It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Satan's "fall"

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Mankind

Several times you have called me a liar. I try and avoid ad-hominem attacks, as such.

Please respond to the topic under discussion rather than attempts at character assassination. It actually weakens your argument.

I have a different point of view and opinion than you, so what? It does not make me a liar to express my opinion and provide explanation as to why I believe that way.

Monotheism is at the core of Christian belief and 'orthodoxy' considers pantheistic ideas in relation to Christianity, to be heretical. This even applies to the Judaism that preceded the incarnation of Jesus, and therefore Christianity. My opinion is quite moderate, in the scheme of things.

edit on 1/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Awesomeness. I love stuff like this. Satan in Judaism does not equal Satan in Christianity.


(post by Salazar72 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Hot debate,Christianity indeed is going to have to answer for its lies someday. Lying about a translation error is what I see going on. Although my friend who is a Catholic priest is the one who informed me of this error, and my bible has the same to say being a Catholic bible, it seems the rest of Christendom is not so willing to accept what Catholicism deserves credit for acknowledging. That is to say Catholicism is actually more forthcoming about its past than mainstream Christianity ever will recognize. When the RCC is setting a better example than say, Protestantism, it's time to reevaluate things.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Gezus

I agree. Please allow me to share my research:

Isaiah 14 is a controversial chapter. Some say it is an allusion to Satan and/or the Devil, while others say that it refers to a King of Babylon.

I propose that the chapter in question is indeed addressed to the King of Babylon (verse 4), but actually references a page out of the Canaanite religion (verses 12-14). A clearer picture is revealed by referring to the original Hebrew language of the verse, along with Canaanite mythology.



4. That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

Isaiah 14 (King James Version)


[Verse 12] The figure in question literally "fell from Heaven": [naphalta (נָפַ֥לְתָּ) (fell)] [mis'sa mayim (מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם) (from Heaven)]. This rules out any human being.

[Verse 12] "Lucifer, son of the morning", is an outdated and inaccurate translation, originating with St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible, and perpetuated by the King James Version of the Bible, Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy", and John Milton's "Paradise Lost".

In place of "Lucifer", the original Hebrew actually states: "Helel (הֵילֵ֣ל) Ben (בֶּן־) Shahar (שָׁ֑חַר)", which literally means;
"Helel, the son of Shahar".

The word, "Helel" (הֵילֵ֣ל), is rather enigmatic. According to several Concordances, Helel is defined as: "a shining one" and "star of the morning".

According to the ancient Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra, Helel was indeed a Canaanite deity who sought to usurp the authority of El.

Shahar is a Canaanite deity representative of the "Morning Star," which is Venus on the eastern horizon before sunrise. This deity is synonymous with the Greek deity Phosphorus.

Now we have, "Helel son of Shahar/Phosphorus/Morning Star".

As we have the "Morning Star," we also have the "Evening Star." Venus, as the evening star, sits on the western horizon after sunset. The evening star was known in the Levant as the deity Shalim, and to the Greeks as the deity Hesperus.

The Greeks treated the morning star as one deity, and the evening star as a separate deity,... although they knew that both were the planet Venus. In tale and story, Venus was separated into Phosphorus and Hesperus, but always understood, intellectually, to both be Venus. The same can be said about the Levantines regarding Shahar and Shalim. Both cultures knew the morning and evening stars to be Venus.

So now we can deduce, "Helel son of Venus."

According to Greek mythology, Venus was a prominent goddess. And through archetype and correlation, we parallel the goddess Venus to the goddesses Inanna, Ishtar, Athirat, and Asherah.

Now we deduce, "Helel son of Asherah/Athirat."

Asherah/Athirat is the consort of El.

We can now derive: "Helel, son of Asherah/Athirat and El"

 

 

 


Isaiah is also referring to Baal Hadad. This can be concluded by reading the context of the verse and correlating it with the Canaanite religion.


How you have fallen from heaven, Helel Ben Shahar! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of El (אֵ֖ל [God]); I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like El Elyon (לְעֶלְיֽוֹן׃ [Most High]).”

- Isaiah 14:12-14


The two following phrases should be self-evident:

"I will raise my throne above the stars of El."

"I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like El Elyon."

Examining Isaiah 14:12-14,... we must think about which son of Asherah/Athirat has his throne on Mount Zephon,... and who wants to usurp both El and Elyon.

Now, let us examine "Mount Zaphon."

Mount Zephon is known today as Mount Aqraa. It is upon this mountain that Baal Hadad, son of El and Athirat/Asherah, established his throne and sanctuary. From this event of the Baal Cycle, we get the name/title: Baal-Zephon.

Baal Hadad was indeed a son of El and Venus/Shahar/Asherah, who sought to usurp El's authority, succeed Elyon, and establish a throne on Mount Zephon. Isaiah 14:12-14 illustrates this perfectly.


Thanks for contributing your research. Interestingly. "hadad/haddad" means blacksmith in Arabic. If we look at the book of Enoch, Azazel was the angel that taught humans to form metal weapons and use cosmetics. Also, briefly reading about the Hittite beliefs and and the etymology behind his epithets, Hadad has been known as "the thunderer" and shows similarities to Indra of Vedic religion. Hadad used a magic weapon to slay Yam in the Baal cycle. There are accounts of Vishvakarma/Tvastar as a divine architect who forges weapons like the thunderbolt. The Mahabharata is rife with supernatural weapons like the pashupatastra and the brahmastra which were allegedly capable of killing gods and destroying all created life.

I'm not a professional linguist. I don't state these things as facts. These are just some half-baked observations on minimal research.

I do, however, believe in the existence of Satan.
edit on 2-3-2016 by Darmok because: tpyo



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mankind
a reply to: jjkenobi

Are you saying we should believe in Lucifer despite knowing he isn't real and that it's a misunderstanding based off translation goofs?

Because you think he exists despite proof that he never did, I should regardless believe in him?

Why would I force myself to believe something that is in error? How is that going to help anybody?

I don't perpetuate myths.


Not at all. I think I got all the answers I needed from your response to understand your current beliefs and intent with this thread. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Gezus

The Romans also had the same division of Venus, and they saw Venus appearing in the morning sky as Lucifer while when Venus would appear in the evening sky, they would call it Vesper. Roman cosmology saw Venus as two separate bodies, the Morningstar (the «rising» Lucifer) and the Eveningstar (the «falling» Vesper). Hillel ben Shachar is the name of a Babylon-friendly enemy of Isaiah he is arguing with in the prophetic book carrying his name.
edit on 2-3-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gezus


Let's look at the Hebrew: Halal ben Shachar is Hebrew for day star, son of Dawn.

Most all English renditions of the verses do not correctly translate the Hebrew into English.
The correct translation is -------------------------------------

Latest Hebrew to English –Isaiah 14:12-15

Eth Cepher – YESHA’ YAHU – Isaiah Isa 14:12-15
(12) How art you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (13) For you have said in your heart, I will be like EL ELYON. (15) Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.

You may make of this whatsoever suits your belief but "Heylel" is not a word but is a name substitution for unknown expression. Jerome sought all of the available sources he had access to in that time and was translating directly from the available Hebrew manuscripts that he had into Latin at this time. He found that "Heylel" and "Howling morning" had no Hebrew explanation. He substituted Heylel with another name which was not a word into "Lucifer." Which, by the way, is still as confusing and unknown as was "Heylel."

As is the case, the Hebrews did not, as many today do not, believe that angels had the capacity to sin and with that foundation it would be impossible to assume that "Heylel" could be a celestial entity. Therefore we all know that the king of Babylon was a human of flesh and bone and blood and could not have imagined himself as ascending into the heaven with equality to the Creator. The Jewish authorities will then assume that this was directed to an insane king who was nothing but a tyrant murdering psychopath.

With that said you must remember that the Hebrew manuscripts also did not have chapters and verses and were read with patterns of meaning and thought. This led others to read this chapter 14 of Isaiah with the understanding that Isaiah 14:4 changed the thought as to a proverb of comparison to this king of Babylon. Comparing the king to one called "Heylel" son of the howling morning who fell from the celestial realm of the Creator to this terrestrial ream of Sheol. Meaning that in likeness, the king of Babylon will fall and never rise again. It is then a parable or likeness whether Heylel existed or had never existed.

That would be your choice in this matter. Some Jewish sects will not accept that angels can sin but then we now have proof that there were some Jews who did acknowledge that angels could and did sin against their Creator. One only has to look at the dead sea scrolls to realize that Enoch verifies this belief in those Jews who hid the manuscripts of Enoch from the Romans in the caves of the dead sea.

My opinions of course.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
Latest Hebrew to English –Isaiah 14:12-15

Eth Cepher – YESHA’ YAHU – Isaiah Isa 14:12-15
(12) How art you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (13) For you have said in your heart, I will be like EL ELYON. (15) Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.


Could you please extrapolate a wee bit on that particular translation? One of which I was unaware. Do you have an Amazon link or similar? ISBN?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What the hell just happened? Strangest thread I've seen in ages.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Idea is that when God was pissed off he would send the Angel of God to be a Satan against Job, Baalam, Israel, Nineveh or others. In Judaism Satan is a necessary evil. Like the police or as some kind of divine messenger with the message of «Comply! Or else!». His ten horns were the Ten Commandments, break one of them and Satan would impale you with his horns. Ha-Satan is the most kosher representative of God you could imagine.
edit on 2-3-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




Ha-Satan is the most kosher representative of God you could imagine.


Hmm... I like your comments usually, but here you get too high on your imagination.
Pious followers of Judaism will not agree with you.

This is better description how Judaism sees Satan
www.shamash.org...


The word satan means "challenger", "difficulty", or "distraction" (note that it is not a proper name). With the leading ha- to make haSatan, it refers to /the/ challenger. This describes Satan as the angel who is the embodiment of man's challenges. HaSatan works for G-d. His job is to make choosing good over evil enough of a challenge so that it can be a meaningful choice. In other words, haSatan is an angel whose mission it is to add difficulty, challenges, and growth experiences to life. Contrast this to Christianity, which sees Satan as God's opponent. In Jewish thought, the idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic—you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: kitzik

Scripture says otherwise. Satan wasn't really evil and certainly NOT a sinner, until NT arrived where he was demonised as Baal and Zeus.

biblehub.com...
biblehub.com...

He is God's spearhead.
edit on 2-3-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




until NT arrived where he was demonised


I'd say that in the NT the concept of Satan became more personified. There is not much talk about Satan in Judaism. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is not mentioned even once in 5 books of Moses - Tora. In later prophetic writings - yes. And later in Christianity it received another new whole dimension.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim





Could you please extrapolate a wee bit on that particular translation? One of which I was unaware. Do you have an Amazon link or similar? ISBN?

Source -www.cepher.net...

red flag "Inside" -- listen to the video if desired --



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I was referring more to the revolving door 'banned' nature of it.
Personally I don't believe in Satan or the stories about him. It's ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim





Could you please extrapolate a wee bit on that particular translation? One of which I was unaware. Do you have an Amazon link or similar? ISBN?

Source -www.cepher.net...

red flag "Inside" -- listen to the video if desired --



That's one of the weirdest bibles I've ever seen. Dollars are expensive over here these days, so I shop locally on the net these days, but I'll keep the link. Rather expensive though— for the oddity alone. Gets rather schizo don't you think? With all those et's mixing Hebrew and English orthography, syntax and grammar, but I guess it could be quite handy. And the transliteration key looks damn archaic. Nobody would say or write Cepher for Book these days, you'd write Sefer. But I'll keep it in mind the next time I'm filthy rich.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I was referring more to the revolving door 'banned' nature of it.
Personally I don't believe in Satan or the stories about him. It's ridiculous.


Apparently ATS is experiencing the efforts of a few guys who just don't get it they're unwanted, so they keep making new accounts that will work for a day or two and then banned when ATS figures out who they are. It's all over the damn place. Quite amusing though, a couple of them (or maybe they were the same) are actually quite sensible at times.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join