The Polyteism of the bible and the mystery of Lucifer (introduction)
From: Christopher Wallhagen (cwallhagen@earthlink.net) Subject: Re: Lucifer/Satan/Jesus/Venus Newsgroups: alt.mythology View this article only Date: 2000-09-28 08:22:28 PST
It is interesting and impoortant to note that the Septuagint uses the word "Heosphoros" for what the NIV translates as Morning Star in Isaiah 14:12, and the Vulgate follows with the Latin word "Lucifer". However, this is not the word is in the Greek text of Rev 22:16, instead it is "ho aster, ho lampros, ho prwinos" translated by the vulgate as "stella splendida et matutina".
This does not mean that a case cannot be made for Jesus as a personification for the Morning Star, but I don't think you will find good evidence for it in the scriptures themselves.
-------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher B Siren (cbsiren@unh.edu) Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn? Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick View this article only Date: 2000/05/04
Helel is Hebrew for "light-bringer". I have not seen Helel as a Canaanite deity in any of the surviving myths or inscriptions, so it is possible that the Isaiah author was simply being poetic and was not refering to a mythological being.
However, in the context of Isaiah 14:12, Helel is probably refering to a morning star (which is usually the planet Venus, but could be any of the planets seen just before dawn). Venus in turn, was associated with the Babylonian goddess Ishtar as well as her Canaanite analog Athtart (Astarte/Ashtoreth/Ashtart) so one could draw a tenuous relationship between Helel and Astarte that way, but it would be tenuous.
The Canaanite goddess Athirat (aka Ashera, Astartian) is usually considered a separate deity from Athtart. It is she who is usually identified as one of the two mothers of the gracious gods, who include Shachar and Shalim (Dawn and Dusk).
Added to the mix, is the Canaanite god Athtar (aka Ashtar, Atra of the sky) who was Athirat's son in some traditions and son of the moon and the sun in others. He is also identified with the planet Venus and was the great god of the Sabeans and of Himyar in south Arabia.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740 cbsiren@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html Canaanite Mythology FAQ: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html
-------------------------------------------------
From: jake stratton-kent (jake@kiblah.demon.co.uk) Subject: that old inverted pentagram. Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi, alt.mythology, alt.pagan, alt.religion.angels, talk.religion.misc, talk.religion.newage, alt.satanism View: Complete Thread (20 articles) | Original Format Date: 1997/03/05
In article <tyagi.857443914@kudo20>, nocTifer <tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com> writes
93 sinister dudes,
>the origins of these two terms stem way back in time, the first >(Lucifer) being possibly older by virtue of connection to the >planet Venus (bringer of dawn or light),
okay so Lucifer is connected to the planet Venus - this is a matter of occult tradition, but what does it mean? Just recently - at long last, I've started to see wider recognition that the Pentagram symbol originates with cultures like the Sumerians who were aware of the eight year-five pointed cycle of conjunctions of Sun and Venus. This also accounts for the 8 pointed Star of Ishtar. The Mayans based their calendar entirely on the Sun-Venus cycle.
This cycle which traces a pentagram in the sky over eight years is actually a double cycle, there are in fact two simultaneous pentagrams, an upright and an averse. This is a curious connection with 'Satanic' symbolism - but I am unaware of any 'Satanists' who are even acquainted with the outlines of this 'tradition', let alone know what to do with it.
<G> 'Luciferians' however, that could be another matter.
<snip>
> >simon@orac.office.onechip.co.uk (Simon Richardson): >>>Therefore the name "Lucifer" might be considered a title, rather than a >>>personal name. A title for a planet, for an angel, or for a match. > >it was a nickname and became a name and nickname, though completely >illogical given the usual associations with Satan (who is more often >called the Prince of Darkness otherwise).
not so illogical if the ancient christians had an inkling of the Venus connection....
<snip>
>I think you're playing chaos with the city of angels, though your name >does sound familiar. where's that (Rofocale) from? why do you consider >'Los' to be Lucifer? > If it sounds familiar then you must have heard of Lucifuge Rofocale somewhen, (Lucifuge = Flees the light, it is an insulting pun, just like Astaroth is an enemies twisting of the original name).
<megasnip>
L.A.Y.L.A.H.
In nomine Babalonis
93 93/93
Jake
-------------------------------------------------
URL: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html
Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ 1.2 by Christopher B. Siren
[for reference on the Canaanite "Shachar/Shahar" - the supposed father of Lucifer, Heylel ben Shachar]
-------------------------------------------------
From: Puck T. Smith (p_t_smith@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Oldest God Of The Dawn? Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.pagan, alt.religion.wicca View this article only Date: 2001-09-21 21:48:17 PST
Big Hair Televangelist [bighairtelevangelist@my-deja.com] proclaimed for all the world to see:
> Who is the oldest God of the dawn? > > Does he date back to Sumerian times, or later? > > Regards, > > Big Hair > >
Khepera was an Egyptian god associated with the dawn. I don't know if he is the oldest though. In the Payrus Ani, Ra is refered to as "Kephera in the morning." He is usually depicted as a scarab rolling the sun, like a ball of dung, above the horizon.
Hope this helps.
-- Puck the Smith [p_t_smith (at) hotmail (dot) com]
-------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher B Siren (cbsiren@unh.edu) Subject: Re: seeking info on Diana & Lucifer Newsgroups: alt.mythology View this article only Date: 2000/07/26
The Canaanite connection isn't even that clear as far as I can tell. The Hebrew/Canaanite is "Helel" (the word is the same in both languages) which is the name of the morning star, regardless of whether it is seen as a deity or a naturalistic object. I'm not aware of Helel appearing as a deity in any discovered text. However, Dawn, that is the Hebrew & Canaanite "Shachar" is a Canaanite god. Shachar is also the literal "dawn". The question is, was Isaiah referencing Canaanite cosmology (i.e. Shachar sired Helel), or was he simply being poetic? (i.e. the morning star is the son of the dawn in a similar sense to which, say, Bill Clinton is the son of Arkansas or, going further afield, the Age of Reason is the child of revolutions in 17th century math and physics.)
Even if Isaiah intended a Canaanite connection, I don't think those who made the Latin translation were aware of a Canaanite deity named Helel, even if one existed.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740 cbsiren@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html Canaanite Myth FAQ: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html
-------------------------------------------------
From: AngelWolf70 (angelwolf70@aol.com) Subject: Re: seeking info on Diana & Lucifer Newsgroups: alt.mythology View this article only Date: 2000/07/21
Hello again,
This is to clear up what was said in the reply that was posted to my post. Diana and Lucifer are both Roman deities. The following passage I am quoting comes from Charles Leland's "Aradia, Gospel of the Witches."
"Before all creation, there existed a goddess of darkness called Diana. At the beginning, all things were one in her, as they were in the coiled serpent or cat. She later divided herself into male and female, and into darkness and light. The light half of Diana was her brother, Lucifer. The goddess of darkness loved and desired the god of light, but Lucifer did not want to be possessed by darkness. Although Diana pursued him every night, he repulsed her immodest advances. Diana eventually discovered that Lucifer had a beautiful fairycat which always slept beside him. She persuaded this cat to change places with her one night. From the union of the goddess of darkness with the god of light, there was born a daughter, Aradia. Aradia was named the first of the witches. Diana sent her to the earth to teach human beings the art of witchcraft. That was the beginning of black magic and was taught in the name of Diana, Queen of the Witches, who had changed places with a beautiful fairycat."
No offense was taken though. I do hope to hear from others who have any info for me on them. Thanks.
Sincerely, Keith
------------------------------------------------- From: Gale (gale@futuresouth.com) Subject: Re: seeking info on Diana & Lucifer Newsgroups: alt.mythology View this article only Date: 2000/07/22
On 21 Jul 2000 22:38:45 GMT, angelwolf70@aol.com (AngelWolf70) wrote:
>Hello again, > >This is to clear up what was said in the reply that was posted to my post. >Diana and Lucifer are both Roman deities. The following passage I am quoting >comes from Charles Leland's "Aradia, Gospel of the Witches." >(snip)
While Leland and his _Aradia_ are quite delightful in their way, and have had a seminal impact on 20th. Century Wicca, it might be useful to offer a word on Leland's "scholarship," especially in a mythology newsgroup, where folks might be concerned with historical accuracy. Brief summation by Ronald Hutton in _The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles_:
"Now, since its publication, no historian or folklorist or (indeed) modern witch has uncovered any trace of the sort of hereditary cult in Tuscany which Leland claimed to exist. And experts in medieval Italian literature have found no similarities in it to his so-called _Vangelo_, which he claimed to be fourteenth-century. It reds, in fact, like an unmistakably nineteenth-century work. ..."
I don't have the details of the myths Leland appropriated or the gods and goddesses he combined (I'll leave that to the more scholarly mythology regulars), but Leland generally should be taken as more "creative" than "historical."
(And I'll go back to lurking, as I am, indeed, less than expert on the subject of myth.)
Blessed Be, Gale
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (original Tarot, poetry, fiction gale@futuresouth.com modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
-------------------------------------------------
From: Sepp Rothwangl (calendersign@teleweb.at) Subject: Re: On Venus and Lucifer Newsgroups: alt.mythology View this article only Date: 2000/02/04
Luzifer means "fire bringer" and describes or expresses some three functions of stars:
1. Morning star (Ishtar....and so on 2. Spring equinox constellion as the the morning constellation 3. The polarstar, because all other stars are turning around him like a fire bow for rubbing fire in stone age. Therefore Prometheus (Greek: rubbing forward) is nothing else than Thuban (alpha draconis) the same as pramathys in India.
Satan(a) is first mentionend in some Asian (Mordwinian, Kaukasian) myths as a stone deep in the sea. I think it derives from Chronos/Saturn and later changed to Satyr.. bye CountDAWN www.calendersign.ric.at
-------------------------------------------------
From: Carl KICE Brown (cbrown@dexter.pmeh.uiowa.edu) Subject: Re: Cicero on Hercules Newsgroups: sci.classics, humanities.classics, alt.mythology View: Complete Thread (14 articles) | Original Format Date: 1997/07/29
SPBurris wrote: > > In article <5r8bj5$fp7$1@shell5.ba.best.com>, dclxvi@best.com wrote: > > > In article <spb11-2307972051060001@cu-dialup-0723.cit.cornell.edu>, > > SPBurris <spb11@cornell.edu> wrote: > > >In article <5r5nq5$sqa$1@shell5.ba.best.com>, dclxvi@best.com wrote: > > >> the gods' celestial manifestations are the planets. you see who your > > >> neighbors (or people that you have just met) call the planets, and you > > >> know what gods correspond to your gods in the local system. it's nothing > > >> more complicated than that. > > >Not too long ago, someone posted something about this very topic. Turns > > >out that the planets are identified with Olympian gods rather late in > > >antiquity. Or maybe a professor of mine brought it up in a class we were > > >teaching... whatever. > > > > it is more accurate to say that it is a currently fashionable opinion > > among academics that 'the planets [were] identified with Olympian gods > > rather late in antiquity'. the ancients themselves had no such notion. > > Well, I must say you are right. I have gone and looked the matter up in > my "Book of Classical Knowledge Untainted by the Classicists Themselves", > and wouldn't you know -- the "Ancients" never once refered to the future > identification of their gods with the planets. Thanks goodness I had the > foresight to purchase the BCKUCT, and likewise concerning my dog-eared > copy of Flimmy Peevish's "On the Dangers of Fashionable Opinions among > Those Familiar with Classical Literature" (featuring a convenient > interlinear translation). > > Oh, why didn't I listen to my Mammy and stick to trusty Penguin editions? > > -- > SPBurris at Cornell University > Greek, Latin and bagpipes!
According to Adrian Room's new book (1997) "Who's Who in Classical Mythology" ISBN 0-8442-5469-X, between the 5th and the 3rd centuries BC the Greeks, under the influence of information coming from Babylonian astronomers, renamed the 5 planets, identifying them with gods deemed equivalent/identical to the gods the Babylonians had identified these planets with. Subsequently, of course, the Romans named the planets after their names for the Greek gods. I don't know, and Room generally doesn't say, whether the Romans also had had different names for the planets in earlier centuries.
Anyway the earlier name for the planet Mercury was Stilbon, meaning 'shining', 'glittering', or 'sparking', for Mercury always accom- panied the sun and resembled a spark flown off from a larger fire. Mars was originally known as Pyroeis, meaning 'fiery' for its blood-red color. Both Jupiter and Saturn had names meaning 'shining', with Jupiter being Phaethon and Saturn being Phaenon.
As to the planet Venus, which appears in the sky as both the morning
and the evening star, in the 5th century it was still believed to be two
separate entities (though Pythagoras was the first Greek to suggest the
two might be one). Prior to that the two entities had separate names --
the evening star being Hesperos ('evening') while the morning star was
variously called Eosphoros ('dawn-bearer') or Phosphoros
('light-bearer'). Interestingly, Room notes that the Romans also
considered these two entities and their names were translations of the
Greeks -- Vesper and Lucifer. Again the Babylonians had long known the
two as one -- as Ishtar -- and under their influence the Greeks
identified the one planet with Aphrodite (the Romans subsequently with
Venus).
The rub here is that Adrian Room doesn't annotate his book with references, and I'd like to be able to check further on a lot of what he's stated "with authority". His only references come in a short Bibliography, and these include two books he recommends. One is a Dover reprint of Allen's 1899 book "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" and I wonder how much it might need updating. The more recent book (I forgot to record the date) is Karpenko's and apparently published in Russian. The title translates as "Names of the starry sky". Neither of these appear very useful for a late 20th century English-speaking reader.
--
Kice Brown
-------------------------------------------------
[CHECK LINKS...]
From: Yezmeth (yesmeth@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn? Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick View this article only Date: 2000/05/06
Wow...I may have found a newsgroup that actually has discussions about things that I know about and like to discuss... Like I mentioned with the Nephilim...I have studied Lucifer in great detail... Here are some URLS that will help understand him a bit better. He is awesome...utterly awesome...
www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm
www.csee.usf.edu/~black/judaism.html
www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab051.htm
www.fni.com/worship/199807/msg00479.html
These two links are for Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology and Assyrian-Babylonian Mythology... you have to make the name correspondences first to find who is who in relation to Jewish Myth...and that is sometimes vague... but it is interesting reading. If you read about the twin sons Shahar and Shalem you will see the sons of dawn...
I find it very interesting to see how the Jewish religion and faith developed in many ways from these two cultures. I guess it was bound to happen when you have all those tribes dwelling amongst each other in such a rich spirit filled land...
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html
-------------------------------------------------
From: Denis Bridoux (DenisBridoux@outcome.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn? Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick View this article only Date: 2000/05/10
They tend to be more goddesses than gods in the Indo-European pantheon, latin Aurora Greek Eos Vedic Ushas. -- Denis
Message 28 in thread From: Xeva438 (xeva438@aol.com) Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn? Newsgroups: alt.mythology View this article only Date: 2000/05/11
Ushas was the Goddess of the Dawn, (and sister of Suyra, the sun, in some accounts); however, in later times, Arun, the half-brother of Garuda and brother of Takshak & the Nagas (he's the son of Diti and Kashyap), became the charioteer of Surya, and the embodiment of Dawn. Usha still means dawn in Hindi, and is a common Indian name.
Vik
-------------------------------------------------
From: markovic@io.com (markovic@io.com) Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn? Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick View this article only Date: 2000/05/04
i can make a pretty good guess as to why the babylonian king would be referred to, disparaging, as the god of the dawn.
from the ugaritic texts:
can't we make athtar the awsome king? let athtar the awesome be king!
then athtar the awesome went up to the peaks of zaphon he sat on baal the conqueror's throne
his feet did not reach the footstool his head did not reach the headrest
then athtar the awesome spoke i can't be king on the peaks of zaphon
athtar the awesome descended he descended from baal the conqueror's throne
and he became king of the underworld the god of it all
that last part pretty much explains the lucifer bit too.
-- markovic@io.com
-------------------------------------------------
From: Frank T. De Angelis (spartacus@fda.net) Subject: Re: I am That I Am (the names for the Hebrew gods): THE BURDEN OF PROOF: to my critics Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate, alt.philosophy, alt.mythology View: Complete Thread (42 articles) | Original Format Date: 1998/06/28
Gentlemen:
This entire interpretation of Isaiah and Revelation is bogus. It is a gross distortion, mistranslation, embellished-upon interpretation, and assumption of what it absent in both original bibles, Hebrew and Greek Christian. This was the entire topic of my book, *THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE MYSTERY OF LUCIFER (ISBN # 0965783464).*
The *heylel* -- or, simply a *rising morning star -- as it appears in the original Hebrew Isaiah, presumes nothing about a devil (including St. Jerome's invention and insertion of *Lucifer* into the first Latin Vulgata). There is no Lucifer, and the Greek (Old and New Tests.) refers to Eosphorus, the light from the *god of Dawn,* not phosphoros (also a Greek term). No god or devil was implied in any of the biblical (or pre-biblical *stolen* passages for the *Bible(s),* from Ugaritic or other less relevant pre-biblical influences in building the entire biblical and Hebrew foundations of Judaism, and hence, X-tianity).
I am sorry, but many of the above equations made, reflect more of institutional priestly caste wish fulfillment than a close and rigorous biblical reading and analysis.
Sincerely,
Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis (For an more of an intro. info., see...) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
-------------------------------------------------
From: Frank T. De Angelis (spartacus@fda.net) Subject: Re: Hell Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate, talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.mythology, alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic View: Complete Thread (105 articles) | Original Format Date: 1998/04/17
(a few notes from my book, Pt II - on historically and linguistically tracing gods/devils, good/bad- evil/ etc, from Sumeria to Judeo-X-tianity ...compliments of F.T. De Angelis):
Tracing Lucifer back from St. Jerome is - to be sure - no easy task. If we begin our search from the other end of history, so to speak, we find that the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism contained the origins of monotheism. The original writings and beliefs of a monotheistic god, coupled with the strict ethical dualism of Good and Evil, are represented in this ancient and hitherto unique religion. It is here where we find the origin of, not Lucifer per se, but the concepts of fallen angels and the Prince of Darkness. Both are interdependent with the descriptive concept of the devil±s deception, by appearing in the form of a bright morning star. All of Lucifer±s characteristics (and, as a matter of fact, the Devil±s, in general) are found within this Persian religion. What is lacking, however, in Zoroastrianism, is the name Lucifer itself. The very next civilization and empire in history, overtaking and replacing the Persians, was the Greek. Greek culture, however, contained both the god - Lucifer (little known in our culture), and the Greek version of Zoroastrianism (with Zarathustra), Manicheaism. Manicheaism was extremely popular in Greece, and was the original religion of St. Augustine, the very first philosopher of the (Catholic-Christian) Church, (within the fourth century C.E./A.D.), immediately following the tolera-tion and recognition of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was Augustine±s City of God, that was written as a reply to those who accused Christianity of bringing about the downfall of the Roman Empire. Who else but Augustine could have been influenced by such historical forces, being responsible for re-creating and securing Lucifer, solely for Christianity? Who else could have had the ability, knowledge, and opportunity?; the intellectual passion, imagination, and power?; the intimate and first hand knowledge of Zoroastrianism, as well as Greek culture?; and - more importantly - who else lived within the same time frame, as a contemporary of/with St. Jerome? Reverend Joseph A. Grispino, in his Confraternity-Douay Version of the Bible, claims that early ³Fathers of the Church² influenced St. Jerome in his insertion of Lucifer for the Hebrew heylel in the Isaiah 14:12 passage; accompanied by a very perplexing footnote preceding it, suggesting that perhaps this came from ³a Chanaanite myth.²1 Not much more in the way of details is given, nor is known about this, judging from the commentaries by Catholic scholars (e.g., in the modern St. Jerome Edition of the Bible). The limited, inconsistent, and even contradictory information given by priestly sources - I believe - is an admission of ignorance, more or less, concerning the origin of Lucifer. As a Manichean, Augustine was well aware of the fallen angel imagery and the Prince of Darkness epithet inherited from that Greco-Persian religion he embraced earlier. Not long after Emperor Constantine±s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century C.E., Christianity was accepted - if not proclaimed - as the offical state religion of Rome. This ¦introductory± period, from the toleration and acceptance of Christianity to its official sanctioning, spanned the fourth century, from 313 to 381 C.E. Augustine, who had just converted from Manicheaism to Christianity (also within this century), struggled intensely with the philosophical and theological problems of Good and Evil, raised in Persian religious thought. Later on, Augustine became a bishop of Hippo, in Africa. St. Augustine±s magnum opus, The City of God, along with his equally famous On Free Choice of The Will and The Confessions, all point to the invention and origin of Lucifer as an alternative Satan or Devil. Although it is certain that Venus (from the Greek Aphrodite, and originally from Asherah and Ishtar) is the ¦rising morning star,± how does Lucifer fit in with this astral deity, and through whom, before reaching the ecclesiastical pen of St. Augustine? From the themes of Good vs. Evil and (good) angels vs. bad -fallen angels, to the the preoccupation with refuting Greek and all other previously inherited ¦pagan± sources, St. Augustine makes for the perfect candidate responsible for inventing Lucifer, to be passed on to St. Jerome, for his Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. Clearly, both Greek mythology and Greco-Persian religious influences worked their way into the theological and philosophical mind of Augustine. Judging from his philosophical-theological treatises, we confirm his obsession with trying to explain how evil comes into the world. He claims that God is neither the author nor the creator of woe or evil (although yahweh asserts this, in Isaiah 45:7); he insists that evil is not a positive phenomenon, but only a ³privation of good.² This, in itself, reflects his personal struggle against his own Greco-Persian past. According to the Persian scriptures, Zoroaster (the prophet of Zoro-astrianism), bitterly refers to ³Angra Mainyu,² a devil, from the time of creation, who opposed God, Ahura Mazda, and the ³Spirit of Good.² This arch enemy, a fallen angel, fought God, from creation on, creating an evil for every good: e.g., the killing frost of winter; the excessive heat of summer; and the snakes, pests, and human vices© from doubt and disbelief, to witchcraft, the oppositions of good and evil are always present, from the beginning of time, i.e., creation. This evil character was the author of death, and was responsible for creating 99,999 diseases, according to Chapter Twenty-two of the Videvdat. This personal representative of evil also created a number of demons and devils, or daeval characters. Thus, this ethical dualism stems from God, Ahura Mazda, and his arch rival enemy, Angra Mainyu. 2 It is here - with Zoroastrianism, and the scriptures of the Persian Bible, the Avesta - that the Devil begins his infamous reputation, as the Prince of Darkness. Augustine±s personal struggles with the origin of evil, along with his earlier affiliation with Manicheaism, led to a philosophical must- avoiding the conclusion that God created evil. The concept of the fallen angel, one that came from Manicheaism, and whose origin in Christianity can be attributed to St. Augustine, leaves one with the unshakable conclusion that Augustine passed the ¦Lucifer baton± to Jerome. If God does not create evil, and if evil is a privation of good, as Augustine claims, then one wonders how this first ³Doctor of the Church² could have avoided, ignored, or explained away passages in the Hebrew Bible; such as, for example, Isaiah 45:7, where God creates evil: ³I am the Lord, there is no other; I form the light and create the darkness. I make well-being and create woe. I the Lord do all of these things.² How could Augustine really disavow the heavy influence of Zoroastrianism on him, despite his new acceptance of Christianity, since much of it too came from his former Persian religion? Is the 666 symbolism of evil in the Book of Revelation, for example, just a coincidence, or is it perhaps an Augustinian afterthought in connection with the so-called author of death±s creation of 99,999 diseases? Exactly where and what are we to look at in the Judeo-Christian Bible, in order to make consistent and non-contradictive sense of evil? In the New Testament, for example, we are told by St. Paul that ¦money is the root of all evil± (Timothy I, 6:10). The actual quote, people of our contemporary bourgeois society will be quick to tell us, is not that money is the root of all evil, but that the ¦love of money is the root of all evil.± The implication behind such a qualification, however, is that some perverse preoccupation and attachment with money is at fault here, i.e., extreme greed - as with lustful, gluttonous, and avaricious sins - is behind such a warning. The original Greek text, and a faithful translation into English, however, will render the word and phrase as a fondness or friendship of money, instead of love of money; implying a very mild and minimal attraction to money, and not some exorbitant, usurpious, ostentatious, and/or an exagerrated preoccupation and attachment to it, reflecting greed. The word used for love is philos, from philia (filia), meaning fondness or friendship. Other Greek words for love, are eros (erow or eroV) and agape (agape); the latter is used to describe universal and unconditional love, also known as Christian love, and is frequently found in the New Testament, while the former is used to describe erotic, sensual, and sexual love and/or desire. If some greedy preoccupation, commensurate with some lustful, desirous, and avaricious sense was meant in the Timothy I, 6:10 passage, then the term eros would have been used; this term, however, is never used in the Greek New Testament, even though it is considered the basic term for love, and the Life Principle, in general. The opposite of the Life Principle of love (eros), thanatos (qanatoV), the Death Principle, is used consistently throughout the New Testament. Eros, of course, is the Greek god (the Roman Cupid) inseparable from Venus, goddess of love. Philia (filia), emphasized as a friendship-love, was the main concept, preferred by Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, being necessary for ³total well being² - happiness (eudaimonia, eudaimonia), as well as being a root word for ³philo-sophy²(filosofia), literally the ³friendship-love of wisdom.² Thus, there is no connotation of ³love² as an attachment or preoccupation with money, intended here, but merely a fondness of money, since the very ¦weakest± sense of love was chosen for this Timothian St. Paul passage. There is nothing of a strong desirous nature implied here, at all, or the term eros would (and should) have been employed...
First, I would like to convey to the reader that the section in Augustine±s On Free Choice of the Will, Book One, Part III, is entitled ³Lust is the source of evil.² He does not say that lust is a source of evil, implying one of many, but that it is ³the source of evil.² In Book III, Part X, the connection is made between ³sin² and the supposed ³lust² in the Garden of Eden. (Lust, of course, is identified with the god/dess of love, Eros and Cupid, and with Aphrodite and Venus.) Augustine, then, explores the all-important connection of these concepts with devils and angels, especially with angels as devils. It is here where Augustine asserts that God created the angels, and that the Devil±s origin had to come into existence in this manner. We thus have the theory of fallen angels, here with St. Augustine, which will later become so prevalent and obvious in the erroneous translation of Isaiah 14:12. Moreover, Augustine translates and transfers the Manichean influence of Ahriman, the Persian Prince of Darkness, into his Christianized description of the Devil. His incorporation and transfusion of Zoroastrianism into Greco-Romanized Christianity, fomenting and cementing the coming of Lucifer in the Book of Isaiah, is crystal clear. Augustine is quite emphatic in pursuing the ethical dualism and monotheism of his earlier Persian beliefs. He is responsible for ¦creating± the primordial distinction in Christianity between Good and Evil, with (good) angels vs. fallen angels - or devils. Extending the original Zoroastrian distinction, St. Augustine assures the reader, in Part XII, that ³even if all angels were to sin, the Creator of angels would continue to rule His empire with no defect.² 1 Second, is the connection and development of Lucifer, by Augus-tine, through The City of God, his main work, his magnum opus. Book XIX is of particular note, here; since it is full of his allusions to the Manichees and their concepts of God and angels, including ³The Supreme Good and Supreme Evil.² We are both instructed as well as warned, in Part IX, not to be ¦openly friendly to all ³Holy angels,² since Satan some-times takes the form of an angel of light in order to tempt men.±2 One must still ask the nagging question, however, of where the actual name of Lucifer comes from; conceding that all of the characteristics, descrip-tions, and epithets fit perfectly with Zoroastrian origins. From the de-ceptive transformation of the devil - as Satan, the fallen angel - into a ³bright light,² and then as the ³prince of darkness² (also attributed to Baal, the Canaanite god), we have clarified what was previously ambigu-ous and obscure. Thus, in the final analysis, the nature and origin of the Christian personifications of evil have been partially discovered and uncovered by tracing the origins of Lucifer back from (1) Zoroastrianism and (2) St. Augustine to his contemporary, (3) St. Jerome. Notwithstand-ing these discoveries and revelations, we are still obligated to push further in solving the mystery surrounding the name Lucifer, itself - the rising morning star that fell© seemingly an allusion to Venus. Lucifer, according to ancient Greek mythology, is the god of bright-ness; also, as the morning star and light bearer, this is the star that brings in the day with gladness. He was also the father of Ceyx, a king of Thessaly, where Mt. Olympus is located, housing the gods. ³All of his father±s bright gladness was in his face,² according to Greek legend.3 This mythological-religious account is embellished upon by Ovid, the Ro-man; it includes the important involvement with gods of nature, e.g., Storm, Wind, Black Clouds, and Lightening. Ceyx±s wife was the daughter of Aolus, king of the winds. These Latin-Roman gods of nature seem to contain many of the characteristics of El, Baal, and Yahweh, from the Ugaritic and Hebrew scriptures. Light and fire were exalted and deified, from one religion to another. Light, photos (fotoV), however, was tradi-tionally reserved for the Greek son of god, Apollo, and later, Jesus, based upon the gospel of St. John. Aside from the prestigious sun god, found in almost all religions, both Light and (interestingly enough) Fire were of primordial importance in Persian Zoroastrianism. Cremation, as opposed to burial, a misunderstood and exagerrated aspect of Zoroastrianism, was condemned, (up until recently) by the Roman Catholic Church. Fire, it has been thought, destroys the soul, not just the body; therefore, fire is a tool, source, and application of the Devil. Light vs. Darkness, (good) angels vs. fallen angels, etc., seem to be crucial in the theological and philosophical problems of ethical dualism that greatly influenced St. Augustine. So, this is the origin of Lucifer, from Greco-Persian culture, which was - to be sure - well known by Augustine in his day. In roughly a three hundred year period - from the time of Jesus to St. Augustine and St. Jerome - there seems to be fertile ground for this composition and synthesis, culminating in the (re)creation of Lucifer. Lucifer represents all that Christianity has to oppose and hate, much like Judaism, with its former pagan cultures. What elements are accepted, though, become immortalized, symbolized, and deified in the person of Jesus, e.g., as the son of god, the Light (photos, fotoV ), the Truth, and the Logos (Logos, or ³the logical-ordered and spoken word²)© exactly what Apollo stood for. What, on the other hand (the one on the conservative ¦Right,± to be sure), was ruthlessly opposed - with a hateful vengeance - was the other side, the abysmal dark side, the deception of light - personified in Lucifer - as a fallen angel. Ovid lived and wrote his mythological and historical poetry, mostly during the Augustan periods of 27-20 C.E., making him a contemporary of Virgil; ergo, both poets must have been well known, and had to have made a considerable impact on St. Augustine, as well as on all of the other early Church Fathers and scholars. Tertullian, Plotinus, Origen, Augustine, and many other ¦early± theological scholars - no doubt - take some credit for influencing St. Jerome; all were most assuredly influenced by the famous Romanized versions of Greek mythology, especially since they continu-ously referred to the Latin-Roman names of the gods and goddesses. It was from the Latinized versions of the Greek accounts that these early Christians drew from; especially in - and for - their relentless sexual-pagan criticisms. Tertullian, born in Carthage, lived circa 160 to 230 of the Common Era (A.D.); Plotinus lived between 204 and 270 C.E.; Origen, from circa 185-253 C.E.; St. Augustine, from 354-430; and St. Jerome, from circa 345- 420 of the Common Era. Augustine±s intellectual and passionate synthesis of the sexual and pagan traits associated with Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Aphrodite, Venus, and Lucifer culminated in a new version of a satanic and devilish character called Lucifer. Christendom now had its own personified version of evil, to call its very own. All of the early Christians attacked paganism and eroticism (in par-ticular), and women and sex (in general). From the well known, and notoriously infamous (if not outrageous) writings of St. Paul (formerly Saul, a tax collector), addressing the Corinthians, to the fanatical raving of Plotinus, e.g., against ³the vulgar harlot Aphrodite² and Eros, we have a very clear sense of the values and attitudes of the ¦early Christian fathers.±4 We also get a general picture of the atmosphere surrounding early Christian culture, during - and preceding - the lives of Augustine and Jerome.5 From Tertullian±s unequivocal condemnation of women±s apparel, ornamentation, and the use of perfume, to Paul, Origen, and Jerome±s fanatical warnings of the temptations of the flesh, we have a hysteria that is unparalleled in all of world history. This ³hysterectomy² goes far beyond the Hebrews± patriarchal and monotheistic sexism, with a fanaticism and fundamentalism necessary and indispensable for any understanding of the success celebrated by the Lucifer character...
...rubric of ¦pagan± and ¦witchcraft±; thus, goddesses and women per se, were not the only targets of Jerome±s ¦Ruth-ful± and hateful vengeance. Lucifer is mythologically connected to Dionysius and Orpheus; the former, being designated as the god of wine, and the vine, but also being associated with the characteristics of intoxication, celebration, dance, narcotic-orgasm, and referred to as the he-goat or goat song(tragos, tragoV ), the god of tragedy. Similarly, Orpheus is first and foremost the god of song, and is known as a god ¦from the dark underworld.± Lucifer, literally from ³lucre² (light), is associated with the former two gods; thus, cementing the association of evil with the dialectical, diabolical, and downright deceptive oppositions of light/darkness and comedy/tragedy. The masks of comedy and tragedy mask a dialectical development of one out of the origin of the other. Dance, music, and celebration, in general, often mask the tragedy of depression and oppression, neces-sitating the former, as a cathartic safety valve...
So, we have all of the imagery conjured up by the gods and cults of Isis, Dionysius, and Orpheus, in building up a personal message of evil, culminating in Jerome±s Lucifer. It should be crystal clear to the reader by now, that tracing the historical development of Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Persian, and, finally, the Greco-Roman influences on Judeo-Christianity, has led to a fictitious character of evil, Lucifer. From Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Aphro-dite, and Venus, to Dionysius and Orpheus, we have a pantheon of gods and goddesses, offering many traits to be condemned by the new ¦centurians± of censureship and censorship. The casually flippant reference to our culture - understood as an evolutionary process leading up to the present ³generation X² - as one of ³sex, drugs, and Rock n± Roll² (at best, and ¦clueless-ness± or ¦nothingness,± at worst), clearly embodies all of the decadent and irresponsible values symbolic of evil - according to fundamentalists and other religious zealots. Pan, another god of music, characteristic of the Pied Piper, attracts followers as he travels with his music, and is also associated with Dionysius and Orpheus. A host of evils have been accumulated into such a collection of sins, that we find the traits of numerous Greco-Roman gods and goddesses - all being attributed later to Lucifer. From Hera/Vesta, Athena/Minerva, Aphrodite/Venus, Persephone /Proserpine, and Artemis/Diana - to Demeter and Cybele/Semele, we have a plethora of goddesses connected to Dionysius/Bacchus, a ³true king of gods.² Strictly from the female lineage of divine world history, Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Aphrodite, and Venus all represent aspects of fertility, deception, passion, promiscuity, and in a word, love. (Although Isis also maintains the contradictive title of virgin, as stated earlier, the characteristics of fertility and promiscuity are also present within her description.) Love, from and beyond Eros±s limited domain, is surpassed only by women, and is celebrated in festivals, reflecting fertility and passion. Far beyond the celebrations of the Dionysian cults, were the wild and exclusively female Dionysiac-Aphrodysiac festivities, e.g., in the yearly ³all-female² festivals on the Island of Lesbos, in honor of Dionysius (the lone male), Hera, Demeter, Cybele, Proserpine, Artemis-Diana, Athena, and the other deities worshiped by the sisterhood of women. The Dionysian principle has always stood in opposition to the Apollonian. From the nineteenth century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, in his Die Geburt der Tragödie (The Birth of Tragedy), to the twentieth century anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, in her Patterns of Culture, we have the establishment of a perennial distinction in history, separating the Dionysian cultures from the Apollonian. Apollo, representing the god of light and truth, is also portrayed as an archer, and reflects the art of ³gentle comedy.² In contradistinction, Dionysiac traits include violent dance, music, promiscuity, intoxication, and wild festivities per se© summarized in tragedy. The Romanized version of Dionysius, Bacchus, is even more usurpious, ostentatious, and perhaps even rapacious; fitting the decadence of the Roman Empire to a ³T²© for Tragedy. Both the bull and goat are of great significance here, too, with the Greco-Romans, as they were in all of the ancient pre-Greek cultures. From Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Ugaritic Canaanites, and Israelites to the Persians and (Pre-Greek ?) Minoans of Crete, the veneration of the bull (and bovine, in general) and goat are of the utmost importance. Re-member that the goat is the symbolic animal of Dionysian cults, re-quiring sacrificial initiation for rites of passage. It is also the he-goat that is characterized as the Devil and Satan; since female veneration (i.e., by and for women) was directly tied to the Dionysian cults, the she- goat was also included in the festivities. Thus, once again, in the biblical accounts, it is somewhat unclear if the male, as a devilish shaggy he-goat, seduces the female (as in the Garden of Eden), or vice versa. The Etruscan (early Roman) bronze statue of The Capitoline She-Wolf (of circa 500 B.C.E.), with the brothers Romulus and Remus suckling, begs the question of analogy here, notwithstanding the fact that the she-wolf was a symbol of Rome. 1 Although the wolf is not as significant as the bull, cow, or goat, we must realize that the analogy is apropos, since the wolf in sheep±s clothing (first found in Aesop±s Fables, prior to the fifth century B.C.E., only to be copied later, in Matthew±s account of Jesus) depicts the most (in)famous character flaw in the Devil-Satan-Lucifer personification; the deception and seduction via a change in appearance, much like Zeus± seduction-rape of Leda, after transforming himself into a swan (and perhaps later copied in the Bible, with the rape of Leah)...
In Nietzsche±s works, Die Geburt der Tragödie and Also Sprach Zarathustra, one finds the hero figure in the Greek Dionysius and the Persian-Greek Zoroaster/Zarathustra, respectively. He describes Dion-ysius as barbaric - and being from Babylon (originally) - reflecting total promiscuity, bestial savagery, and the Anti-Christ himself. In opposi-tion to Apollo, the Lucent One, the God of Light, Beauty, and Peace (purposely leaving aside Truth here), Nietzsche contrasts him with Dionysius, a god of Storm, Wind, narcotic rapture, ecstasy, and orgy. Are these not the traits of the biblical Lucifer, as well as the original Greek Lucifer? The first two traits, i.e., as the gods of Wind and Storm, are connected to Lucifer through Ceyx and Aolus, even though they are also exhibited in Zeus, Baal, El, Yahweh, and others. Apollo and Dionysius parallel the dialectical unity of opposition in comedy/tragedy, joy/sad-ness, celebration/mourning-depression, peace/war-aggression, pleasure/ pain, and, so on. The rapture of narcotics and wine, Nietzsche acknowledges, is the saving grace of redemption through ³illusion.² ³Drugs² are necessary in order to get through life, ³to ease the pain.² Do we not understand this psychological truth today, reflecting alienation and, hence, the needs of the consumer and the marketplace© legal or illegal?
Out of Medieval Germany, the same Dionysian power drove an increasing number of people, singing and dancing from place to place; we acknowledge this in the St. John and St. Vitus dancers, the Bacchian choruses of the Greeks (who had their predecessors in Asia Minor), and as far back as Babylon and the orgiastic Sacaea.4
------------------------------------------------- cut here
From: thebronzdragon@yahoo.com (Thomas v5.6)
Newsgroups: FCoS@yahoogroups
Subject: Re: Satan
Date: 6 wrze¶nia 2003 02:31
--- wolfstorm70 wrote:
> Did the judeo/christian/islamic god create Satan?
Not likely. Satan is probably a borrowed god from the Persians, though
the word itself is older than that.
> Is Satan A fallen angel?
Satan is God's left hand man. He it the attorney general who makes sure
that anyone who makes a claim to fame is worthy of that claim, and is
willing to go against God herself to ensure the veracity of such
claims. Just look at Job. Satan saw a flaw, God challenged him to find
it. Satan did, and together the three of them corrected it (in one of
the best pieces of Hebrew literature available).
=====
Order of the Dragon
Not only is faith dead without works;
work without faith is just as dead.
-------------------------------------------------
From: Number1USMC@aol.com (Brian Hill)
Newsgroups: FCoS@yahoogroups
Subject: Re: Satan
Date: 6 wrze¶nia 2003 23:54
In a message dated 9/5/2003 1:33:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
wolfspider70@hotmail.com writes:
> Also I understand the argument that I have heard about putting Satan
> first because we can not count on ourselves to be our own gods due to
> the fact that we have been so influenced by society. On the other
> hand I understand the arguement that says we should be our own person
> and savior and not count on anything else to do what we can do for
> ourselves. So put Satan first or ourself, or a combination of both
> or.........?
I say put yourself first and let Lucifer/Satan be your guide. I doubt Satan
would need worship. If I was in his shoes I would have no need for woship. It
does nothing if you think about it. The reason gods need worship is because
they need an ego boost. Satan is beyond that. Satan has no need for human
worship. He is a teacher He wants to be repected not worshiped.
>And I have recently heard about having faith and what it means to
>some Satanists. I would also like to hear what others have to say
>about Faith and Satanism.
I look down on blind faith. But faith is sometimes all you need. For example
you must have faith in yourself. As for faith I say its ok if it works for you
as long as your putting somthign into action. For example...if your sick dont
have faith Satan will heal you and that be it. Go to a doctor...get medecine
and take care of yourself...AND have faith. Dont make the Christian mistake
thinking prayer will answer aall your problems.
>What defines strength in Satanism?
It can mean physical. What I think it means is the ability to surpass any
problem you face in any situation. It takes "Strength" to be top dog in a
corperation. Weak people get vary little done in life.
>How can you have balance when anything goes? (Do as thou wants is the
>whole of the law.)
Crowleys law does mot mean do whatever you want. He says follow the inner
voice (WILL/Thelema). Its not an excuse to make chaos. I dont believe in true
balance. By balance most mean between black and white but those are just labels.
-Semper Fi
Poolee Brian Hill
United States Marine Corps
Oklahoma City, OK
-------------------------------------------------
From: thebronzdragon@yahoo.com (Thomas v5.6)
Newsgroups: FCoS@yahoogroups
Subject: Re: Satan
Date: 9 wrze¶nia 2003 21:00
--- Jefferson wrote:
> Satan is god's left hand man? Is Jesus god's right hand man?
Not Jesus of Nazareth. Looking at it from a psychological model
(Jungian) Satan would be the Shadow, or Anti-ego of God. The Christ
would be the Ego of God. The two are opposite sides of the same coin,
and you may not use one without the other. Why else are they both
called the morning star? They also work together, Satan observing what
we say and testing our veracity, the Christ teaching us how to pass
those tests.
=====
Order of the Dragon
Not only is faith dead without works;
work without faith is just as dead.
-------------------------------------------------
From: thebronzdragon@yahoo.com (Thomas v5.6)
Newsgroups: FCoS@yahoogroups
Subject: Re: Satan
Date: 12 wrze¶nia 2003 04:41
ok, got to put in my 2cent challenge--jesus called himself the 'son
of man' which was culturely understood as an official title for the
messiah. in the new testament, this story contains a mob forming to
stone him for claiming that title....if he ment something else--the
jews were sufficently outraged for his blasphmey. this is my
understanding--what's yours? the christ is what peter- one of his
disciples said of him, when jesus said, 'who do you say that i am?'.
are you sure that it was an official title that he rejected? i am in
a position to believe that he didn't fight anyone to force them to
acknowledge it or believe it. he left it up to the individual
to decide...love to know your response. jefferson
"Thomas v5.6" <thebronzdragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Jefferson wrote:
> okay I'm confused--didn't Jesus of Nazareth claim to be the Christ?
Jesus of Nazareth never called himself Christ, and specifically
discouraged anyone calling him "God" (That one failed for the Buddha,
too). The word "Christ" simply means anointed, and is the Greek
equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah." Anyone who is anointed, either by
ceremony of appears to be by their actions, may be called, "Christ." It
is the Christian Church who claimed the Title Christ for Jesus of
Nazareth.
> or are you speaking from a specific perspective of belief that
> acknowledges a Christ but not a Jesus of Nazareth.
I expect (55% certainty) that Jesus of Nazareth is a historic person. I
know that the Christ is a Myth. I make the distinction, just as I would
say that there is only one "me" though there are multitudes of Magi. I
am the Historic person, the Magi is a myth. Myths may be real, though
that reality is ... seasoned rather heavily to get the moral across.
=====
Order of the Dragon
Not only is faith dead without works;
work without faith is just as dead.
-------------------------------------------------
From: TWOD@aol.com (TWOD) Newsgroups: FCoS@yahoogroups Subject: Re: Satan Date: 13 wrze¶nia 2003 01:01 In a message dated 9/12/03 4:01:50 PM, jeffersonredgrave@yahoo.com writes: >k, got to put in my 2cent challenge--jesus called himself the 'son of man' >which was culturely understood as an official title for the messiah. in >the new testament, this story contains a mob forming to stone him for claiming >that title....if he ment something else--the jews were sufficently outraged > for his blasphmey. this is my understanding--what's yours? the christ >is what peter- one of his disciples said of him, when jesus said, 'who >do you say that i am?'. are you sure that it was an official title that >he rejected? i am in a position to believe that he didn't fight anyone >to force them to acknowledge it or believe it. he left it up to the individual >to decide...love to know your response. jefferson Not as sure about the first as I am the second - Jesus I thought was known as the Son of Man as he was conceived by the Holy spirit yet born of the virgin Mary. Thus he was human in form. As "Son of Man" he was declaring himself a speaker for all mankind so to speakm or at least for the Jews, and this naturally pissed them off. I am not positive on this - but he often wanted to change the rules of the Old Testament. Remember the Jewish faith involved political and religious customs and culture. Christ - or the messiah - is also under this category - The Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah who was to be their savior and come - they are still waiting so to speak. Again we see Jesus and the Jews both waiting for the anointed one (Messiah) to be politically and religiously involved. Remember too, Peter said in this same passage that some say he was John the Baptist reincarnated or Elijah - this could mean literal reincarnation or one in a line of Essenes who had a political agenda to change the way the Jews worked in the city. It cannot be stressed enough that the Jews at that time were a race and a bloodline and a religion and a culture- all tied up in one. It was not like being a Baptist or a Christian or a Satanist that comes from all walks of life, types of backgrounds, creeds and colors. Remember to this day there are theories of why Jesus did what he did - what he was - and even if he was for that matter. Plus the Bible was written by some who never even met him, then was translated and retranslated and rewritten. Go figure. Good thinking there though : } LCA ------------------------------------------------- cut here From: Madame Colère Du Diable <madamediabolica@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: FCoS@yahoogroups Subject: Wicked Vocabulary Date: 11 wrze¶nia 2003 17:27 Lotte Schoedenfroede, Heathen Skald, offers you new words to add to your vocabulary: Angorah Adjective; describing a Pagan or New Age type so excessively fluffy bunny and saccharine that they transcend into sheer angorah. Coven-jacking verb; the act of joining a coven with the covert intention of either displacing the current leader and taking it over, or fomenting discord in order to lure away members to form a new coven. Related verbs include hearth-jacking, clan-jacking, and suicide. Dumbocracy noun; governance by the stupid. Believed to have been formally introduced by George W. Bush, and now popular the whole world over. Dysvocation verb; the act of calling upon a deity or spirit whose name you can not pronounce or even spell properly -- an action common to followers of Celtic, Germanic and Aztec pantheons Furrie Wolfie noun; the exact opposite of a fluffy bunny. Wolfies are inclined to pack, or tribal, mentality. Their tastes, both spiritual and mundane, run to the visceral. Often found predating on the intellectually weak, baying at the moon, and sniffing round old bones in search of a tasty morsel. Their favourite food is the fluffy bunny, whom they relentlessly hound, before ripping them to shreds. Geke-name noun; a new name taken for use in ritual, or as a pen-name when publishing articles. Distinguished from the diverse array of possible magical names by the fact that a geke-name is invariably based on a fictional character from Tolkein, Star Trek, Buffy, Disc World, or some other fantasy source-- more reflective of adolescent dreams than spiritual aspirations. Such names are often prefixed by inapproriate aristocratic titles such as Lord or Lady. Examples include Lord Lothlorien Elfstrider and Lady Willow Angelsnogger. Kleptopagia noun; a mental illness suffered by some Pagans in which they cannot resist the urge to steal bits of every religion or mystical tradition they come across. Their homes and minds frequently become cluttered by mounds of trivia that bear little or no relation to each other. Sufferers are often unaware they are purloining ideas, and can usually offer no explanation as to how they came across ideas or why they engage in the practices they do. Lowerophant noun; a magician whose self-importance vastly outstrips his or her abilities --prone to make fantastical claims as to their own achievements and mystical prowess, so laughably untrue as to make even an MP blush. Merlin-ium Fever noun; a mad fad for all things Celtic (but only if they are twee, cutsey-pie and require minimum thought.) Usually suffered by purveyors of overpriced occult tat, runners of half-arsed courses, and writers of moronic but popular books. This fever is usually of short duration, and fades when the next craze comes along. Phagan noun; someone drawn to the pagan community primarily by the lure of easy money~ all those gullible people who will part with small fortunes in exchange for over-priced mystical tat, dodgy courses that teach them how to be a witch in five easy steps, and disgracefully expensive divination sessions using rune stones carved from sacred wood by genuine heathens on the banks of the Rhine prove a great lure to the avaricious. Oft heard singing "You gotta pick a pocket or two...." and quoting Freud's hackneyed rubric that "if people don't pay for it, they don't value it." Yeah, right. Pre-magical Tension noun; a nervous state experienced prior to acts of ritual. Sufferers of PMT are prone to irrational acts such as forgetting the candles, performing ceremonies that have no real purpose, shouting at anyone who questions their judgement, putting on their robes inside out, etc. Ratatosser Adjective; describing a 'Pagan' who scurries between various groups spreading gossip and slander and stirring up conflict, whilst feigning friendship and concern. May bear a suspicious resemblance to Ratatoskr, the evil squirrel of Heathen myth. Spamtheism Noun; describing a form of religious belief in something ill-defined, but decidedly pink and amorphous, probably recycling the least savoury beliefs of others. Often accompanied by a conviction that that a Secret Key is needed to break through the Great Barriers to find the Formless Mystery within. ------------------------------------------------- cut here
From: nadramia@panix.com
(Peggy Nadramia)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Boyd Rice, A Nazi?
Date: 6 May 1995 01:38:11 -0400
The last time I talked to Boyd, we discussed our Barbie
collections. Some Nazi.
Here's how Nazism and fascism fit into Satanism, as I see it:
1. You're already a Satanist, the most evil being the status quo could ever
imagine. Why the hell do you care if they call you a Nazi? Is there a Good Guy
Badge stuck to one of your old suits? Go check your closet.
2. Nazism scares people. Satan scares people. Some Satanists like to scare
people, so they dress in Nazi fashion and have fun goosestepping down the
strasse. B.F.D.
3. Satanists see nature as a dark force, a very fascist force, within them and
without them. When you hear them talking about fascism, they are often thinking
of what I can only call "deep fascism," not political fascism. I agree
with the assertion that a Libertarian society would be the best one for
Satanists, from a political perspective, but we also have a lot of opinions
about the social structure of a Satanic society. Would we be "free" to
enslave ourselves to each other, if that's how we wanted to live? While
Libertarianism might rule the land, Satanists may choose to live in tribal
settings that are _internally_ very Communistic or Socialistic. For example, I
wouldn't mind "working for the good of others" as long as the "others"
were of my choosing, my tribe of loved ones.
4. Nazism, like the image of the ArchDemon, appeals to the young because it
embodies strength and control to those who have little of either in their lives.
They'll get over it.
5. It's a fashion trend.
6. "The plague of Nazism" is being trumped-up by those who would
choose to drive a wedge between us, disperse us and weaken us. Don't let them do
it. Lighten up.
------------------------------------------------- cut here
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus/
INTRODUCTION (© THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE MYSTERY OF LUCIFER, BY F.T. DE ANGELIS: Spartacus-Tribune Publications)
This book will undoubtedly shock you. Filled with amazing discoveries, reinterpretations, and expositions, this biblical analysis was written with two audiences in mind, appealing to both scholars and the educated general public. Rich in interdisciplinary approaches, I have sought to incorporate theology with history, ancient studies, anthropology, linguistics, and philosophy. Having had an academic background in the humanities, philosophy, religion, and sociology, I come to this area of study from a global, as well as from an interdisciplinary perspective. I am grateful for having the opportunity to have studied under so many great thinkers in so many different fields. This project is the result of a lengthy study of - and fascination with - the Bible and its origins, and should be of particular interest to all of those who take religion seriously. After reading this book, Jews and Christians will undoubtedly reassess the meaning of the Bible and the values of religious institutions. This work also warrants a very special perspective for women, especially feminists. In making use of the most recent biblical scholarship, as a spring- board, I believe, I have gone beyond the present state of biblical knowledge and theories, exploring deep into virgin territory. I have found no other single book containing as many little-known-facts, along with probable and plausible biblical interpretations, as this one. Thus, for all of these reasons, I believe that this book is truly the first of its kind anywhere, with much more information and philosophical truths than any other single work to-date.
Part I of this work is the basis for my research and main thesis, the "Polytheism of the Bible," and the investigation of good and evil, as portrayed in the Bible. This search has led me to several astonishing discoveries based upon pre-biblical texts and cultures, particularly the Ugaritic of ancient Canaan and Syria. Much of this research is unknown outside of the strict academic disciplines and esoteric intellectual circles. For the first time, a complete biblical exposition, along with the author's own speculations, interpretations, and conclusions, has been made available in a relatively easy- to-read style and format.
The biblical transition of world history - from Adam's son, Cain, to Canaan, and from Abraham to Moses - parallels and reflects ancient Canaan and present day Israel as being Hebrew in origin, with Abraham representing the first Hebrew patriarchal leader. Furthermore, the biblical account of Creation, with the"naming"process, along with the account of Babel (the Tower of) and Babylon (in the Book of Genesis) suggests that Hebrew was the primordial language (cf. Isaiah, 19:18), but we know from our present state of knowledge that none of this could be true. The Ugaritic culture and language of ancient Canaan was not originally Hebrew, but a variation of a Mesopotamian wedge-shaped alphabet known as cuneiform. In addition, based on my studies, i t is most likely that this culture, complete with language, belief system, and writings, was directly influential on the Hebrews - and the development of their language, religion, and (relatively recent) canonical writings, known as - the Bible.
According to evolutionary evidence, the development of man, from the use of fire and tools (and tool making) to the domestication of animals, spans the epochs of Homo erectus, Australopithicus, Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon man, and Homo sapiens. From approximately one-half million years, B.C.E. to about ten thousand years, B.C.E., including the Great Ice Age and Paleolithic Stone Age, man evolved into a sign, symbol, and tool (maker and...) user; painting cave walls, depicting bison and bulls, such as those at Altamira, Spain and in France, at the Hall of Bulls. This kind of prehistory, of course, is all somewhat speculative. It is, however, with the era of between six thousand and one thousand years B.C.E. that the present inquiry begins. It is here where we come to the very beginning epoch of history, that is to say, written history. Now the traceable human evidence is much less speculative. On the contrary, we now approach data rich in historical evidence going far beyond the limited archeological evidence from strictly artifacts. The discoveries of cultural parallels are quite staggering. The art of the Indus valley, for example, reiterates and confirms the emphasis - and fascination with - bovine symbols. The veneration of bulls and cows becomes paramount in Persian, India, and later in Greece. The bull reappears once again in almost all cultures, as a principal connecting link with divinity, even to the biblical Hebrews. It is with the written scriptures of history that we are now able to fit together many of the missing pieces into a highly cohesive and tightly fit mosaic.
Our present day understanding of ancient history has come a long way since, The Histories, of Herodotus, a sixth century Greek who was also the first historian of western civilization. Aside from archeological discoveries, his first (and mostly second-) hand information still remains the main corpus of work regarding ancient Egypt and Phoenicia. In his famous Book II of The Histories, he explores many of the parallels between ancient Egypt and Greece, comparing the principal gods and goddesses of both cultures. Included in his analysis is the crucial connection of Osiris with the Greek counterpart, Dionysius, and the worship of divine bulls and cows. Aside from his fallacious extrapolations and errors from second hand information, his analysis seriously lacked information on ancient Mesopotamia and Canaan-Syria, where archeological artifacts and written evidence proved to either precede or be concurrent with Egyptian culture.
We all know that Mesopotamia and Egypt were the first cultures in history to have settled into developed cities and empires. What most people do not know, however, is that biblical Hebrew, both in the stories and language, did not just parallel - nor precede many other cultures, but, on the contrary, copied them. The Ugaritic Canaanite-Syrian culture in particular, was one that preceded the settlement of Jews in that region. Consequently, it was their language, gods, and scriptural writings that were the basis for the Hebrew Bible. In addition, a massive priestly cover-up of these historic events is demonstrated through evidence of priestly scribal modifications, mistranslations, and misinterpretations... all purposely orchestrated. Furthermore, in avoiding, denying, and suppressing these earlier pagan influences, religious leaders have undermined their own religious institutions and heritage. This has been done, I believe, out of their own self-interests, for their own survival and enrichment. Consequently, in order to downplay this heritage, and lessen the originality and, hence, the importance of the Bible, an all-out attack had to be waged. This process, I hope to show convincingly, encouraged priestly castes to: (1) create (that is to say, 'invent') and radically embellish upon already existing biblical characters, personifying and individualizing them far beyond the original intent, and (directly and indirectly related to the first point) (2) form necessary social, political, economic, and legal alliances with/in the State.
It is well known that priestly castes developed simultaneously in both India and Persia, due to the influence of the invading Aryans. The most privileged socioeconomic class and caste in India was (and still is) that of the Brahmins, made up of mostly educated priests and intellectuals. Similarly, the Persian Mobadn, also a caste of priests and intellectuals, represented the second highest caste, being directly under the emperor and nobles. It was the great religious revolutionaries, Buddha, Mohammed, and Gandhi, who strongly opposed the caste system, helping to eliminate it from their society. It is clear that, in addition to these great men, Judaism and Christianity also contributed their revolutionary leaders, such as Moses and Jesus. Unfortunately, although very successful, these men did not rid their culture of privileged priestly castes nor of patriarchal authority and power. The writing of the Bible itself, starting with the Torah, reflected the input of the "P"-riestly source of authorship and a "R"-edacter who synthesized it all into one harmonious work. This, I believe, was the very first Judaic trace of a movement towards a male dominated caste of priests, who were descendants from the tribe of Levi. Likewise, the Christian Church, formed by St. Paul and other disciples of Jesus (Apostles), along with many early Christian leaders, also represented a strict patriarchal hierarchy of priests (bishops) and philosophers. All of these religions reflect institutions of a very stratified social order, with political-economic incentives always operating beneath the surface.
"Generation X," coming directly from the "me" (and before it, the "we") generation, experienced and exhibited a deep-seated alienation and repressiveness from our society. This cashed out as aesthetic, religious, and political estrangement. It was the nineteenth century philosopher - Hegel, who laid down the foundations for the dialectical relationship of religion and art to philosophyÉ Through a meticulous, rigorous, and critical analysis of the Bible and ancient history, I have sought to explore that relationship of inseparability. From the priestly 'censorship' of religious scriptures and history - to the censorship of art and, ultimately, all forms and freedoms of expression - philosophy reveals the inner Dialectic, as the true awareness of the totalityÉ of the relationships in world history. From Socrates to Hegel, and from Marx to Marcuse, philosophers have connected Beauty (aesthetics, i.e., artistic imagination and expression - including and applied to pleasure, beauty, sex, and love), Ethics, and Religion to Freedom, and hence, to the political realm of power. I am of the opinion that it is philosophy that can best reveal both the inner and inter-connections of politics and religion; the politics of religion mirrors the religion of politics, since the history of philosophy is the philosophy of history, being two sides of the same coin. Religious history, especially biblical and pre-biblical history, reveals a distortion, requiring a revision of that history. Women in particular, have been subject to a 'historectomy' of sorts, facilitated by a system of patriarchal monotheism; a system that inevitably condemns them as being "hysterical," rather than "historical." This process completes itself in the identification and equation of women with a host of evil demons, via specific personifications - including witches, Lilith, and Lucifer... as a "Venus in blue jeans," i.e., a 'Venus in disguise.'
From the Philosophy of Ordinary Language Analysis and Meaning to comparative etymological studies of language, a meticulous scrutiny of the historical development of language is of the utmost importance. The Greek word for happiness is eu daimon ia, literally "good demon/s," while the biblical Greek for gospelÉ evangelist is eu aggelion, literally "good angels/news- messengers." The difference between the two, as with Good and Evil, may very well rest on - or cross - a very fine line.
#PART I: POLYTHEISM (© THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE MYSTERY OF LUCIFER, BY F.T. DE ANGELIS: Spartacus-Tribune Publications)
Many critical biblical theories and discoveries have been accepted within this century, by scholars of theology, Hebrew, and archeology. First and foremost, is the wealth of evidence - demonstrating the radically divergent, and quite distinguishable authorships - later synthesized into one integrated body of scriptures known as the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible. This process, based on the Torah, i.e., the first five Books of the Bible, was one of relatively recent projects, with a completion date of around four hundred B.C.E. A minimum of five separate authors were responsible for this initial work. This theory has been long accepted, and is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. It must be understood, however, that these multiple authors were responsible for giving both separate and numerous names for god. The different names also reflect very different characteristics and modes of behavior. El, Elohim, Yah, Yahweh, Adonai(ay), El Shaddai(ay), Abyir, Kadoosh, Kneah, and many other names and epithets were given to god(s) by the various contributors to this highly eclectic work - now known as - The Bible.
* * * * *
Although these themes of distinct and obviously problematical natures have been common knowledge, and have been accepted by biblical scholars from all circles, they have not as yet led to (1) the appropriate changes in translations and interpretations of the Bible that should have followed from that knowledge and (2) the historical and anthropological revisions that should have placed the ancient Hebrews as followers, rather than innovators, of a supposedly new and unique religion and culture.
It has only been within the last thirty years that we have witnessed tremendous advances in our biblical knowledge and interpretations, reflecting the cross- cultural influences on the original Jews of the Old Testament. These advances however, have been highly conservative - and minimal at best - compared to the implications and conclusions that could and should have been made. No serious scholar has been bold enough to enter the treacherous waters that I am about to enter, risking public censure. The Mesopotamians (from Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, and Assyria), Egyptians, Phoenicians, and early Greeks have provided writings much earlier than those of the Bible, and, therefore, reflect a history predating the biblical Hebrews. This alone should have led to startling re-evaluations of the Hebrew language and scriptures, but the Ugaritic Canaanites provided the conclusive evidence for the present thesis of Hebrew non-originality. Both the language and scriptures of the Hebrews have to be reassessed as being a much more recent development than the current popular belief allows. Their development from these other cultures - rather than on or with them - renders the basis for the Hebrew Bible less and less unique, at every step along the way, on this historical path.
One of the major conclusions to be eventually drawn from all of this, I believe, is that the Hebrew culture, language, and scriptures reflect(ed) a polytheistic rather than a monotheistic conception of god. This conception seems to be inherent within the Hebrew Bible itself, and is clearly embedded within the very language of the Hebrews. Most of the biblical names, concepts, and stories have their roots in previous non-Jewish pagan religions. The Ugaritic Canaanites, whose language and scriptures left the most substantial mark and permanent stamp of influence upon Judaism, can never be separated out from the ancient Hebrews, nor ever be underestimated (although they were destroyed by them, militarily).
From all of the non-Hebraic religious influences - deemed as being either positive (and, therefore, not acknowledged as being "pagan" in origin) or as being negative (and severely criticized and condemned) by Hebrew leaders - comes the constant and continuous struggle against all foreign influence (so we thought, and were led to believe up until now). This vengeful ethnic cleansing consisted of expulsions, as well as genocidal exterminations, and can be found all throughout the Bible. The ecclesiastical hierarchy led this ruthless struggle, I am convinced, in an attempt to establish patriarchal monotheism. The Hebrew transition from polytheism to patriarchal monotheism took place over a long period of time. This process inevitably required a condemnation, and in the final analysis, resulted in an extermination of all matriarchal and polytheistic remnants. Due to the zeal and fervor of the Hebrew patriarchal leaders this process usually involved extreme and uncompromising measures.
The foreign gods and goddesses, especially Baal and Asherah, were the object of continuous, relentless, and protracted struggles and attacks - found all throughout the Bible. Hebrew patriarchal leaders were almost always behind such campaigns. Coupled with the sexism of that patriarchal grab for power, was the combined attack of, for example, Elijah, in going against both Jezebel (a worshiper of Asherah) and Baal, in Book II of Kings, Chapter Ten. Asherah was the most influential, famous, and worshiped of all goddesses in Ugaritic Canaan-Syria. All of the drastic attempts to eliminate foreign influence were implemented under the guise of the Chosen People ideology.
* * * * *
We can easily find clues deeply embedded within the language of the biblical texts themselves, especially the original ones. The officially accepted text is known as the Masoretic Text (MT), established by Hebrew biblical scholars at the end of the Middle Ages, complete with paragraphs, sentence dividers, and vowel marks; but these signs were added to an alphabet originally consisting of only consonants, similar to most ancient languages, lacking vowels. Unfortunately, the MT is the oldest complete codex of the Hebrew Bible in existence (and there is no one version); fortunately, however, all of these texts are more than adequate for the purpose of revealing their "borrowed" nature, from previous "host" cultures.
* * * * *
Reconstructing the original biblical Hebrew is not an easy task, since the earliest complete Bible is from several different versions of the Masoretic Text (which first introduced vowel marks, paragraph separations, sentential cutoffs, etc.), going back to the Middle Ages, from the Ben Asher version (900 A.D. - or C.E.). The so-called "Received Text" (supposedly 'direct from God') is no more than a limited, incomplete, and hence, failed attempt by Erasmus to provide a new translation of the Bible in 1516, based on Latin and Greek texts. The oldest version of the Hebrew scriptures is actually the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating a very different - and much more simplistic - Hebrew alphabet.
The Hebrew scriptures are not at all unique, as they are claimed to be, but are, more or less, copies of the Ugaritic religious scriptures found at Ras Shamra (1928). The excavation of the tablets began in 1929, revealing a hitherto unknown language and culture. I am convinced that the Hebrew language evolved, from this Ugaritic alphabetical cuneiform (wedge-shaped) language. These tablets, along with many other archeological finds, lend proof to the thesis of Hebrew non-originality; revealing the polytheistic and Ugaritic origins of the Hebrew Bible.
------------------------------------------------- cut here
|