Ninurta and Thor: The Savior-Farmer Parallel

Greetings ATS!

I've got another mythological parallel thread for you all.
This one comes with a question for all of you as well.

Mesopotamia and Iceland. Go ahead and take a minute to try and come up with any similarities concerning the two distinct locations. There aren't many. But there is one that's very interesting. To explain it, I'm going to tell you two stories.

The Story of Ninurta

Ninurta was the son of the Anunnaki called Enlil. Enlil was, simultaneously, the King of the Gods, and the bringer of storms. Ninurta became a farmer, and tended to the Earth, sewing and reaping her bounty every spring, summer, and autumn. When the wise god Enki created human beings out of clay and breath their villages and markets were placed under Ninurta's protection. When Ninurta came of age he gained some of his father Enlil's governance over storms.

One day a deadly threat appeared in the Fertile Crescent. It was called Asag, and it was a towering serpent made of stone that terrorized the Sumerian farmers, stealing their livestock, ruining their crops, and slaughtering them mercilessly. Ninurta, as their sworn protector, vowed to avenge his people and sought the guidance and assistance of his father, and the wise god Enki. The two Anunnaki advised Ninurta to seek out Sharur, the sacred mace.

Sharur was a sentient weapon, capable of delivering absolutely deadly blows, as well as choosing who could, or could not wield it. With the help of Sharur Ninurta engaged Asag in battle, and succeeded in destroying the fearsome rock-serpent with a fatal strike from his mace. In response, the Sumerian farmers began to form a hero-cult around Ninurta, for his deeds and actions as their protector.

Ninurta became the hero of the Sumerians, and their savior. His mace became a symbol of protection, cleansing, and a tool for blessing sacred temples and altars. Ninurta's cult thrived until the collapse of the Sumerian/Babylonian culture when the Persians conquered Mesopotamia.

The Story of Thor

Thor was the son of the Æsir called Oðin. Oðin was, simultaneously, the King of the Gods, and the bringer of storms. Thor became a farmer, and tended to the Earth, reaping and sewing her bounty every spring, summer, and autumn. When the all-seeing god, Heimdallr, named the races of human beings, their villages and farms were placed under Thor's protection. Thor grew up and gained governance over thunder and lightning, two traits which formerly belonged to his father, Oðin.

One day a threat appeared in Miðgarð, it was called Jörmungandr, the "world serpent". Jörmungandr started to grow and grow, until he began to threaten to Norsemen, eating their livestock, ruining their crops, and killing them. Thor vowed to avenge his people, and sought advise and assistance from his father, Oðin, who advised him that he should seek out the dwarves of Svartalfheim, who could create a magnificent hammer for him called Mjölnir.

Mjölnir was a sacred hammer, capable of dealing death-blows to any whom it struck, and it was only able to be used by Thor, whom it had been created for. During the future-battle of Ragnarok Thor engaged Jörmungandr with Mjölnir, and struck a fatal blow that killed the world-serpent. In response to the future-defeat of this terrible serpent, the Norsemen formed a hero-cult around Thor for his deeds and actions in protecting and avenging them.

Thor became the hero of the Norsemen, and their savior. His hammer became a symbol of cleansing, blessing, and hallowing sacred temples and altars. Thor's cult thrived until the collapse of the Norse way of life during the march of progress that saw the emergence of the imperial empires of England and France.

The Point

So, what's the point? Well, there are several:

• Son of the King of the Gods
• Father is also the bringer of the storms
• Inherits some of his father's storm qualities
• Serves as a farmer and protector of humans
• In possession of a sacred weapon
• Weapon can only be used by them
• People are threatened by a monstrous serpent
• Defeats serpent with sacred weapon
• Hero cult develops around them
• Weapon becomes an emblem and amulet
• Cult endures until ethnically the people no longer exist

What is really interesting is that this farmer-warrior serpent slayer motif does not exist anywhere, geographically, or in time, between the Sumerians (6000 BC - 1700 BC) and the Norse (800 AD - 1050 AD). There are certainly heroes and farmer-gods, and even heroes who slay serpents, or heroes who get magical weapons. But the nearly note-for-note myths of Ninurta and Thor are not paralleled anywhere else between the two distant cultures. It is not present among the Persians, the Hebrews, the Hittites/Hurrians, the Minoans, Mycenaean, the Greeks, Etruscan, Celts, or Romans. Additionally, the cuneiform tablets depicting the life and adventures of Ninurta were not uncovered or deciphered until the early half of the 1900s.

So, ATS, what say you?

How did this mythological parallel travel from the Fertile Crescent (modern day southern Iraq) all the way to the Vikings (north-western Europe) without stopping off anywhere between?

I myself don't have an answer, so there technically aren't any "right" or "wrong" responses. I'm more interested in theories. Some kind of "collective unconscious" perhaps? An unknown historical connection between southern Iraq and Iceland? Perhaps something more mystical? What do you think?


~ Wandering Scribe


MODS: this topic can fall under either "Conspiracies" or "Metaphysics", if you think it belongs in one or the other more fittingly, please move it for me. Thanks!

This reminds me also of Zeus fighting typhaon who he eventually killed with thunder or lightening. Its depicted on vases and the story has several different versions.

I did also hear a talk about the Druids whose history has virtually been destroyed by the early Church. Apparently they were called serpents and dragons. Wales uses the dragon as its symbol and I wonder if these stories could in any way be linked to the demise of the Druidic world. One part of this world was education but I haven't had time to research much about it.

It does seem to be linked to the passing of one age into another.

reply to post by Shiloh7


I considered the Zeus/Typhon connection, but, it lacks several overlaps:

- Zeus is not the son of a storm-god, nor does he inherit storm-god qualities from his father. Cronos was a god of agriculture and farming, Zeus didn't inherit anything from him quality wise (outside of being a jerk, ha ha).

- Typhon had snakes instead of legs, but was himself a chimera, a mixture of a variety of mythological and natural animals. Asag and the World Serpent are both strictly snakes/serpents.

- Zeus was never part of a savior cult, and was, often disliked by many of Greece's people, despite being the King of the Gods. Figures like Dionysus, and the hero Orpheus, were responsible for widely spreading the belief and worship of deities outside of Zeus and the Olympians.

Greece definitely seemed to be the most obvious route the myth would have had to travel through, but there's no evidence of a savior-cult centered around a farmer god who slays a serpent in Greece, unfortunately.

As for the Celts and the mainland Druid priests, the closest figure they have is Lugh, the god of light. Lugh did come as a savior, and protector of the people. He was armed with a magic spear, and he did fight evil that threatened his people. However, he was not the son of the King of the Gods, nor did he inherit any storm qualities. He did have a widespread cult following though.

The question remains, how, or when, did the Greeks or the Celts interact with the Sumerians?

Thanks for the response.


~ Wandering Scribe

We only have the 'accepted' view of history and I know that with DNA, satellite photography and other modern technologies we are slowly peeling back the ages and finding out things every day. One thing that is never acknowledged is that ancient man travelled considerable distances and traded far further than the text books like to tell us.

We also have had such change to the land above and now below sea level, the loss of at least one huge civilisation off India and probably in the Atlantic. As both is these land masses appear to have sunk or simply been flooded would have served as landing stages for trade and people movement. I suspect many of these myths not only have an element of truth in them because we know man existed with many huge animals, reptiles etc in the past, but all probably came from a much earlier civilisation that fractured and founded the peopling of other parts of the world over time.

The stone serpent seems to me to have been a scaled reptile which could have been coloured like a stone. So its probably not that far fetched. I believe that some time in the past leeches grew of 8' - 10' long - imagine that

reply to post by Shiloh7


I don't necessarily have a problem with the accepted view of history. We have artifacts, written documentations, exhumed corpses and remains, even fragments of truth in religious books the world over. Thanks to remote areas on Earth we can even still explore cultures who live in "out dated" types of civilizations, like the egalitarian Eskimos, or hunter/gathered tribal bands in dense rain forests.

While the "alternative" history painted by "scholars" and UFOlogists is often colorful and superficially exiting, accepted history has more facts and supporting evidence. And, if you dig deep enough, "accepted history" even has its own marvels and mysteries which have yet to be explored or explained. I think those who rally against "accepted history" simply haven't delved deeply enough into history outside of what they learn in public school.

I'm completely open, though, to the idea of "land bridges" between cultures which subsequently melted (if they were of ice) or are now submerged (if not made of ice). I'm just having trouble picturing a bridge between Iraq and Iceland that doesn't somehow cross Europe or the United Kingdom in any way, shape, or form.

Thanks for the continued input though.


~ Wandering Scribe

These Norse people really got around.
Songs of Fire and Ice (Game of Thrones) is an interesting book series where they had galleys with sails and oarsmen who could take a break while they had a good following wind.
The Norse had clinker hulled boats,

which meant overlapping planks riveted together at the edges with copper rivets.
The boat could flex in heavy seas without breaking up.
They were light enough so the crew could pick it up and carry it between headwaters, to traverse entire continents.
Have you ever seen the movie, the 13th Warrior?
www.imdb.com...

I do wonder at the inclusion of the story of the tower of Babel where apparently the God or Gods got fed up with man's babble and decided to do something about it. Its the thought of confusing languages that seems too simplistic (or miraculous) - if you can alter languages you can turn down the volume surely?

I wonder if it may signify a movement of humans to settle in other lands. We are now tracking human travelling with DNA so the future looks bright for seeing the parallels in different societies.

The God Cernunas although worshipped in Britain actually sits in a yogic pose which, despite being very uncomfortable for many seems a trifle ambitious for the average ancient man unless he was use to yogic exercise from India. As you rightly say there is so much actual known history and perhaps we are still becoming aware of the links it shows us.

That's a good analogy....

the idea of "land bridges" between cultures which subsequently melted (if they were of ice) or are now submerged (if not made of ice). I'm just having trouble picturing a bridge between Iraq and Iceland that doesn't somehow cross Europe or the United Kingdom in any way, shape, or form.

But I like the way it is told via the banyan tree....

Older banyan trees are characterized by their aerial prop roots that grow into thick woody trunks which, with age, can become indistinguishable from the main trunk. The original support tree can sometimes die, so that the banyan becomes a "columnar tree" with a hollow central core. Old trees can spread out laterally using these prop roots to cover a wide area.

Aerial roots are short roots above the ground. They are almost always adventitious.

Over time, the roots coalesce to form a pseudotrunk, which may give the appearance that it is strangling the host.[2] Another strangler that begins life as an epiphyte is the Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla) of tropical and subtropical eastern Australia, which has powerfully descending aerial roots.

In the subtropical to warm-temperate rainforests of northern New Zealand, Metrosideros robusta, the rātā tree, sends down aerial roots down several sides of the trunk of the host. From these descending roots, horizontal roots grow out to girdle the trunk and fuse with the descending roots. In some cases the "strangler" outlives the host tree, leaving as its only trace a hollow core in the massive pseudotrunk

En.wiki



Wi-fi

reply to post by Wifibrains


I don't really understand the angle you're coming from.

Land bridges aren't an analogy, they are a historical theory. Most commonly, the theory focuses on the settlement of the Americas, but, I know that Indian mythology (from India, not Native American mythology) also occasionally presupposes a land bridge as well.

If you're suggesting that the Banyan tree root method is similar to human migration, and that the myth (or its motifs) spread from one culture to the next, the same way that banyan tree roots carry banyan tree seeds, then I would ask you the same question I asked Shiloh7:

Where are the myths in Persia, Anatolia, Greece, Rome, and the Celtic lands that mirror the Ninurta myth and its motifs?

The Sumerian culture flourished between 6000 BCE and 2500 BCE. The Norse/Viking culture flourished between 800 BCE and 1500 CE. The Norse and the Sumerians never existed on Earth at the same time. Their cultures could only have shared the myth and its motifs through a method that didn't involve direct communication.

The most logical means would be a progression from Sumer, to Babylon, to Persia, to Anatolia, to Greece, then into Rome or the Celtic lands, which were invaded and pillaged by the Norse Vikings. The problem is that the myth only exists in this mirrored telling in Sumer and among the Vikings.

Since there's no evidence of a land bridge between Sumer and Iceland, and no cultural evidence of the myth between 2500 BCE and 800 BCE, I can only question how it managed to travel and survive.

If I haven't interpreted your banyan tree analogy properly, please take some time to explain it, without just quoting wiki.


~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by jmdewey60


I have not seen the 13th Warrior, no. I am, however, familiar with Viking sea travel, and their methods. And yes, the Viking raiders were extremely capable seafarers (even finding the Americas).

The problem still remains with the chronological scale though.

The Sumerian culture flourished in southern Iraq between 6000 BCE and 2700 BCE, before they were swallowed up by Akkadian invaders, disappearing from the Earth entirely by 2500 BCE. The Norse/Vikings did not achieve cultural unity until about 800 BCE, and their culture flourished until about 1500 CE.

What this means is that the Sumerians, and their culture, myths, and stories, did not exist on Earth during the time of the Vikings. The Sumerians culture itself was not even known to exist until the late 1800s when Assyriologists (people who study the archaeological remains of the Assyrians and Babylonians) rediscovered Sumerian cuneiform tablets.

Even if the Vikings could have run across Europe, down through Greece, over to Turkey, and then south to Mesopotamia; or, even if they could have sailed from the Norwegian sea, south along the Atlantic, around the bottom of Africa, north through the Indian ocean, into the Arabian sea, and finally settled on the coast of the Persian Gulf, they would have been nearly 3000 years too late to interact with the Sumerians.

Advanced seafaring technology included, I still do not see how the Vikings and the Sumerians could have shared this myth.

~ Wandering Scribe

I thought that the land bridge was a good analogy, as a bridge is a crossing. The banyan tree metaphor was showing a diferent route visually. instead of spreading out sideways like a population, the legends are the ones that went up across and back down, like how the routes decend from the branches of the tree and come back down to the ground and start to grow in supporting the branches of the tree.

Annunaki, ascended/decended masters, reincarnation, ect, ect, the mind boggles just thinking about the possibilities, but if a tree can do it....

You did ask for ideas and theories, and in another post you said you had trouble visualising how the myth spread.

Trying to visualise what you was describing I saw the banyan tree, and the wiki text seemed a perfect analogy.

reply to post by Wifibrains


I can see more of what you mean now, thanks for explaining it. And yes, I did ask for theories, and am willing to read and discuss any brought up during the course of this thread. The banyan root idea is not so much an analogy, but a fact. At least, in a mythological sense.

There is a myth known as the "dying and rising myth", which begins in Sumer. In the modern day this myth can be found in the story of Jesus Christ. It can also be found in nearly every other culture on Europe and the Americas. The banyan tree root analogy is a perfect analogy for how the "dying and rising myth" spread.

My original interest in the Ninurta/Thor connection followed along similar lines. I looked for Ninurta in Egypt, Anatolia, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Celtic world, expecting, like the "dying and rising myth", to find examples everywhere.

Instead, I found none. That was when I decided to post that revelation on ATS.

Viking foot travel
Viking seafaring
Alternative historical timelines
The banyan tree analogy

They're all interesting theories, and I've weighed and considered each, but have so far found evidence which demonstrates their lack of explaining the topic. Not that I'm discounting everything from the very start. I've already said how at least 3 of the above theories have evidence supporting their influence in other areas, just not here.

Thanks for the reply and contribution to the thread though.


~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

They're all interesting theories, and I've weighed and considered each, but have so far found evidence which demonstrates their lack of explaining the topic.

What evidence did you find?

What if something could tie them all together?

reply to post by Wifibrains

What evidence did you find?

1. the myth only exists in Sumerian religion and Norse religion
2. there is no historical evidence that the Norse and Sumerians interacted
3. there are no known raiding/trade routes which put the Norse in Iraq
4. the Sumerians were a non-existent ethnicity by the time of the Norse
5. Sumerian culture was discovered 1000 years after the Norse culture ended

If the banyan tree root analogy was applicable, then there would need to be evidence of the root by which the myth spread from Sumerian religion to Norse religion. There is no evidence in culture, in trade routes, or even in passed-on mythological motifs that the Sumerian and Norse cultures were ever united.

When two cultures interact they exchange more than one story. They exchange language, goods, people, religious ideas, technology, arts and crafts, clothing, and architecture. The Norse and Sumerian cultures share none of that, they only share this one, single, myth that is not shared by any culture which existed in the time between them.

Where is the banyan tree root?


~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe



Here is another possibility, but you would have to consider that DNA holds information, and somehow that information can be accessed/remembered or triggered.

Atavisms can occur in several ways. One way is when genes for previously existing phenotypical features are preserved in DNA, and these become expressed through a mutation that either knock out the overriding genes for the new traits or make the old traits override the new one.

If we all come from one common ancestor, and that ancestor had certain traits and behaviours, over time these traits can resurface....

A phenotype (from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behaviour

All DNA on earth goes back to one common ancestor, though there is the question of, has DNA been tampered with... Especially human DNA.

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories

The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend.

funnily enough this is where the tree comes into it.... And the trunk of the tree is a single black line. (universe?) uni- one verse- line.

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a ubiquitous family of large biological molecules that perform multiple vital roles in the coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes. Together with DNA, RNA comprises the nucleic acids, which, along with proteins, constitute the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life.

en.wikipedia.org... Phylogenetic_tree.svg

DNA, RNA, proteins, trinity?



Of course genetic manipulation opens up another can of worms, but still, it all came from the universe first. Alien manipulation, and a claim that we are their property or creation would be fraudulent, but our indoctrination into law, contracts and ownership would Have us see it different, and accept them as our creators/gods.

Going of topic, so I'll leave it there. Lol.


Wi-fi

(all ex text from wiki, starting at atavism and following interesting "blue" words)

reply to post by Wifibrains


For the spread of genes and physical characteristics, that makes perfect sense. For the spread of an idea, or a belief though, I don't know if it quite stacks up. Beliefs do not get passed on like hair color, or height. They get taught. Beliefs are ideas. Myths are beliefs presented in stories. A story of an idea. The idea of a collective unconscious might make more sense in this instance.

While similar to Atavism, the idea of the Collective Unconscious presupposes beliefs exist universally, as opposed to physical features. That through our evolution we all retain certain mental patterns, like pareidolia (from our other thread), or fear of the dark, or a belief in the afterlife.

The Collective Unconscious theory states that these qualities exist within us as a response to our surroundings, and our culture. Paredolia helps us recognize faces, which allows us to notice hidden predators and avoid getting eaten. Fear of the dark keeps us from wandering out after dark into a jungle where predators are waiting to munch on us. Belief in the afterlife stems from rapid brain growth and functionality expansion, confusing dreams and hallucinations for reality.

The elements of the Ninurta story, and the Thor story, could very well be recessive myths buried within the subconscious of all human beings, that only emerge in various cultures for some unexplained reason.

What that reason is I can't say though.


~ Wandering Scribe

Actually, it's not only Ninurta and Thor who shares the same title as the farmer god / the god of harvest / lord of the plough. This title is shared in all cultures. In Rome, he is called Saturnus and among the Aztecs, he is called Quetzalcoatl.

“Ninurta’s popularity in his homeland never diminished through the millennia. He was both Lord of the Plough, a god of agriculture, as well as a warrior god.” - Languages and cultures in contact: at the crossroads of civilizations by Karel van Lerberghe, Gabriela Voet, p. 159

“To Quetzalcaotl, god of the harvest” - Montezuma: an epic on the origin and fate of the Aztec nation, by Hiram Hoyt Richmond, p.152

“Gucumatz was the Aztek Quetzalcoatl, and resembled the Latin Saturn” - The Christian remembrancer, Volume 54, p.432

It seems to me that these ancient people across civilizations in different parts of the world were worshiping the same god they call the god of harvest.

reply to post by 8eightup


The harvest-god is an accepted archetype of agrarian culture. The overlaps between Ninurta and Thor extend to something far beyond simply being harvest-gods though. Their actual myths, the story of their lives, is paralleled in only their two cultures.

Osiris, the harvest-god of Egypt, never entered combat with the demon-serpent. Cronus, the Greco-Roman harvest-god, never received a sacred weapon from divine sources, which he used to protect the farmers of Greece. Neither of them became the center of a hero-cult among the common folk. Ninurta and Thor both fulfill all three of those elements (and many more).

I'm in no way disputing archetypes, I'm quite familiar with them: the storm-god as King of the Gods, the dying-and-rising god as a vegetation deity, the Queen of Heaven as a goddess of war, all of those are existent archetypes present across the whole ancient world.

Ninurta and Thor are another undiscovered archetype: the savior-god as the center of a hero cult. It does not exist in Greece, the Celtic world, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or the smaller groups (Hittite, Hurrian, Phrygian, Etruscan, etc) that existed spatially (across distance) or temporally (across time) between the Sumerians and the Norse.


~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by 8eightup

 

The harvest-god is an accepted archetype of agrarian culture. The overlaps between Ninurta and Thor extend to something far beyond simply being harvest-gods though. Their actual myths, the story of their lives, is paralleled in only their two cultures.

It's not because of the agrarian culture that this god was called the god of harvest. It is merely symbolic of something sinister in nature. It is symbolic of the harvest of souls. If you look at the pitchfork which the devil holds, this tool is actually an agricultural tool. Ninurta also holds a similar agricultural tool as well.

Osiris, the harvest-god of Egypt, never entered combat with the demon-serpent. Cronus, the Greco-Roman harvest-god, never received a sacred weapon from divine sources, which he used to protect the farmers of Greece. Neither of them became the center of a hero-cult among the common folk. Ninurta and Thor both fulfill all three of those elements (and many more).

I usually skip the tales mainly because it serves as a distraction of what the truth is.

I'm in no way disputing archetypes, I'm quite familiar with them: the storm-god as King of the Gods, the dying-and-rising god as a vegetation deity, the Queen of Heaven as a goddess of war, all of those are existent archetypes present across the whole ancient world.

If you look closely, Ninurta, Thor, Saturnus,Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Shiva, etc. are all hermaphrodite. In other words, it is the same deity, whether male or female. Ishtar, Venus, Isis and the likes whom we recognized to be female, are actually hermaphrodite, the female side of Ninurta, Thor, etc.

Ninurta and Thor are another undiscovered archetype: the savior-god as the center of a hero cult. It does not exist in Greece, the Celtic world, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or the smaller groups (Hittite, Hurrian, Phrygian, Etruscan, etc) that existed spatially (across distance) or temporally (across time) between the Sumerians and the Norse.

The name merely does not it exist, but the deity does. It changes names across civilizations and cultures, but it is only but one deity manifesting itself into different names, forms, tales, as it transitions.

reply to post by 8eightup

It's not because of the agrarian culture that this god was called the god of harvest. It is merely symbolic of something sinister in nature. It is symbolic of the harvest of souls.

In Canaanite mythology the god of the harvest is called Hadad (later Ba'al-Hadad), and the god of the dead is called Mot.

During the Baal Cycle a terrible famine befalls the Canaanite people, and Hadad travels to the Underworld in hope of getting Mot to lift the famine and allow the vegetation to grow again. Mot refuses though, and tricks Hadad into partaking of the food and water of the Underworld, which kills Hadad. As a result of Hadad's death the crops completely die, famine and drought set in, and Hadad's wife, Anat, with the assistance of Shapshu (a daughter of the Supreme God Il) must travel to the Underworld and subdue Mot so that he will revive Hadad. When Hadad is brought back to life he challenges and conquers Mot, lifting the ban on crops, and saving the suffering Canaanites from famine, drought, and starvation.

It is absolutely clear that Hadad (Ba'al-Hadad) is a vegetation and agricultural deity directly related to the agrarian nature of the Canaanite people. When their crops stop growing it is seen as a weakening/death of Hadad. When Mot is conquered or subdued it is seen as a revitalization of Hadad and the return of the harvest.

Your "soul harvest" scenario is only applicable in Medieval European superstition, it does not apply at all to actual ancient harvest deities.

If you look at the pitchfork which the devil holds, this tool is actually an agricultural tool. Ninurta also holds a similar agricultural tool as well.

Actually, the Devil has a pitchfork is based on either the Trident of Poseidon, or the Bident occasionally used by Hades. Depending on which you believe it is, here is the explanation:

Tridents (3-pronged spears) are used as fishing implements. They aid the fisherman in stabbing fish (an old method used by cultures that hadn't perfected the fishing pole yet). Why is it associated with Poseidon? Because he is the god of the sea, which is where the fish live.

Bidents (2-pronged spears) are used in breaking up and turning over rough clay and other rocky earth. They were used by those who wished to shape and change the land (for architecture, roads, etc). The reason that Hades used one? Because he was god of the Underworld, whose domain was the rough earth, the rocky terrain, and because he was also the god of architecture (as all stone, precious metals, and gems came from his domain).

Obviously the Christian conception of Hell and the Devil borrows heavily from the Greek Underworld. At least, the Underworld as recounted by Renaissance literature and poetry. Thus, the Devil has an underground realm, and holds a Bident.

It had nothing to do with harvests, reaping, farming, or soul collection.

Also, Ninurta had a sickle, a tool used for collecting wheat and grains, and in separating the wheat from the chaff. A tool with no connotations toward Death (sickles and scythes are different tools). Ninurta also possessed a mace, called Sharur, which was a weapon of war (war-god, hero, being two of his other qualities).

I usually skip the tales mainly because it serves as a distraction of what the truth is.

The tales are the only place to find the truth. If you never read the tales, which exist to explain their function, what are you basing your interpretation on?

If you look closely, Ninurta, Thor, Saturnus,Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Shiva, etc. are all hermaphrodite. In other words, it is the same deity, whether male or female. Ishtar, Venus, Isis and the likes whom we recognized to be female, are actually hermaphrodite, the female side of Ninurta, Thor, etc.

This is not the truth at all.

Ninurta
Baal
Thor

All of them are clearly masculine. Many even had wives (Gula, goddess of medicine / Anat, Queen of Heaven / Sif, goddess of the fields).

Ishtar
Isis
Aphrodite

All of them are clearly feminine. Many even had husbands (Dumuzi, god of shepherds / Osiris, god of the dead / Hephaestus, god of metallurgy).

To think that Ba'al was a woman, or that Venus was a man is ridiculous.

~ Wandering Scribe