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.

 

Did Lucifer rule, in the flesh, from the ancient city of Sippara?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Cassiopaeans say:

A: In union with the One. Have you heard the Super ancient legend of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel?
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.


You are very influenced by these " Casspiopaeans ".

Was Lucifer not to rule over this physical realm we call earth?

Deep


Yes, the very material of physicality is the embodiment of evil=live which is service to self. The emphasis of one's self and physical existance over the emphasis of others and spirituality.




posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
Did Lucifer (or Satan) rule over mankind, in the flesh, from the ancient city of Sippara?

Sippar of the Sun-god.

Berossus of ancient Babylon records that the Chaldaean Noah buried the records of the antediluvian world in Sippara. This record documents that Lucifer, Zamiel, Hesperus, Asmodeus, Sanyanza, Obora and many others ruled over the human race and married human women, any that they desired. It was also stated there that these fallen angels tried to stop the destruction of the Wan Planet, which resided between the Red World and the Green. A war broke out between the angelic hosts and if it was not for the "Shadow of a Hand", these fallen angels would be ruling the earth today. The Great Sphere exploded in millions of pieces and eventually one approached the earth many days later. The rock crashed into the Great Sea producing giant walls of earth and water, destroying all life in its path. The only ones who survived were the ones in the Tebah.


You are refering to a strangely transcripted version of a Babylonian Enochian writing I guess. You use the name Lucifer for instance. Lucifer is of Latin Lux or Lucius, it's a rather new name. Paople seem to use Lucifer to discribe the blackest goat. I recognise Semjaza there. I also recognise a couple of semittic names, Noah and Tebah, these are biblical names mixed with Roman deities and Jewish demonology.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Hamilton]



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Cassiopaeans say:

A: In union with the One. Have you heard the Super ancient legend of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel?
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.


You are very influenced by these " Casspiopaeans ".

Was Lucifer not to rule over this physical realm we call earth?

Deep


Yes, the very material of physicality is the embodiment of evil=live which is service to self. The emphasis of one's self and physical existance over the emphasis of others and spirituality.


Lucifer didn't exist until about a couple of hundred years BC when the Greeks and the Romans shuffeled the deck.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by riffraffalunas

Originally posted by lostinspace
Did Lucifer (or Satan) rule over mankind, in the flesh, from the ancient city of Sippara?

Sippar of the Sun-god.

Berossus of ancient Babylon records that the Chaldaean Noah buried the records of the antediluvian world in Sippara. This record documents that Lucifer, Zamiel, Hesperus, Asmodeus, Sanyanza, Obora and many others ruled over the human race and married human women, any that they desired. It was also stated there that these fallen angels tried to stop the destruction of the Wan Planet, which resided between the Red World and the Green. A war broke out between the angelic hosts and if it was not for the "Shadow of a Hand", these fallen angels would be ruling the earth today. The Great Sphere exploded in millions of pieces and eventually one approached the earth many days later. The rock crashed into the Great Sea producing giant walls of earth and water, destroying all life in its path. The only ones who survived were the ones in the Tebah.


~v~......you might want to Google up:

The Exploding Planet Hypothesis

i vaguely remember this must have happened 2-4MYA
(million years ago) about homo erectus time, and time enough for certain types of meteors to have cleared away within the jupiter-sun region...one esoteric section deals with the myth your speaking of--> but w-a-y- before babylonian age


Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up..."



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I know this doesn’t progress this forum forward but I just got to say it.

Lucifer and Satan are not one in the same!



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TekNo88

Originally posted by lilblam
You're missing the point. Manking IS Satan, as depicted in the bible. We ARE lucifer.


how exactly are we lucifer?


this is just the most bizarre thread. Is there some previous thread I should know about?

who (...) is lilblam? When did he say that manking IS Satan?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
removed censor circumvention

[edit on 5/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Who decided it is evil?

You sit there saying this and that about what is relative and what is evil. However, who decided? You even go as far to say; “When it comes to good and evil, it is a constant! Not a flexible set of views that depend on the situation.” but SimpleTruth who decided these things? If you go by a Religious text than you yourself are basing it on cultural relatives and a set of ethnics that have been created. Not every human being is born with a set of principles that govern their life. We do what we have to do to survive. Surely that is the ultimate goal?

Then you go on to make a large error: ” You would like to compare animals to humans?” Of course people would, because animals do what they have to do to survive. They do not rationalise anything thus what they do is black and white. It is pure good. We sit here and try and explain a murder away, but they do not – they do not need to. If it is kill or be killed and there is no choice, it is not evil to kill. If you have to kill for food, again it is not evil.

You are rationalising good and evil. You’re trying to set down the moral guidelines not anyone else. Unless you yourself can give moral authority and know for sure your action is good, than it will always be your judgements of good and evil. Unless some higher power has told you what is good and evil, it is your opinion.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
I know this doesn’t progress this forum forward but I just got to say it.

Lucifer and Satan are not one in the same!



Now the name "Lucifer" means "Morning Star" and actually that's what all the angels were called per Job 38:7:
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."
The passages of Job 38 describe how God formed the earth before man came onto the scene.

Satan would have also been called a "morning star" before he rebeled. We do not know the real name of Satan because the bible does not reveal his previous identity. This angel was renamed Satan because he was a resister to God's Will. The name Satan means resister.
It is possible that Satan's real name could have been related to the name Beelzebub because that's what Jesus called him once. This calls to mind the name of the god Baal and also the city named Babylon (Babel in more ancient days).

Greek mythology has an interesting tale to tell about the rise and fall of certain gods, which may have some small bit of truth to it if you believe the bible.

In the beginning the Elder gods ruled the earth and they were known as the Titans. Some of their names were Oceanus, Hyperion, Ophion, Cronos, Iapetus (males); Dione, Themis, Mnemosyne and Phebe (females).
At that beginning Ophion ruled with his bride Eurynome. The term Ophiolatry refers to the act of serpent worship. Interesting that Eve was tempted by the Original Serpent, per Revelation. Can Ophion be identified as this serpent?
Eventually the younger Titan named Cronos dethrones Ophion and then he next rules the world. Cronos' rulership, along with the rest of the Titans is only threatened when Cronos' son Zeus is allowed to live. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades work together to overthrow the Titans and they eventually are banished to the place called Tartarus. The war between the Titans, Zeus, Poseidon and Hades could have actually represented the flood of noah's day. If this were true, Cronos would have represented the ruling fallen angel (in materialized form) of his day.
Was Satan both Ophion and Cronos? Whose to say.

By the way, for those who don't know, the Roman name for Cronos is Saturn.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   


We do not know the real name of Satan because the bible does not reveal his previous identity.

yes it does
in revelation 9:11

oh ye of little faith



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



We do not know the real name of Satan because the bible does not reveal his previous identity.

yes it does
in revelation 9:11

oh ye of little faith


Funny! I don't think that's him. Abaddon/Apollyon.
It said the angel of the bottomless pit. Not the angel in the bottomless pit.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Abaddon is one of the infernal names used in Satanism, and is first in the list—only as it comes first alphabetically—and means "the destroyer."



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Who decided it is evil?

You sit there saying this and that about what is relative and what is evil. However, who decided? You even go as far to say; “When it comes to good and evil, it is a constant! Not a flexible set of views that depend on the situation.” but SimpleTruth who decided these things? If you go by a Religious text than you yourself are basing it on cultural relatives and a set of ethnics that have been created. Not every human being is born with a set of principles that govern their life. We do what we have to do to survive. Surely that is the ultimate goal?

Then you go on to make a large error: ” You would like to compare animals to humans?” Of course people would, because animals do what they have to do to survive. They do not rationalise anything thus what they do is black and white. It is pure good. We sit here and try and explain a murder away, but they do not – they do not need to. If it is kill or be killed and there is no choice, it is not evil to kill. If you have to kill for food, again it is not evil.

You are rationalising good and evil. You’re trying to set down the moral guidelines not anyone else. Unless you yourself can give moral authority and know for sure your action is good, than it will always be your judgements of good and evil. Unless some higher power has told you what is good and evil, it is your opinion.



I love this. Great !



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Whose to decide it's ok to murder?
Whose to decide you go when the light is green?


The answer:
Those in authority!


The authority caste system:

1. Yourself
2. Government (Ruling Body)
3. God (Religious Belief)

If you believe in #3 then it always trumps #2, when #2 contradicts #3. If you don't believe in #3 then #2 always trumps #1. If you don't believe in #2 then you're either hiding, in jail, dead or a god.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The Authority decides when its ok to murder
is there like a form or something I need to fill in first or do I do that afterwards



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
just a little post regarding relativity

am i messed up because i can't understand this topic?
is everyone else messed up because they seem to understand the topic?
is the OP messed up because he/she can't seem to make this topic a bit more comprehensive for those of us who are intellectually-challenged?

or

is the topic messed up in the first place?

or perhaps

its just the way the topic is being presented thats somewhat messed up...

(not flaming my fellow members here but can everyone please enlighten me regarding this Satan/Lucifer in the flesh business with some links perhaps?)




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
This topic is a theory built on top of another theory. If you don't believe in the Watchers legend by Enoch (The Book of Enoch) then this topic is of no use to you.

In the story 200 spirit creatures rebelled against God by materializing in human form and mated with human women. The topic of this forum is discussing whether or not Satan/Lucifer leaded in this rebellion by becoming the first one to materialize in human form and take a wife. The thought is that Satan tempted the other angels into the act. Was Satan one of the Watchers in the Book of Enoch?

Here's an interesting portion taken from the book of Enoch:
(Chapter 15)

"Then addressing me, He spoke and said, Hear, neither be afraid, O righteous Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness: approach hither, and hear my voice. Go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to pray for them, You ought to pray for men, and not men for you.
Wherefore have you forsaken the lofty and holy heaven, which endures for ever, and have lain with women; have defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; have taken to yourselves wives; have acted like the sons of the earth, and have begotten an impious offspring?
You being spiritual, holy, and possessing life which is eternal, have polluted yourselves with women; have begotten in carnal blood; have lusted in the blood of men; and have done as those who are flesh and blood do.
These however die and perish.
Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth.
But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.
Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven."

This is taken from the translation by Richard Laurence published in 1883.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   


Sippar of the Sun-god.

Berossus of ancient Babylon records that the Chaldaean Noah buried the records of the antediluvian world in Sippara. This record documents that Lucifer, Zamiel, Hesperus, Asmodeus, Sanyanza, Obora and many others ruled over the human race and married human women, any that they desired.

where exactly are you getting this information from
got a link please ?



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Sippar of the Sun-god.

Berossus of ancient Babylon records that the Chaldaean Noah buried the records of the antediluvian world in Sippara. This record documents that Lucifer, Zamiel, Hesperus, Asmodeus, Sanyanza, Obora and many others ruled over the human race and married human women, any that they desired.

where exactly are you getting this information from
got a link please ?


Man I started this thread so long ago. I should have been up front on the source material. I was pretty new to ATS then. The start of the thread happens to come from portions of a fantasy novel published in 1878. The novel is entitled Seola, written by Ann Eliza Smith (a.k.a. Mrs. J. Gregory Smith). As you already noticed some of the fallen angels were named Lucifer and Hesperus which are Latin names which would have never come from Berossus anyway. The only real myth that Berossus has to offer is that Xisuthros, the Chaldean Noah, is said to have buried records of the antediluvian world at Sippar.
The name Asmodeus comes from the Book of Tobit
Then the being Sanyanza or Samyaza is mentioned in the Book of Enoch.
I'm still not sure of the source of the names Zamiel and Obora. Maybe in the future I'll find the actual legends.
So this work of fiction is built upon legends to make a great story. Somewhat like how J.R.R. Tolken created The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Makes for a great story. Actually the story of Seola got me interested in studying myths and legends. I only do it for fun. I find myself wasting a lot of time here on ATS because it's fun. I've learned a lot from you guys.


[edit on 11-1-2007 by lostinspace]

[edit on 11-1-2007 by lostinspace]

[edit on 11-1-2007 by lostinspace]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   


The only real myth that Berossus has to offer is that Xisuthros, the Chaldean Noah, is said to have buried records of the antediluvian world at Sippar.

I'm going to tell you something now that normally you'd only hear from a trained sumerologist
Berossus who you mentioned wrote a book called the Babyloniaca (History of Babylonia) for the king Antiochus I.
The History of Babylonia as a complete text is now lost in antiquity, and what remains comes from secondary sources of classical writers. The reasons why Berossus wrote the History have not survived
but
it is known that Berossus being a babylonian did not like Antiochus who wasn't a babylonian but was a conquerer from Macedonia
so when he was ordered to write the book he filled it with a lot of crap that modern sumerologists can tell you is completely untenable
). Berossus claimed that he had aquired the information contained in it from reading the ancient tablets left behind from past Millenia. But it is now quite clear that this is not the case and he invented or made it up as he went along. One very famous Babylonian character known by everyone was Uan (craftsman) who was reputebly the first of the seven sages who bought civilisation to mankind after the flood, known locally as the Apkallu

Uan was based on an earlier Sumerian character named Adapa the fisherman. The text that we can now read easily and which Berossus couldn’t read at all is widely available. It begins :-

“A wise man whose command none should oppose,
The prudent, the most wise among the Anunnaki was he,
Blameless, of clean hands, anointed, observer of the divine statutes,
With the bakers he made bread
With the bakers of Eridu, he made bread,
The food and the water for Eridu he made daily,
With his clean hands he prepared the table,
And without him the table was not cleared.
The ship he steered, fishing and hunting for Eridu he did.”

Whereas the description of him by Berossus says :-

“At Babylon there was these times) a great resort of people of various nations, who inhabited Chaldæa, and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field. In the first year there appeared, from that part of the Erythræan sea which borders upon Babylonia, an animal destitute1 of reason, by name Oannes, whose whole body was that of a fish; that under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too, and language, was articulate and human; and a representation of him is preserved even to this day.”

So Adapa the wise fisherman who became Uan the wise fisherman became Oannes the fishman. There is nothing unusual in the way that these first two characters are depicted in fish costume. It’s a very blatant way of saying in a piece of ancient artwork what the person portrayed does for a living
Now here is the funny thing. Seeing as Berossus would have been fully aware of Uan the wise fisherman even if he wasn’t aware of Adapa then his description of Oannes is clearly a parody of a truth he was well aware of.
This version of Uan was immediately adopted by Assyria and from there adopted by the Greeks who started to worship him as a brother of Poseidon.
He’s also been adopted by a whole host of Psuedoscientists and Alternative historians as proof that in ancient times amphibious creatures visited mankind from different planets. I can hear Berossus laughing all the way from here can’t you



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
oh really

"im going to tell you something now that normally youd only hear from a trained sumerologist"

are you a trained sumerologist? You only have image links there so im going to assume you are. Would you kinldy scan a photo of your degree? *gasp* whats this you dont have a degree?

So your telling me that all energy used to type that was wasted. So theres no proof behind your "facts". Your post, sir, is completely absurd

And if you are getting your information from an outside source why havent you posted the link yet? ARe you trying to discredit the proper owner of this information by plagiarising him/her? How dare you dear sir!

[edit on 15-1-2007 by spaceman16]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join