transliterated in the Greek as satan, a neologism in Greek.[30]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Second_Temple_period

[SerenityLives]

i’ll post later tonight

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

i’ll post later tonight

So I’ve been reading this book sent by awareness and its interesting that the character of Satan developed over time to accomodate the political climate between the Israelites under Roman authority. Mark wrote that Jesus’ death was due to Satan sabotaging God’s plan and I guess it became to be read that way, but in reality, Jesus’ death was due to the Romans putting him to death. The Jews didnt want to get into any trouble writing bad stuff about the Romans so they created supernatural symbolism of the conflict between God and Satan to depict Jesus’ life and death on the cross

[zeek]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So I’ve been reading this book sent by awareness and its interesting that the character of Satan developed over time to accomodate the political climate between the Israelites under Roman authority. Mark wrote that Jesus’ death was due to Satan sabotaging God’s plan and I guess it became to be read that way, but in reality, Jesus’ death was due to the Romans putting him to death. The Jews didnt want to get into any trouble writing bad stuff about the Romans so they created supernatural symbolism of the conflict between God and Satan to depict Jesus’ life and death on the cross

So you think that the Gospel writers didn't actually believe what they wrote about Satan?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you think that the Gospel writers didn't actually believe what they wrote about Satan?

I actually am not sure what to think. The book Awareness sent me was “The Origin of Satan” by Elaine Pagels. I’m only twenty pages in but he has told me he does not agree with some of the points made in the book. But I think it may be a plausibility that the gospel writers made it up. After all, Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, his name literally means betrayer or something like that. I dont think he was a real person but maybe evil personified.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I actually am not sure what to think. The book Awareness sent me was “The Origin of Satan” by Elaine Pagels. I’m only twenty pages in but he has told me he does not agree with some of the points made in the book. But I think it may be a plausibility that the gospel writers made it up. After all, Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, his name literally means betrayer or something like that. I dont think he was a real person but maybe evil personified.

I think it's time we get Funky ; as in Robert Funk and The Five Gospels :
The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus Paperback –

I think I've got two copies. I'll try to find 'em, and will send a copy to you. It's by the Jesus Seminar. They break the five gospels - the Gospel of Thomas - into four colors ; Black, Gray, Pink, and Red ; black means Jesus didn't say it, and Red that he did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I actually am not sure what to think. The book Awareness sent me was “The Origin of Satan” by Elaine Pagels. I’m only twenty pages in but he has told me he does not agree with some of the points made in the book. But I think it may be a plausibility that the gospel writers made it up. After all, Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, his name literally means betrayer or something like that. I dont think he was a real person but maybe evil personified.

What one thinks about this entails a philosophy of religion. Are religious symbols like Satan and God invented by people due to social political forces or perhaps economic forces if you're a Marxist? To say that the New Testament writers invented the Satan narrative to exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus implies as much. Doesn't it? And how far down can we go with this kind of historical hypothesizing? We know some things about the social political facts of the time. But what would do we really know about the writer of the Gospel of Mark for instance? At what point does knowledge shade into guesswork? What are the limits of the historical method for understanding the Bible? Cuz life is short and we're already living it, and we need to answer now.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What one thinks about this entails a philosophy of religion. Are religious symbols like Satan and God invented by people due to social political forces or perhaps economic forces if you're a Marxist? To say that the New Testament writers invented the Satan narrative to exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus implies as much. Doesn't it? And how far down can we go with this kind of historical hypothesizing? We know some things about the social political facts of the time. But what would do we really know about the writer of the Gospel of Mark for instance? At what point does knowledge shade into guesswork? What are the limits of the historical method for understanding the Bible? Cuz life is short and we're already living it, and we need to answer now.

Silly boy ... there's a monster in the closet, and under the bed. That's when we were kids. But grown-ups require a bigger monster, a universal monster, with greater power than the monster in the closet.

Satan is a very handy tool. He not only deflects blame from God, but explains the unexplainable bad things that happen, and our bad behavior.

Plus, we are duty bound to God to defeat Satan whenever encountered, or when we need it.

A despicable example : we used Satan to kill and take land from the Native Americans. It was obvious by how they danced around the fire that they were worshipping the devil, plus they weren't people of The Book. We had to do it for God.

Satan is handy like that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Silly boy ... there's a monster in the closet, and under the bed. That's when we were kids. But grown-ups require a bigger monster, a universal monster, with greater power than the monster in the closet.

Satan is a very handy tool. He not only deflects blame from God, but explains the unexplainable bad things that happen, and our bad behavior.

Plus, we are duty bound to God to defeat Satan whenever encountered, or when we need it.

A despicable example : we used Satan to kill and take land from the Native Americans. It was obvious by how they danced around the fire that they were worshipping the devil, plus they weren't people of The Book. We had to do it for God.

Satan is handy like that.

I don't appreciate your demeaning one-upmanship and your response misses the point of my post entirely.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't appreciate your demeaning one-upmanship and your response misses the point of my post entirely.

Just explaining the invention of Satan. It seems innate that kids are scared of imaginative monsters.

That bleeds into the need for a Satan later on. Sorry for missing your point. But I thought we were addressing the origin and evolution of Satan.

Can you explain that? Maybe I'm the silly boy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just explaining the invention of Satan. It seems innate that kids are scared of imaginative monsters.

That bleeds into the need for a Satan later on. Sorry for missing your point. But I thought we were addressing the origin and evolution of Satan.

Can you explain that? Maybe I'm the silly boy.

No I don't appreciate being insulted and since you have all the answers you don't need my input.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No I don't appreciate being insulted and since you have all the answers you don't need my input.

Okay. You're not a silly boy. I didn't mean to insult you. I didn't think you'd take it personal. My bad. Satan must have creeped in.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

What one thinks about this entails a philosophy of religion. Are religious symbols like Satan and God invented by people due to social political forces or perhaps economic forces if you're a Marxist? To say that the New Testament writers invented the Satan narrative to exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus implies as much. Doesn't it? And how far down can we go with this kind of historical hypothesizing? We know some things about the social political facts of the time. But what would do we really know about the writer of the Gospel of Mark for instance? At what point does knowledge shade into guesswork? What are the limits of the historical method for understanding the Bible? Cuz life is short and we're already living it, and we need to answer now.

You asked a lot of interesting questions that would require a lot of research and a thesis to write about. But I would say this- I do agree religion is a part of culture anc culture is influenced by political forces at the time. Just look at the Medieval times. The Catholic Church used fear (Satan and hell) to keep people in line. This also goes with the Crusades and the Inquisition and those witch hunts. So much of history is tied to religion, which is used to justify behaviors that eventually become part of our history books (Hitler and his getting rid of the Jews, bringing Christianity to fix the savages when Columbus landed on the wrong islands, etc. The fact is we do not jnow who wrote the Gospel of Mark. It would make more sense that there were multiple authors of Mark with a political and ulterior agenda/motive. They didnt want Jesus and his followers to be seen as dangerous and condemning the Jewish subgroups (who already had various beliefs) was a safer way to spread their message and accomplish their goal. Of course we were never there to confirm these facts but it’s like archaelogy; we can infer based on what was handed down to us. I wish time travel were a real thing but no one in our lifetime will figure it out.

Also I’ve never seen awareness and zeek fighting in disagreement before- that was interesting. I think awareness was trying to say that unconsciously humans need a monster under the bed and that became Satan (psychological need).

[SerenityLives]

So I have been reading Elaine Pagel’s views and it’s mindblowing. Fallen angels and Satan are basically symbols for the inner turmoil among the varying beliefs and sects of Jewish communities in the 6th century. Book of Enoch is basically a long allegory for bad Jews vs good Jews.Makes me wonder when the concept of an “angel” started, historically.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't appreciate your demeaning one-upmanship and your response misses the point of my post entirely.

So . . . I'm not alone feeling the same way? Hmmmm.

[awareness]

In his new life, Justin [Martyr] sees his role in the universe enormously enhanced; the stand he takes and the choices he makes not only decide his eternal destiny but engage him at present as an active combatant in the universal struggle between God’s spirit and Satan.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan (p. 122). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

In his new life, Justin [Martyr] sees his role in the universe enormously enhanced; the stand he takes and the choices he makes not only decide his eternal destiny but engage him at present as an active combatant in the universal struggle between God’s spirit and Satan.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan (p. 122). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

havent gotten to that page yet. have to catch up on all my readings 🙏

[SerenityLives]

It’s a shame that the Book of Jubilees, Macabees, and Book of Watchers didnt make it into the canonical Bible. They offer perspectives on how Satan evolved as a personification of the struggles within Israel historically , esp in relation to under Hellenistic rule by the Greeks, the Babylonians,Persians, Assyrians etc. The Pharisees rose up during that paeriod and called anyone following the practices of foreign religions or cultural customs as not being Jewish or “God’s true people” and in turn were called “satans” (translated from greek and other languages they were influenced at the time).

Interestingly, this also is like satire literature speaking out against the greek gods and roman/greek mythology and other nations’ mythos where usually the gods mate with human females to create hybrids they deem as heroes (i.e Hercules, Perseus, etc). The book of Enoch take s a different approach and calls these human-divine hybrids as “monsters and giants” and abominations, in turn poking fun and belittling the beliefs of the cultures that were opressing them at the time

I remember one LC high school conference where an elder wpoke with the “young people” and told us to be wary around watching Twilight (teenage vampire male and human female romances and other contemporary culture) since supposedly Satan is trying to inflitrate the young minds of the generation into accepting it as normal in preparation for the apocalypse, where the elder and i was sure the LC believed in the LC being God’s remnant to issue in God’s Kingdom and shouldnt be fornicating with such demonic influences of the “age”. He actually believed that Revelation was coming soon, God was coming soon. and that these human-divine hybrids will be everywhere since young adult fantasy novels are focused on indoctrinating the youth to accept having sexual relations with these divine beings (werewolves, vampires, etc, disguised by fallen angels) as “cool and normal”.I had too many questions to ask him but I kept my mouth shut b/c you know, sisters are not supposed to talk. This bothered me a lot at 15 years old.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It’s a shame that the Book of Jubilees, Macabees, and Book of Watchers didnt make it into the canonical Bible.

That depends on whose canon you reference.

I use eSword, a great free Bible tool. So I've got around 50 different translations (most for free) on my computer, and 8 of them have the apocrypha, with the books :

1 & 2 Esdras,
Tobit,
Judith,
1-4 Maccabees,
Prayer of Manasseh,
Wisdom,
Sirach,
Baruch.

The books of Enoch appear in no canon --> shame. The Books of Enoch can be purchased from Amazon. The Book of Enoch is an app that can be installed on your phone at Google Play. It can also be downloaded, or I could send it to you. And Serenity, if I'm not mistaken, as a plus, I sent you "The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden," loaded with lots of fascinating alternative books ... but not the books of Enoch.

Originally Posted by Serenity

The book of Enoch take s a different approach and calls these human-divine hybrids as “monsters and giants” and abominations,

Mat 24:37* As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man.*
Does that mean the Nephilim will come back, and those naughty sons of God again?

[awareness]

What disturbs me most about the origin of Satan is that, originally, in the OT, God was way more fearful than Satan.

[zeek]

In the Louvre there is a picture, by Guido Reni, of St. Michael with his foot on Satan's neck. The richness of the picture is in large part due to the fiend's figure being there. The richness of its allegorical meaning also is due to his being there--that is, the world is all the richer for having a devil in it, SO LONG AS WE KEEP OUR FOOT UPON HIS NECK. In the religious consciousness, that is just the position in which the fiend, the negative or tragic principle, is found; and for that very reason the religious consciousness is so rich from the emotional point of view.

James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 20). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

What disturbs me most about the origin of Satan is that, originally, in the OT, God was way more fearful than Satan.

Makes me wonder who was the real bad guy? Or are all gods including God with capital G corrupt, because humans are corrupt and made God up?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the Louvre there is a picture, by Guido Reni, of St. Michael with his foot on Satan's neck. The richness of the picture is in large part due to the fiend's figure being there. The richness of its allegorical meaning also is due to his being there--that is, the world is all the richer for having a devil in it, SO LONG AS WE KEEP OUR FOOT UPON HIS NECK. In the religious consciousness, that is just the position in which the fiend, the negative or tragic principle, is found; and for that very reason the religious consciousness is so rich from the emotional point of view.

James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 20). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

It’s interesting, Michael as archangel or saint is portrayed in a lot of contemporary tv shows (that millenials watch) as the bad guy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the Louvre there is a picture, by Guido Reni, of St. Michael with his foot on Satan's neck. The richness of the picture is in large part due to the fiend's figure being there. The richness of its allegorical meaning also is due to his being there--that is, the world is all the richer for having a devil in it, SO LONG AS WE KEEP OUR FOOT UPON HIS NECK. In the religious consciousness, that is just the position in which the fiend, the negative or tragic principle, is found; and for that very reason the religious consciousness is so rich from the emotional point of view.

James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 20). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

Thanks for posting this. Apparently, those that don't believe in Satan are atheists.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for posting this. Apparently, those that don't believe in Satan are atheists.

Bro zeek didn't understand my statement, and where it came from.

It came from James' statement : "the world is all the richer for having a devil in it."

My thought on this was, if the world is richer with Satan then he's as important as God. So if not believing in God is atheism, then so not believing in Satan is atheism. We've got to believe in both. Believe in one is belief in both. Not believing is the same.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro zeek didn't understand my statement, and where it came from.

It came from James' statement : "the world is all the richer for having a devil in it."

My thought on this was, if the world is richer with Satan then he's as important as God. So if not believing in God is atheism, then so not believing in Satan is atheism. We've got to believe in both. Believe in one is belief in both. Not believing is the same.

Gosh, this conclusion is weird and does not follow.

Our world is richer with Nutella in it, but does that make Nutella as important as a human being or any other comparable non sequitur?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Gosh, this conclusion is weird and does not follow.

Our world is richer with Nutella in it, but does that make Nutella as important as a human being or any other comparable non sequitur?

Hey Trapped. Thanks for calling me out. But I do think we're talking about Satan, not Nutella.

Satan is a invisible being. Nutella is not invisible. Satan is supranatural, Nutella is natural.

An please Trapped, tell me when the world got richer cuz of Nutella. I don't ever remember eating it. Is it eatable, or liquid? I guess I could google it.

Just being goofy I searched the whole Bible for Nutella. Of course it didn't show up. But Satan did.

Is the world really richer because there's a devil in it? I'm not a believer in Satan. What's that make me?

Given there's a long history, widespread among cultures, of a devil figure, I guess that makes me a goofy devil atheist.

Some, like CNN, say atheists are the devil. There again devil = atheism.

If you believe in the God of the Bible, you've got to believe in Satan. And conversely, if you believe in Satan, as some do, you've got to believe in God.

Maybe they're two sides of one coin. The book of Job implies that.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey Trapped. Thanks for calling me out. But I do think we're talking about Satan, not Nutella.

Satan is a invisible being. Nutella is not invisible. Satan is supranatural, Nutella is natural.

An please Trapped, tell me when the world got richer cuz of Nutella. I don't ever remember eating it. Is it eatable, or liquid? I guess I could google it.

Just being goofy I searched the whole Bible for Nutella. Of course it didn't show up. But Satan did.

Is the world really richer because there's a devil in it? I'm not a believer in Satan. What's that make me?

Given there's a long history, widespread among cultures, of a devil figure, I guess that makes me a goofy devil atheist.

Some, like CNN, say atheists are the devil. There again devil = atheism.

If you believe in the God of the Bible, you've got to believe in Satan. And conversely, if you believe in Satan, as some do, you've got to believe in God.

Maybe they're two sides of one coin. The book of Job implies that.

If we dont believe in a Satan but believe in God, does that make us like the very early Jewish who didnt have a clear concept of Satan?

[zeek]

Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

— Leviticus 16:6–10, New Revised Standard Version

Azazel?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

— Leviticus 16:6–10, New Revised Standard Version

Azazel?

Azazel shows up in other ancient literature, like 1 Enoch, produced around 200BCE.

Elaine Pagels brings it up in her book, The Origin of Satan :

The Book of the Watchers tells the stories of Semihazah and Azazel as a moral warning: if even archangels, “sons of heaven,” can sin and be cast down, how much more susceptible to sin and damnation are mere human beings, even those who belong to God’s chosen people.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan (p. 52). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

There's other interesting references to Azazel in her book too. I've brought the above quote up for sometime : If the sons of God [Gen. 6] can't control their lust for pretty young women, how could I be expected to do so?

Another reference:

Such sectarians, contending less against “the nations” than against other Jews, denounce their opponents as apostate and accuse them of having been seduced by the power of evil, whom they call by many names—Satan, Beelzebub, Semihazah, Azazel, Belial, Prince of Darkness. These dissidents also borrowed stories, and wrote their own, telling how such angelic powers, swollen with lust or arrogance, fell from heaven into sin. Those who first elaborated such stories, as we shall see, most often used them to characterize what they charged was the “fall into sin” of human beings—which usually meant the dominant majority of their Jewish contemporaries.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan (p. 47). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.