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.

 

The history of the devil

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


You amaze me. You do not see what it is that I was doing? Amazing how you actually end up deriding me for behaving exactly as you did. You met the devil. Brought it up, but wont go into detail. Want to learn more, ask. Well I asked and all I got so far is a huge waste of time. I will tell you all about my time with Jesus as soon as you elaborate on your meeting with the devil. See how that works? You cannot seriously be asking me to live up to the same standard that I asked of you and was denied can you? Please, go on about your time with the devil, how did it happen, what did he have to share with the world and such.




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


morningstar, I was wondering if you were a traveler seeking the light.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by enduser
 


Hi there.

I watched the video and its very similar to the books i have read on the subject.Its clear where the myth came from and,as it stays near the start,Satan was a title of an angel that worked for God.

I believe this roll is still in effect,that the Satan works for God and we,as humans,perceive him as being evil.


A simplified example...
Tax men and bailiffs never have good press,but they're doing a job that has to be done,and its not easy for me to say that.



I think you are on to something there. Its so hard for humans to see this because of the intentional 10% brain barrier which was put there intentionally. I guess we all have to give ourselves time to comprehend this.
But in this particular space and time, we are running out of time........
Bringing our limited intellectual ability into the equation may lead to some conclusions.

It has already been proven to me that Lucifer, and the devil or Satan are in fact separate entities. This was done threw the great work of some of our ATS members and was covered some months ago.

I would like to take this time to thank enduser once again for bring this research to the light of day as it lets us see in real terms the true history rather than the mythology that breeds ignorance and fear.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
So are we just talking about the christian devil here? There are devils in every religion and mythology and so many share so many common traits. The Christian devil is the only one that seems to be unjustifiably evil and just plain out to hurt humanity. While Lucifer seems to resemble the other devils more as an opposing force.

As far as the idea that Satan works for God, well, just imagine how much business the church would have done all these years without the devil and hell to save people from.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
So are we just talking about the christian devil here? There are devils in every religion and mythology and so many share so many common traits. The Christian devil is the only one that seems to be unjustifiably evil and just plain out to hurt humanity. While Lucifer seems to resemble the other devils more as an opposing force.

As far as the idea that Satan works for God, well, just imagine how much business the church would have done all these years without the devil and hell to save people from.

I will assume for the moment you are a seeker.

Yes, if you look most all of the negativity is heaped onto one side of the mythology. In reality if you got yourself into trouble you may be inclined to find someone or thing to blame, and in this case it appears that Satan has had allot thrown his way. (I personally do not view either entity as a divine god)

Now, you have the counter argument that Satan really cares about humanity, teaching that mankind itself are the real gods. Point counter point which to me is a bunch of mud slinging from virtually the beginning.

Unraveling what really happened:

The important part of the documentary reveals the names of the two forces at the beginning and is covered by Zoroastra. It appears to be a turning point in as far as we viewed the gods. He was able to discern the primary players down to two. It is important to examine these two very carefully.

He brings the idea of two primary movers and shakers. The concept is good against evil. The video follows the history of the negative force, but what of the other so called good god?

This is where another documentary should be made, but because of the overwhelming systems and institutions (to include religions) put in place it would be virtually impossible to challenge the validity of Zoroastra's good god concept (Ahura Mazda).





[edit on 15-10-2008 by All Seeing Eye]

[edit on 15-10-2008 by All Seeing Eye]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


See this is where I have a problem. Satan and Lucifer are specifically Christian names. So I can only see them as described in the bible, or dead sea scrolls but anyway. Devils, that is different. But those two specific names just bring me to the bible and that is not supposed to be up for interpretation.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
actually, the history of the devil is older than 3000 years. that documentary deliberately ignores the sumerian-akkadian texts, some of oldest (if not the oldest) known texts on the planet! pseudo-historians, who are accepted in the mainstream, are allowed this leeway because what they promote (only half the history of this planet) does not disagree with the secular version of our past. there's no reason that i know of to separate our history into the 2 camps of secular and religious. our history is what it is. if you don't think our ancestors knew what they were saying or seeing, that's not their fault. they've done their bit by telling us what happened. picking and choosing only 3000 years of it, is really REALLY not history telling, it's deilberate misinformation.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


ancient languages are not written in english. it's time to dispense with that fallacy,

righthere,rightnow.

the etymology of words is the one area most people with an agenda abuse the most.

let me give you an example. let's take the word "abyss." where did it come from? most think it's another word for the ocean. why is that? because most don't know that the etymological roots of words are not all formed in the latin base of the english language.

think about it.



[edit on 15-10-2008 by undo]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Ummm....ok, what is your point exactly? By the way, I do not know anyone that has ever mistaken the word to mean abyss. You must have more ignorant friends.

Anyway, what are you getting at?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


i don't think the word abyss is the word devil. what i was doing was giving you an example. the etymology of the word abyss is much older than the latin abyssos. the original word was most likely abzu, which was sumerian-akkadian word. (i always say sumerian-akkadian because the sumerian civ was wiped out by the black sea flood, so subsequent information about it is found primarily in the texts of the survivors, from the akkadian period. it was found under 8ft of flood silt less than a century ago, so all the texts that say there's no contemporary evidence from that period that the bible events ever happened, is based on their lack of archaeological evidence at the time.. they did that alot back then.)

it was just an example. you never assume because you can't find the etymology of a word older than greek or latin, that it never existed before the first written occurences of greek or latin. language is older than rome.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


ancient languages are not written in english. it's time to dispense with that fallacy,

righthere,rightnow.

the etymology of words is the one area most people with an agenda abuse the most.

let me give you an example. let's take the word "abyss." where did it come from? most think it's another word for the ocean. why is that? because most don't know that the etymological roots of words are not all formed in the latin base of the english language.

think about it.



[edit on 15-10-2008 by undo]


Agreed! A tomato to one person is tamato to another. I have been able to let go of the names and see the underlying program.

secular or religious, there is another golden key to unraveling the truth. Undo, unravel, hmmmm, makes me wonder. Great contribution, it was a word I have been looking for for some time (Secular).

Here is a example "Garden of paradise"= religion "Atlantis" = Secular or no religion. Here is another modern term "Satan"= religion "Reptilian"= secular.

To compound the argument lets break the camps into more camps, via creating more terms or discritive's, by creating more religions that fight each other about terms and names. The core of the story remains somewhat in tact, with varying differences. (Both religious camps are involved, the positive and negative, the Christian or Satanists)

To get at the truth, the oldest truths, one must be able to find the oldest records and compare them with the interpretations that we see today, and in that you will see the orchestrated, intentional, attempt to destroy any possibility at us recovering the truth, our genesis on this planet.

I read a paper on research preformed by some of the leading Linguists who were able to revers language patterns around the world, and they threw their research were able to pinpoint mankind's starting point on the surface of this planet. Babylon and the language was Sanskrit.

Once the linguists arrived at this point the only thing they found was that the precursor language came from the north, end of trail. The only other place to find information is in the "Religious" text, Noah's Arch. If anyone has any information of this event in the "Secular", I would love to see it, if not, it will not stop me from looking further.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


they are wrong then because sumerian-akkadian cuneiform is even older than babylon. in fact, the tower of babel was the name of sumerian Enki's E.ABZU, later on. Enki was, what many researchers believe to be, the equivalent of the biblical serpent in the garden. the sumerian-akkadian texts do suggest that! maybe they are wrong as well but it is very odd!

for example, have you ever read the story of the creation of the nephilim ? when some of the "angels" left their "first estate" and co-mingled with our species, and from which came a line of "mighty men"? these mighty men are a real source of eye-opening data, that once you start tracking, some big questions about the history of this planet, come bubbling to the surface.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
(addendum: the reptilian concept. i believe this is from the "serpent" etymology. have you ever read any of michael s. heiser's research on this subject? he's an expert in many ancient languages, specifically those related to ancient hebrew, aramaic, egyptian, cuneiform, and so on. i have reason to believe, based on my research, that the seraphim line of angels are in fact, reptilian. i could be wrong but look up the word seraph in a strong's concordance.
here, let me show you the results from an online strong's

Result of search for "seraph":

8314 saraph saw-rawf' from 8313; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):--fiery (serpent), seraph.

seraph is singular for seraphim
www.eliyah.com...

here's heiser's etymological research on the subject:
THE NACHASH AND HIS SEED
Some Explanatory Notes on Why the Serpent in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent
(.pdf file)
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

[edit on 15-10-2008 by undo]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
how about that the devil was created as a reaction to the pagan religion. As the powers that be moved in the great controlling religion of Christianity they needed to discredit all forms of pagan worship.

So they mimcked (almost) the physical form of Pan and created 'the devil'. You can see in many, many instances where the powers that be have literally built over pagan worship sites and have stolen and manipulatd their theories and beliefs. Look at all of the major christian artifacts, most are stolen from pagan thought,

Imay be wrong on this but it seems sensible to me.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 




As you may have noted, I used the term "on the surface of this planet". Im sure your correct about a more ancient language. But one thing that has always been a problem is the location of the "Garden", and those more ancient languages. I suspect the "location jump" happed around the time of Noah. I also remember reading something somewhere that stated there was no moon before Noah. Everybody assumes this means the moon one day just showed up. This may not be the case.

I would give the linguists a little more credit for their efforts, they got us out of Africa
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my


Give me some time to review your links.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
(and one more addendum: based on the data above, i think it safe to conclude in theory, that the reptilians to which you attribute secularism are only one branch of the reptilian race, at least as far as they may or may not relate to "Angelic" beings. this is where the area is very gray and requires real etymological studies to decipher it. we can't say that the history of the "serpent" later known as satan in a different language, thousands of years later, is only 3000 years old. sorry, but we just can't!
here's an example of why:

this statue is from the city of Eridu, Sumer. it's circa 4000 BC! Sumer is what is now known as modern day Iraq. this little statue depicts a reptilian, from the city of the god known as Enki, who many researchers feel is the biblical serpent in the garden. I do believe that is what this statue is depicting -- Enki. This may be the only statue to date, that depicts the real mccoy, satan, the devil, lucifer:



doesn't he look harmless ?

source:
oi.uchicago.edu...



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
later attributions to him having horns, may have come from the sumerian texts, such as this one known as ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER:



Grandiloquent lord of heaven and earth, self-reliant, father Enki, engendered by a bull, begotten by a wild bull, cherished by Enlil the Great Mountain, beloved by holy An, king, mes tree planted in the Abzu, rising over all lands; great dragon who stands in Eridug


he wasn't begotten by a wild bull and he wasn't a mes tree and he wasn't a great dragon (in the same sense we think of these things), but from the artifacts and descriptions, he was a powerful being who looked very reptilian, who's name means LORD EARTH.

en(lord)ki(earth).

bugger even offers lordship of the earth to jesus in exchange for jesus' fealty--a sort of..you work for me pal, and you can have this place. jesus declined the offer.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
(and one more addendum: based on the data above, i think it safe to conclude in theory, that the reptilians to which you attribute secularism are only one branch of the reptilian race, at least as far as they may or may not relate to "Angelic" beings. this is where the area is very gray and requires real etymological studies to decipher it. we can't say that the history of the "serpent" later known as satan in a different language, thousands of years later, is only 3000 years old. sorry, but we just can't!
here's an example of why:



Don't worry, I'm not concerned about time lines, it could be millions for all we know. My main concerns are the "Events" and the "Locations", and the true identity of the "players".

Briefly looking over the second link I now have a better picture as to what happed.


That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She
was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was
serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her
with lies.

www.thedivinecouncil.com...

There is much skull duggery going on here. Let me think on this a bit.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Did I say that abyss meant devil? I really have no idea what lesson you are trying to teach me since you seem to be responding to things I have never said. Perhaps there is an imaginary context that you can share with me that makes your responses to me make sense. Maybe you meant to address someone else or a different thread altogether but I am all done with whatever this is, thanks.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
people who feel the ancient texts are nothing but cosmology and metaphor, i do believe, are only partially correct. i think the sumerians did attribute enki with the great bull of heaven, the constellation taurus. and the 7 birth goddesses of the story, enki and ninmah, are associated with the pleiades (7 sisters in the taurus constellation). however, i think this is because they wanted to depict him as heavenly as well as earthly. he came from the skies, he came from the waters, he came from the earth. (he got around). so yeah, the cosmological connection is just a sign of respect for his authority, not proof that the ancient people were making gods out of constellations.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join