The history of the devil

reply to post by MorningStar8741


it doesn't. as i mentioned on another thread, many of the important figures back then had a social name based on their behavior or feats of legderdemain. in the case of satan, his name means adversary. context indicates whether it is a figure of import or simply a general name relating to any adversary. as they had no upper or lower case distinction, all letters were the same size. you couldn't say -- he's GOD and he's god. because it would've all read the same to the casual viewer. context determined the importance given to the word so lord could be distinguished from LORD.

so a typical sentence might read
the adversary attacked me today.
versus,
an adversary attacked me today.

another example might be,

a devil attacked me today.
versus,
the devil attacked me today.


the differences can often be small, and as a result, the translator has to
know how the words should be read in context.

next up is identifying who they would've considered "the adversary."
no doubt there were adversaries, but who was the adversary? it was enki (ea), if i understand the texts correctly. unfortunately, enki's name is another one of those ...descriptive titles. it means LORD EARTH. i don't know if he bestowed that upon himself or if someone else gave him the title, but he's had more than one such descriptive title.

i believe he correlates with the norse, LOKI, the tricky god, clever god, etc. same bat time, same bat channel, different cultural reference


[edit on 18-10-2008 by undo]

Sorry for bumping in here. Undo, let me put it this way in laymen terms. Morning Star, what we are dealing with is a cast of players that are long lived, and love to change their names every so often. Same mindset, same disposition, same personalities. In Zoroaztraism, what was the name of the negative, dark force?

reply to post by undo


So you went to all that trouble to post all of that in argument with me just to end up proving that I was right all along? LOLOLOL that is a hoot!

Either you completely missed what it is that I said or you are just looking for a forum to spout off random knowledge of arcane facts.

You proved my point for me. You took a couple pages to do it too. Thank you for all your hard work. You get a star!

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Sorry for bumping in here. Undo, let me put it this way in laymen terms. Morning Star, what we are dealing with is a cast of players that are long lived, and love to change their names every so often. Same mindset, same disposition, same personalities. In Zoroaztraism, what was the name of the negative, dark force?

I do not know, I do not care. That has nothing to do with what I said. I have no idea what argument you think you are jumping in on but you are way off just based on your post. Challenging me about the name of some other being from some other esoteric 'religion' could not be farther from addressing anything that I said.

If you are going to jump in just to be part of the fight, I suggest that you read back a few and see if the side you are jumping on at least has a clue what it is they are so vehemently trying to argue.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Actually, what you have refused to do is make your claim believable in any way.

You would likely say the same if I'd given testimony anyway.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
You have failed to give even the most simple reason to believe anything you said or will say about your meeting with the devil.

You would likely say the same if I'd given testimony anyway.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
You go on about how proof of God is good enough, well you have not proved God either so how is it good enough?

Where did I say I would provide proof of God?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Either way, I really do not care anymore.

Sure you do, the proof is that you respond and that you've said this twice.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
This is my response to you. Notice I am not longer asking anything of you.

Certainly your decision.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Anything that resembles a question is rhetorical. So far plenty of posts, lots of words, nothing to make any real believable sense of what you babbled on about in your first post.

You would likely say the same if I'd given testimony anyway.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Have fun spreading the word of the devil.

I've chosen my allegiance very carefully and submit myself to sovereign God. If you're not able to make this distinction, I doubt I can be of further help to you.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Sorry for bumping in here. Undo, let me put it this way in laymen terms. Morning Star, what we are dealing with is a cast of players that are long lived, and love to change their names every so often. Same mindset, same disposition, same personalities. In Zoroaztraism, what was the name of the negative, dark force?

I do not know, I do not care.

If you are going to jump in just to be part of the fight, I suggest that you read back a few and see if the side you are jumping on at least has a clue what it is they are so vehemently trying to argue.

Yes, I understand the argument, we are attempting to enlighten, the morningstar Just to argue? Not me, I like cool calm discussions, where people care. Yes, I know the side I'm on, and I also know the side you are on.
I think I stated before that I understand your position, maybe it was in another thread. Any rate, what are you bringing to the table? Show me your research. I really wish to understand your position in greater depth, but you waist so much time with accusations.

Originally posted by saint4God

Where did I say I would provide proof of God?



Here.

Direct validation can be obtained two ways:

1.) Proof - This is the dangerous part I was talking about and the route I took. I'm not convinced that everyone who seeks proof of the devil can get out of the situation.

2.) Proof by opposite - If one were to obtain proof of God, one can reason that what God says is valid. God has stated (and can still state) that Satan exists.

I guess you just forgot about that while you were busy deciding what I would believe. You sound like so many others here with this "Even if I provided it, you would still call me liar."

Well, there is really only one way to know for sure isnt there? It sure seems like you would rather sit with your assumptions than test the water and find out. Such a wonderfully open mind you have to sit in judgement of me about how I would react to something that could happen if it did, but will not, so I never get to. At least I judged you based on what I already saw and not what I decided in my head the future would bring.

P.S. Before you claify the details, I neve claimed that you claimed you would provide proof of God. I said you went on and on about proof of God being enough. Perhaps reading is not one of your strong suits.

[edit on 10/18/08 by MorningStar8741]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
I guess you just forgot about that while you were busy deciding what I would believe.

I did not forget nor did I say I would provide that proof. I was explaining how direct proof is obtained. You can lead a horse to water...

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
You sound like so many others here with this "Even if I provided it, you would still call me liar."

I never claimed I would provide that proof.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Well, there is really only one way to know for sure isnt there? It sure seems like you would rather sit with your assumptions than test the water and find out. Such a wonderfully open mind you have to sit in judgement of me about how I would react to something that could happen if it did, but will not, so I never get to.

What reason have I to believe that by providing testimony it would constitute as proof to you? This is would be an arrogant and foolhardy assumption on my part. I have not judged you, I know nothing about you, I only know what you've said.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
At least I judged you based on what I already saw and not what I decided in my head the future would bring.

Indeed you have judged me and I appreciate this acknowledgement.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
P.S. Before you claify the details, I neve claimed that you claimed you would provide proof of God. I said you went on and on about proof of God being enough. Perhaps reading is not one of your strong suits.

I have no interest in your assessment of my reading skills. My bachelor's degree demonstrates an authoritative assessment already. Is inciting others the way you obtain information? Usually insults cause people to fall silent, not share and expound upon their ideas.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by saint4God]

reply to post by MorningStar8741


you said satan is specifically a christian name but it isn't. its a much, much older term and concept, based on a single individual who predates the written pentateuch (first five books of the bible).
satan is mentioned in the oldest written book of the bible, called Job. he's doing the same thing there that you attribute to lucifer -- being the adversary.

think of him like the attorney for the state. but the state fired him from his position a long time ago. problem is, because of his otherwise elevated status, he keeps showing up anyway.

the way i see it is, he's like a guardian program that was originally designed to keep people who are unworthy from accessing God, who is the mainframe. when the guardian started to malfunction, his position was replaced by jesus but he has not been removed entirely from the system. ...yet








[edit on 18-10-2008 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Ok, let me try again. What I said is that the adversary character carrying the proper name of Satan was not as old as you were trying to say. Yes it predates Christianity but by how much? What other religions refer to that particular aversary to God, Satan?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

You go on about how proof of God is good enough, well you have not proved God either so how is it good enough?

Where did I say I would provide proof of God?

Well then use your amazing reading skills to see that I never contended that you would provide proof of God, so it is a silly question.

I never said you would provide proof of God so I am not sure why someone who can read so well would then respond as if I had.

As to the rest of your nonsense. No matter what I say, any response just makes you think I am still interested in debating your fairy tale with you so I will just let you go ahead and say whatever you like. Delusional people seem to need an audience. I am not buying a ticket to your show.

reply to post by MorningStar8741


the sumerian god known as enlil is thought to be jehovah by many researchers. he and enki have a few round-abouts in the sumerian-akkadian texts as well.

for example, when it's decided by jehovah and his council to destroy the earth with a flood, they all agree not to warn the inhabitants of the planet with the exception of the human, noah. the earth was over run at the time, by nephilim (hybrids). enlil warned noah, however, enki, being the tricky guy that he is, finds a way to circumvent the agreement and warns the nephilim king of sumer. he and jehovah have a big argument afterwards. this happens alot between them throughout the texts.

reply to post by undo


Riiiiight. And again. I was specifically talking about using the word satan as the proper noun Satan as a specific name for a specific deity. Satan with a capital S. Not other devils and not other uses of the word satan. I have no idea what you are even arguing anymore but thanks for wasting plenty of time to get to nothing.

reply to post by MorningStar8741


Satan with a capital S is not written Satan with a capital S in hebrew. It's written Adversary with no capital...(context, rermember?). i will say it again in case you didn't see it the first time -- he had many honorific titles, adversary was just one of the ones used most in the bible, to describe him. job is thought by some to be the oldest written book in the bible's old testament, you see the term used there frequently

[edit on 18-10-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Well then use your amazing reading skills to see that I never contended that you would provide proof of God, so it is a silly question.

I never said you would provide proof of God so I am not sure why someone who can read so well would then respond as if I had.

Let's review:

Originally posted by saint4God
Where did I say I would provide proof of God?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Here.

Then you quoted a phrase where I discussed if one were to obtain proof, not that I would provide that proof. You've make the accusation that "Here" is where I said I would provide proof, but the quote of me does not.

Originally posted by saint4God
As to the rest of your nonsense.

Yet you've done nothing to qualify it as 'nonsense'.

Originally posted by saint4God
No matter what I say, any response just makes you think I am still interested in debating your fairy tale with you so I will just let you go ahead and say whatever you like.

I have no interest in fairy tales. I also have no interest in debate. As stated before, I have interest in providing information that is beneficial to the reader, not 'debating with morningstar'.

Originally posted by saint4God
Delusional people seem to need an audience.

I'll keep that in mind next time I meet a delusional person.

Originally posted by saint4God
I am not buying a ticket to your show.

I have no show, am not selling tickets, nor interested in having any dialogue with merely you, else I would've U2U'd you. My initial responses from page one were not intended for you either. This is a forum.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by saint4God]

an example of how they wrote back then:

honorific titles given to the babylonian god Marduk:

"Asari"
"Bestower of planting"
"Founder of sowing"
"Creator of grain and plants"
"Asaru-alim"
"Asaru-alim-nuna"
"the Mighty One"
"Tutu"
"Zi-ukkina"
"Zi-azag"
"The God of the Favoring Breeze"
"the Lord of Hearing and Mercy"
"The Creator of Fullness and Abundance"
" the Founder of Plenteousness"
"Aga-azag"
"The Lord of the Pure Incantation"
" the Quickener of the Dead"
etc. he has something like 50 different honorifics, most of which were previously given to Enki and Enlil, prior to his rise.

reply to post by saint4God


God Bless you!

Originally posted by Grandma
God Bless you!

Thank you! God bless you too.

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses." - 1 Timothy 6:12

reply to post by undo


Thanks that is all very informative. You are a wealth of information. Now if only you had read what I said so many pages back instead of arguing so you could show off, you would understand that you just keep making the point I was making for me. Thank you.

I flagged this thread. Why? Because I found it a very interesting read. As I do not know the complete, as much as it can be complete, history of the devil, satan, adversary, Lucifer, I was interested in what undu has written about the Sumerians-Akadian texts. Undo can you provide some references for these texts. I did read a book by Zecharia Sitchin about planet x and Sitchens interpretations of Sumerian tablets. I have also heard that he is not the best interpreter of these tablets. I am interested in reading more about the Sumerians and what their texts said. Thanks. KYRed I would have u2u'ed you for this information, but I cannot get my u2u to work for some reason.