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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kyred
 


depends on the topic you're interested in. i can just link you to all the texts that are currently online:

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
www.earth-history.com...




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The Devil, or Lucifer, or Satan was a fallen angel. There are some more fallen angels who are now demons. When did this happen? I say before Adam and Eve. HOw else did satan tempt eve in the garden? There must have been sin before Adam and Eve. Possibly Adam and Eve were the second attempt at human life.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kyred
 


I agree it is interesting. It is why I came to this thread in the first place was to read other things like that. That is why I do not understand getting caught in a pissing contest that confirmed what I said to begin with in the first place. It is amazing what happens when someone with interesting info comes across as an ass to the interest level in what they had to say.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


yes it is, isn't it.
i think you should take your own advice and read your prior comments, especially the first few. you claimed the word satan was a christian invention. but it isn't. it's the same word used by the hebrews to describe the being who was harrassing job in the old testament.

he's mentioned with that moniquer in 1Chronicles, Job, Psalms and Zechariah, all old testament books


[edit on 18-10-2008 by undo]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You are right, and I already admitted that it was older than christianity, just not the bible. Either way, it is no older than that and you want to argue and insist that it is and then show expamples of other devils using other names??? Yeah, that is what I said. Satan is a biblical invention. That devil with that name. You are right, not Christian because the OT predates that and the Jews named him that first. I admitted that but it does not explain why you spent pages telling me that Satan is waaaaaaaaaaay older and proving it by listing deities not named Satan. I do not get where you are going with that or what that has to do with anything. All I know is that you spent pages wrongfully attacking me and it all ended up here. Feel better?

Between you just starting a fight to show off a bunch of other stuff and someone claiming to meet the devil but cant get into it...this thread has lost it's way. I do not know if the OP is still happy with it but enjoy, I am done.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


because the deity not named satan (which was an honorific title not his "name") was doing the same or similar things. his priests wrote the old mainstream texts of the time and you can tell, because it starts off sounding sensible and takes a sudden turn into some totally different direction in which the guy is made to look like he's a good fella. my theory on that is, the early slaves started to write the events down and enki's priests had to do damage control. so they twisted it, ever so slightly, to make sound as if he was actually a good being, interested in the fate of humanity and that it was his father/brother, enlil, who was the bad guy.

living up to his reputation. of course, i could be totally wrong about this, but if you read the data, that's sure what it looks like!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


See, you did it again. Honorific title, not name. But now there is a devil with the name Satan is there not? Yep! Ok that is who I was talking about. Just stop. Stop. STOP!!!!!!!!! You are going nowhere to prove nothing. I have no idea why you insist on arguing with me but you are way off. It does not even matter any more. Either contribute to this thread or go away already. You have made my point over and over and over. You want to argue semantics until you reach a level where you seem right. Too late. It has all been worked out, spelled out, and played out. Stop trying so hard to argue with me over something so stupid and off topic for no good reason and try to contribute and make this thread worth reading. If you really want to play games, you can U2U me ok. This is just getting way out of hand. You made my point. I was never looking to prove anyone wrong about anything. You called me wrong and then had to go on and try to prove it but you did not. You called me out on the wrong thing so get over it.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


fine, but before i go, i leave you with this parting thought:

if i call you sarcastic, and decide to use that to describe you to others rather than your name, you will be thought of by them as "Sarcastic" (in the noun sense rather than the adjective sense). it's not your real name, just an honorific based on some aspect of your behavior (not that you are sarcastic, that's just an example) to which you have become connected in the minds of others. archie bunker use to call his son-in-law, "meathead", and the honorific stuck to him like glue, because people discussing the show would often not even know his real name but the name archie had given him.

you're free to believe whatever you want about the subject, obviously, and i may be completely wrong on who is what, i'm just discussing this based on my opinion of the texts and the historical precedent that was set for honorific titles.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


If your friends call me Sarcastic because that is how you describe me, then that explains alot. It shows that they are idiots and cannot differentiate between a description and name. It also shows that they do not understand how English works. You do not get to just capitalize whatever you like as long as it backs up your point. Seriously, you really insist on arguing this much farther as to tell me that your friends are so stupid that one description is all they need to believe that is the proper name I am to be given when documented in history? That brings one very intelligent thought to mind.
-"This is my boomstick!"



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
well nimrod's name meant "rebel", so there's another example.
enki's name meant lord earth.
enlil's name meant lord air.
obviously, these guys had real names but were given "niches" to fit into based on their history, and in agreement with what humans could see and experience (et.al, water, air, earth, fire).
ea's (who was enki) name meant lord water, i'm not sure how. it was an akkadian word. i think he was equiv with egyptian ra. it could be that it was because by then, enki and his abzu (associated with water) had become synonmous and it was no longer necessary to indicate the lord part, like we don't say lord jehovah, we just say jehovah (or typically, anyway). it's understood that he's lord.
ba'al meant just simply lord.
ba'alzebub meant the lord of the dead, or the lord of flying things, depending on what translation you read.
etc



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Hi Undo. I apologise for my lack of involvement with this thread, ive been trying to research all religions, their beliefs etc and time is not something that has been on my side. But anyway, after doing a little research im just wondering exactly why you feel that the OP "documentary deliberately ignores the sumerian-akkadian texts"?

Can you name which Sumerian gods/goddess' were evil and which were the devil we now know of?

I am compiling a family tree* for the Sumerian/Babylonian creation story, starting with the "primal wasteland" (Chaos), from there, Tiamat, mummu, and Apsú are created. Following this, Kingu, Sky Arch, World of men; Lahmu, Lahamu; Anshar, Kishar; Anu, Ki, Anatu, Ea (En-Ki); Mardruk etc etc are created. Can you tell me which of these (or other 'gods/goddess') are the devil? or at least, which is the devils starting place? [You can find a rough copy of the family tree here]
    I have noted some of the points made by the documentary:-

    Points the documentary made:-
  • 3000 years ago, "unknown hands wrote the earliest chapters
    of the Hebrew bible(s)", which was to be known as the [Christian] Old Testament (OT).
  • One of The Satans ('accuser') earliest appearances as an Angel
    (gods servant) was in book of Job (OT).
  • 3500 years ago, Zoroaster (Iranian prophet) reduces all Persians gods
    to just two forces, represented as a good god ('Auramazdā' or'Ahura Mazda') and an evil god ('Angra Mainyu'), dualisty thought and personificaion of god's.
  • Zoroaster's philiosophy teaches that the universe is a battle field between
    gods of good and evil, and all must take sides. After death, the good are
    rewarded in heaven, and the sinners face punishment in hell.
  • Under Darius the great, Zoroaster's teachings becomes the main religion of the Persian Empire, which includes the lands of Israel.
  • Jewish teachings are then influenced by Zooaster's ideas.
  • Alexander the great defeats the Persians; Greek culture appears in Israel (and then influenced by?).
  • Whole cast of greek [olympian] gods including Hades, etc...
  • Continues to present form, scienctific view etc...
    Further points:-
  • Zoroaster is considered to have been born between 660 and 628 BCE; although some sources suggest 1400 - 1000 BCE. This is because the 'Gathas', believed to have been written by Zoroaster are dated to between 1400 and 1000 BCE, but the early texts could have been from sources which predate Zoroaster's birth.
  • Some Biblical scholars believe that angels, heaven, hell, and
    the resurrection of the dead came to Judaism from Persian influences. This is believed as Biblical books prior to 586 BCE have no Satan figure and books written after the exile do.
  • By the third century CE, Zoroaster's monotheism was replaced with dualism in some areas. Manichaeism developed from the teachings of Mani, who taught that the flesh is evil and the spirit is good. He advocated denying the flesh to free the spirit and had an influence on early Christian saints.
  • How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

The creation stories seem to share similar themes, starting off with a primal wasteland (void / chaos) which gave birth to gods, whom then give rise to more gods. The gods that bring chaos to the entire cosmos are not inherently evil in the original traditions such as in Mesopotamian mythology and Ancient Greek Cosmology etc.

The role of the chaos monster as an opponent or adversary to a 'hero' god, and the centrality of the battle in the combat myth which inevitably ends in triumph for the hero ,in many respects shares a relationship with the Satans story and his function within earlier Jewish and Christian world views.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
In Mesopotamian religions there are stories of fertility gods and goddesses, sacred hills built in step pyramid form (ziggurats), with rituals including [animal] sacrifice. The religion was an evolving polytheism beginning around 4000 BCE and it named forces of nature. Early cities had their own gods, as city-states formed, the deities were sometimes combined into families.

The political union of Sumer and Akkad brought about the unity of their gods as Sin the moon god, Shamash the sun god, and Ishtar the morning and evening star Venus. Ishtar as a fertility goddess was considered the most popular and her worship under other names, spread to other cultures. By 2000 around BCE, gods were given roles as parents and worshipped as objects of devotion by individuals (the Gilgamesh epic also developed during this period?).

Hammurabi of Bablyon (1800 BCE±) issued a code of laws said to come from Shamash, he invited the oppressed to come to him to receive justice. Centuries later, Nebuchadnezzar made a home for exiles, including exiles from Jerusalem.

The ancient religions offered no idea of immortality, but did stress moral behavior. Life must be lived justly under the laws of the gods. As the king, also, must answer for his conduct, the concept tended to support powerful, unified kingdoms. Known for laws, cities, irrigation, astrology, astronomy, and geometry, Mesopotamia was also home to the Hebrews(?).

The Devils name
The name Lucifer has often been understood to be another name for the Devil or Satan. Term Lucifer has a long history in the church, going back to at least the fourth century. Its origin seems to come from a passage in the Old Testament from the book of Isaiah, that is believed to speak of a being cast out of heaven (due to pride?). Since there is a reference in the New Testament to the devil being cast out of heaven (Rev 12:9-12; cf. Lk 10:18), it was assumed that the passage in Isaiah referred to the same thing.

Isaiah 14:12 (New King James Version)


The Fall of Lucifer 12 " How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! Source


Belief Lucifer was the proper name of Satan began, with its use in the Bible to translate Greek. Phosphoros, which translates Hebrew. Helel ben Shahar in Isaiah xiv.12 -- "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] The verse was interpreted by Christians as a reference to "Satan," because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, though it is believed to be a literal reference to the King of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar?).

In the New Testament, Jesus claimed that he saw Satan "fall like lightning from heaven"; in John and Paul we can find Satan described as the "God of this world." I think it was these references among others that led the early Christian church/s to conclude that Helel in Isaiah 14 was Lucifer and also Satan. The similarities between their beliefs, and what they saw in the Old Testament texts came together to form an opinion, when the Latin text named the being in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer, that tradition followed ever since.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Etymology

Lucifer:


O.E. Lucifer, "Satan" also "morning star," from L. Lucifer "morning star," lit. "light-bringing," from lux (gen. lucis) + ferre "carry" (see infer) (the morning star or planet Venus in its dawn appearances; cf. Romanian Luceafăr). Source

Satan:


The proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity, O.E. Satan, from L.L. Satan (in Vulgate, in O.T.), from Gk. Satanas, from Heb. satan "adversary, one who plots against another," from root s-t-n "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." In Septuagint (Gk.) usually translated as diabolos...

"In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity." [Elaine Pagels, "The Origin of Satan," 1995]
Source

Devil:


O.E. deofol "evil spirit," from L.L. diabolus, from Gk. diabolos "accuser, slanderer" (of Heb. satan), from diaballein "to slander, attack," lit. "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein "to throw." Jerome re-introduced Satan in L. bibles, and Eng. translators have used both in different measures.

In Vulgate, as in Gk., diabolus and dæmon (see demon) were distinct, but they have merged in Eng. and other Gmc. languages. Devil's advocate (1760) is L. advocatus diaboli, one whose job it is to urge against the canonization of a candidate for sainthood. Source


  • In other languages devil may be derived from the same Indo-European root word for deva , which roughly translates as " angel ".
  • This entity is commonly referred to by a variety of names, including Abbadon, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Asmodai, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Belial, Iblis, Mephistopheles
  • This name (the devil) is ascribed to Satan at least 33 times in the Christian scriptures and indicates that Satan is an accuser or slanderer (Rev. 12:9).

    BTW, was the book of Enoch written in between the Old and New Testaments?

    [edit to add: devil etymology]

    [edit on 20-10-2008 by enduser]



  • posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:07 AM
    link   
    Im a little confused here what is the point in your two confo?? about the devil



    posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:51 AM
    link   
    reply to post by slymattb
     


    I dont know, the thread seems to focus more on arguing who said what in this thread, than the OP and the history of the devil :C



    posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:52 PM
    link   
    reply to post by enduser
     


    that's a nice theory about zoroaster but, what i'm pointing out is that the character later known as the Devil or Satan is older than Zoroaster. the original figure is at least 6000 years old.

    [edit on 20-10-2008 by undo]



    posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:58 PM
    link   
    reply to post by undo
     


    Ok, well can you actually shed some light on what it is you want to tell us? Youve seemed a little vague on the subject so far, to be fair. So, does this devil show an appearance in the Sumerian creation story? Is it mentioned in the family tree i had compiled thus far?

    Also, what is your take on the name Apollo coming from the Hurrian and Hittite divinity, Aplu? Aplu it is suggested, came from the Akkadian Aplu Enlil, meaning "the son of Enlil", a title given to the god Nergal, who was linked to Shamash Babylonian god of the sun.



    posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:18 PM
    link   
    reply to post by enduser
     


    the etymology of aplu, i believe is abzu. when the language changed in that area, "b"s became "p"s, "z"s became "l"s and since the god and his temple were frequently combined, enki's e.abzu and abzu, became synonmous with enki himself. so aplu, is enki, and therefore, apollo (or the biblical apollyon).

    thus the e.abzu and abzu, later became known as "babel." the gate of the gods, the gate of chaos, the abzu. (remember or read, the story of tiamat and abzu, i think it's in the enuma elish)

    it's also a reference for the biblical bottomless pit. read revelation 9. those things coming out of the pit are "scorpion men" as mentioned in the epic of gilgamesh (tablet IX) and the enuma elish.



    [edit on 20-10-2008 by undo]



    posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:29 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by enduser
    reply to post by slymattb
     


    I dont know, the thread seems to focus more on arguing who said what in this thread, than the OP and the history of the devil :C


    You are right. I thought the same thing when I first started reading this thread. Then I went and said something and somehow got sucked into the stupidest and most useless argument I have ever had. I appologize for my part in it. BTW thanks for posting the etymology of the word lucifer. Seems I spent 6 pages having someone lecture me on how everything you posted is wrong because I had no source and he knew better and blah blah.

    I have noticed that in most of the threads that have some religious bend in them, as well as 9/11 threads, people see the title, come in with what they want to talk about and just go, whether it is relevant or not. People also seem to have a hard time sticking to the topic in religious threads because they either want to prosteletize or just really show off everything they memorized, again whether it is on topic or not. In between all that though, it is still an interesting thread. Sorry for letting myself get caught up in something so stupid and messing up your thread with it.



    posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:36 PM
    link   
    don't want to overwhelm you with references, but the story of Enki's namshub basically proves my point. the reason the translations for (tower of) babel are so confusing is that it derives from 2 separate thoughts and experienced a language change in the middle of it.

    bab-el means gate of the gods or gate of chaos.
    chaos means confusion in this reference, thus the reason the biblical texts refer to babel as confusion (the confusing of the languages). ..it would be more correctly stated as chaos. the tower of the gate of chaos

    in the story, the languages of the people were confused by enki's namshub.
    there are many variations on what the namshub was, some claiming it was a poem or story when read would confuse the language of the reader. some say it's an incantation, that when read, confuses the language of the reader. some say enki used the incantation to confuse the languages of the people.

    i think it's a gate, just like the name means, that brought people here from somewhere else, and they had different languages, hence the meaning of chaos/confusion and the namshub.

    tiamat was called chaos, as well. my theory is that tiamat was part of the gate system, perhaps a wormhole. i've written three chapters on this subject in a book i started but never finished, called "the star*gates" (of sumer). you can read the relevant pages here:

    www.thestargates.com...

    [edit on 20-10-2008 by undo]



    new topics

    top topics



     
    4
    << 3  4  5    7 >>

    log in

    join