no he wasnt he was humanoid with 2 mushushu sprouting from his shoulders, his name means "lord of the good tree/true tree". he changed once into a serpent to escape imprisonment by demons...and that was only because he prayed to his heavenly parents to use their magic to achieve this....he could not do this by himself
he may have been called raging mushushu (raging, furious serpent) in poems and hymns .... amongst other things, but this was metaphoric.

his symbol is the 2headed intertwined serpent. as the Gudea libation vase shows.

I am confused - it seems to me that you are using the Bible as a factual source of information - WHEN it suits your needs. But then you turn around and call it invented hokum. Do you really mean to say that you only believe the parts that support your beliefs, and think the rest has no basis in reality??? There is nothing factual about the Bible, and you certainly can't pick and choose what you think is based on reality just because it supports a theory you are trying to give credit to. This is why no one believes what you say - you edit "facts" to suit your needs and actually count the Bible as a factual source. And I know that I am new and I never post here, I really just like to read and learn. I am in no way saying I am any sort of expert on this topic, I am just commenting on how you base your arguments and beliefs.

That would actually take a million bloody years.

The invented Hoakum I was referring to was the storyline of the DaVinci Code. But there is invented Hoakum in the Bible as well, such as the "second creation story" in Genesis. Many Biblical Scholars agree this is a later addition, but my critics here don't know the first thing about it, so say I am picking and choosing. Yes, I am picking and choosing the original scriptures, and ignoring the later additions added as the beliefs changed.

Once again i vote that we ignore the disbeliever (aka 667-Neighbor of the Beast)

also i've got a question that may seem well i dont know silly but...

do you think that the Dragons depicted in the Monster Manual of Dungeons and Dragons could actually be what the look like, personally i dont really know but i think its just another form that they have taken on but what do you think?

Sorry Grem, but the real scholars of the Ancient Near Eastern religions, ALL say Ningishzida is the Mushushu, not the emblem on the gates of heaven he is holding. You oboviously found you nonsense in Wikipedia, I recall you posting it before.

Evidently you do not have the faintest idea what the vase is trying to depict, do you? No, you can't because you think Ningishzida is a door!

This scene represents Ningishzida and Dumuzi, the two gate guards of heaven that Adapa must flatter to gain admittance and speak with Anu. The Cadeuces decorating the gate signifies these are the gates of heaven.

The great gods of Sumeria are literal, "great serpent dragons of heaven" as their hymns proclaim, that can assume human form, exactly like the dragon kings of China and Quetzalcoatl and other New World Dragon Gods. And here we see Ningishzida in Dragon form, just as we see Enki in dragon form next to his son Marduk. NONE of these were metaphors. This is your unsupportable fantasy. As I have shown, the dragon form of Ea (Enki) is described in intimate detail in a Babylonian hymn, and 1000 years earlier we have his dragon image of Ningishzida.

Here the scholar Langdon, confirms my interpretation, but then, all the others do to, except for the guy who wrote the wiki article. Was that you?

Langdon:"Ningishzida was not only an alternate form of Tammuz, he was also called "The Great Serpent-Dragon of Heaven," being identified with the star constellation Hydra (Hydra being a creature with multiple serpent heads). He was alternately associated with the winged and horned serpent dragon called "Mushussu." Mushussu apears standing on hind legs, holding a staff (or a gate ?) in his forepaws (Langdon p.285, fig. 88). A cylinder seal of Gudaea of Lagash, shows Ningishzida in human form, taking Gudaea by the hand and presenting him as a petitioner before the god, Enki (the source of the "waters of life"). Arising from Ningishzida's human shoulders are two horned dragon heads. Behind Gudaea, on the same seal, we see Ningishzida in animal form as a horned, winged, serpent-dragon, walking on all four legs



(cf. "Ningishzida" in Stephen Herbert Langdon, M.A. The Mythology of All the Races, Semitic. Vol. 5. Boston. Marshall Jones Company. 1931).



Langdon on Ningishzida and Tammuz :



"Both Tammuz and his mother bore the title ama-ushumgal-anna, "mother-great-serpent of heaven," that is the serpent deity who emanated from the Heaven-god Anu." (p. 78. Langdon. 1931)

The disbleiver?? Like I'm somehow the only one?? If you have to ignore disbelievers, you and DC would be the only ones in the conversations. Everyone on here besides the 2 of you are disbelievers, probably because we are sane.

Besides, do you think you can just go through life ignoring everything you don't like?? Again, come back when you've grown up a little, or rather, alot.

all i have to say is i used to have a cat ........he was killed by a very large rat...ya........just saying it has happend...so ya...
anyway i find a human killing a dragon hard to see without luck and alot of it

You said a very large rat, not a mouse. And believe it or not, the ancients believed that the heros that could kill dragons were as BIG as dragons! They thought the bones of mastadons belonged to the heroes of old, and intelligently believed only a giant-sized hero could kill a large dragon.

And then in medieval times, people did not believe the knights and saints were giants, but since they were also not very stupid, the believed the dragons they killed were the size of goats (and even then it was though a might feat). Of course there are some folk tales of mere peasants killing giant dragons, but these were intended to be obvious farces.

It is only modern, ignorant people with no knowledge of the abilities of real animals, or the capabilities of iron age weapons, who have dreamed up the nonsense that a normal human could kill a large dragon with normal swords, spears and arrows.

well give me a bonnet and call me nancy! youve done it! now this is more like it, your presentation is good, and you provide sources.
I know that langdon is used heavily by the Bibleorigins website...hence your use...but langdon is at least a professor in the subject.
not one i agree with about everything, but generally reliable.

my reading goes a little further than wiki, and there are a variety of interpretations out there, on both the lagash vase and depictions of marduk and the mushushu. The story of the deity imprisoned by demons, and becoming a serpent to get away is also attributed to Dumuzi.

The case for Ningishizda (in mythology) appearing as a mushushu, or being associated with it are strong, there is a case that the mushushu that Marduk sits on/next to is Ningishizda, who had a powerful cult...similar to that of Dionysus.
Ill concede that there are theories that identify him on the cylinder scrolls and cup of lagash as the mushushu; but he is primarily anthropomorphic.
He is not based on some real living elusive reptile.

when ive got more time ill dig up the refs.

not real

I don't know why you should be surprised. I have provided this all before for you.

You have no basis to say Ningishzida, or any of the greater Sumerian Gods were "primarily humanoid" when their greatest title, and form is "a great serpent-dragon of heaven". Yes, they could assume a human form, but what made them awesome and powerful gods in the eyes of their worshipper was the fact that their true form was the mightiest of creatures, the sky dragons that brought forth rain , thunder and lightning.

Well, Neighbor, actually many people in the ancient and medieval world believed in dragons. Yes, today almost everyone considers them entirely mythical, and why not? But to the ancients, the dragons were a part of their religion (even if just as opponents or servents for their gods and heroes), and some explorers were concerned that they might encounter them.

Yes the ancient ones were very strong in their belief of dragons, and its interesting how we as their desendants have forsaken it. Now do you not find that the least bit odd?

Ancient people also believed in human sacrifice. Do you find that odd as well that modern society no longer practices that?

Touche

Not odd at all, it is called human ego. Actually man has not actually 'forsaken' the belief in dragons, but in his arrogance he remade the old dragon gods 'in his own image'.

Three great religions, numbering BILLIONS of followers worship a creature that the Bible says:

has huge wings

spews fire from his mouth

spew smoke from his nostrils,

made his followers worship his dragon idol

demanded daily offerings of the choicest animals and sometimes first born children

was given 32 enemy virgins after a great victory

has assistants called seraphim that the ancient jews themselved admitted were drakons when the word was translated to Greek.

So you see, dragon worship is alive an well and practiced by the vast majority of humans. But like Enki, the Chinese dragon kings, Quetzalcoatl and the rest, people are just more comfortable with the human form, that the ancients believed the dragons could change to.

Personally, I don't think the ancient dragons could change into humans. I think this belief stems comes from them appointing human surrogates that pretended to be the dragon gods in their human form, "puppet kings" of the dragons, appointed to take care of things while they slept off their dinners of fatted calves and virgins in temple sanctuaries.

This is just ridiculous. Ludicrous. Horse hockey. And comments like this belong in the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs forum.

Yes, many people, but not all as DC implies with his "universal belief" statement. He makes it sound as if the entire human race was united as dragon worshippers as some time in history, when this simply is not true. They were not part of every religion, and not every human being believed, nor worshipped them at some time. So "universal" is a gross overstatement.

I vote we just ignore the stupid people, if they want to ignore non-believers.

I will have to agree with you 667! DC acts as if he was there 2500 years ago to write down this information.
Universal belief? Not even close. DC is just adding his theory with every belief ancient people had and is
making it fit in with his theory.

I myself will still go with serpents/snakes being the main cause for all these beliefs that we see. It's not really
that hard to later on add legs and wings to a serpentine snake.

Wasnt Quetzalcoat a myan god? I think that he is/was and there for if dragonic proves another point that DC has made, as well as the creature mentioned in the bible.

Also perhaps it is simply human arrogance that has lead man to "remake them in his own image" as you so said.

Actually, he seems to make an appearance in several areas and religions. Myans, Aztecs, and even in Catholicism and Christianity, he makes an appearance as a demon.

Actually the spanish of the time postulated that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ. And to Gnostic Chirstians Jesus was the serpent in Eden, trying to bring wisdom to mankind.

While Jews, Christians and Moslums today worship the Creator, there seems to be some early pagan influence in the formation of the monotheistic religions, from the neighboring cultures, if nothing else. Also, this was originally started in the religion forum, but was moved here because people complained that a "dragon" thread needed to be in the crypto forum.

Actually, no, Quetzalcoatl was an Aztec god. NOT MAYAN. The Mayan version of Quet is Kukulkán. They're different deities with different abilities. This deity was originally created by snake worshipping cults in the Olmec tribes from around 1150 B.C.E., so he couldn't have been Jesus. Jesus wasn't Caucasian either, so he's doubly not Jesus. When Quetzalcoatl transformed into a man, he was depicted as having extremely pale skin (more along the lines of Scandanavian colored, aka. WHITE), with blonde/whitish hair, and an angular, EUROPEAN style face. The only problem is there's no record of ANY Europeans, even Scandanavians being in this area at this time. There's no verifiable physical evidence of them aside from carvings of European style faces on temples and the legend of Quetzalcoatl.

Actually, no. The Roman Catholic Church stated this in the "Catholic Encyclopedia" that was first published in April 1914, not Spanish missionaries. Here's the latest, updated version of the book on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Encyclopedi...d/dp/0840731752 so yes, I have verifiable resources. And how could Jesus be the serpent? The serpent was punished by God to forever crawl on the ground and eat dust. That doesn't sound like the glorious Jesus we all know.

Today's Jesus is not the same one many Christians in the ancient world acknowledged. The gnostics who acknowledged the role of Mary Magdalene also consiered the snake in Eden good and was the original form of Jesus, and that Yahweh as an evil dragon demiurge, just as the Persians did.

Jeus told his disciples to be "wise as serpents", and he also connected his salvation with that of the winged serpent idol of Yahweh in the book of Numbers.

The only one who gives a tinker's damn about any of this seems to be you.

Source? Quotes from a verifiable historian? Any ancient quotes from reliable texts to prove your point?

Agreed.

Forgive me for giving out the wrong information, and after looking into it you are right Quezacoatl is an Aztec god. also thanks for a bit of information on him, that part i did not know.

and DC if your going to state something please back up what you are saying

so....

Didnt Quetzalcoatl, when depicted as a man, still have some snake like tendancies in some of his statues? If i recall correctly in Xochicako there are carvings (for want of a better word) which show him as a man but with plumes around his neck.

I also read in "Aztecs & Maya - The Ancient peoples of Middle America by N.James that Quetzalcoatl did appear in Mayan texts and even in some 3000 year old Olmec texts though i can tell you little more than that. The book seemed fairly trustworthy but then, we all get it wrong from time to time. Having said that Q was primarily a benevolent (relatively) Aztec god as far as i am aware.

Obviously you are not very familiar with Gnostic Christian beliefs. They believe Jesus is the serpent of Eden before becoming a man. These are the same people who believed Jesus Married Mary Magdalene, and you seem to like that gnostic story. Picky, Picky Picky.

But this should not surprise you that Jesus in his true form would be a flying reptile who had his wings and feet plucked, for for the HIGHEST of heavenly creatures are fiery flying serpents, or Seraphim, as has already been proven.

Understand though, that the Biblical Eden story is considerably different compared the the original eden story of the Sumerians which is far more realistic and plausible.

dude it wasnt real cause the time isnt plause able

Yeah.... And is gnostic Christianity very mainstream? Not really. And I pick my stories based on FACTS thank you very much, not because one book says such-and-such is true. That's how an intelligent person goes about determining what's real. If there's no facts, then it's probably NOT true.

We have NOT determined that this has ANY shred of truth considering you will not share any sources with us DC. If we actually had verifiable resources then maybe we would take what you say as being plausible, but since there's no proof, your theory holds absolutely no water. And does the Bible say the serpent in the Garden of Eden looks like a dragon? NO. It says it's a SERPENT which refers to snakes obviously.

And how is the Garden of Eden any less plausible than the Sumerian text? Sources please???? And are you saying that these myths actually have to be true if they refer to dragons, because that's got even less proof of it's reality than dragons.

Yep, that's probably true. And this would also mean that Quet couldn't have been a Scandanavian because they didn't wear plumes of feathers about their necks like Quet is supposed to have.

I keep taking it for granted that people here should be familiar with the most BASIC sources, but apparenlty they are not.

And you are very wrong about the Eden serpent. I believe most scholars understand that the serpent had limbs and wings BEFORE deceiving Eve, this is why God says that FTER he deceived Eve his punishment would be crawling on his belly, indicating he DID NOT crawl on his belly before that. Now do you get it?

And yes, the Sumerian version is far more authentic. The garden of eden lies outside of Eridu, an archaeologically know stone age city in Southern Iraq. I have even been to the site afte the Gulf War.

Adam is not the magical first man in this version. He is just a human who catches fish for the dragon god Enki. Eternal lie was offered just to Adam, and humans before him died like anyone else, and no nonsense about all the animals being plant eaters before the fall. Enki simply tricks Adam becasue he doesn't want to lose a good fisherman. That it. No original sin, no devil, just a dragon god who would later be known as Yahweh that didn't want the creator to take away a good provider.

Not necessarilly. The key word here is WEAR. Q. may have been a very traditional scaly dragon that just happened to like wearing feather crests and necklasses just like human natives.

Q was considered a very beneficient God that disliked human sacrifices, although there are numerous depictions of him in Aztec art swallowing humans. or with human heads in his throat. Perhaps he tolerated this if the people were willing sacrifices and not forced to be eaten against their will.

Sources of artwork? Pictures please?

Again, SOURCES??? How do we know you aren't just making all of this up unless you give VERIFIABLE sources? I'll say it again, no sources, no believing. And it seems like you're just trying to warp and twist the Bible and ancient text to mean what you want them to.

And yet (and I know this for fact) the Aztecs worshipped him and the legands that surround him all say the same thing, Quezacoatl demanded human sacrifse and the aztecs believed if they lived up to this demand that he would give them a plentyfull season. and very often it was considered an Honor to be sacrifised to Quezacoatl



Again I agree DC back up what you say or no one will believe in your statments




Once again I agree, DC you really have to back what you say, because even though i've made statments before i have at least tryed to back them up. so do the right thing here BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY!!

Thats a very bold hypothesis DC. Q. has never been portrayed as having scales as far as i am aware. Also, where have you seen Q. swallowing sacrifices? I would like to see that for myself.

From Wiki " The worship of Quetzalcoatl sometimes included animal sacrifices, and in most traditions Quetzalcoatl was said to oppose human sacrifice." But this is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the material



Supposedly Q. asked people to sacrifice butterflies and not people to him. Just read any account about Q. and this is mentioned. But this may have been in his memory after he 'left'. But it is true they still sacrificed humans to him despite this. As previously stated, like dragons everywhere, if real they require food, and virtually all the acounts state they are carnivorous. Perhaps those people depicted being eaten were willing sacrifices who thought they would have some reward in the afterlife for doing this.

I would disagree. Even the last post by Archosaur showed a photo of a sculpture, and the body looked like it was covered in scales, not feathers.

The Wiki article also has an original Aztec Codex illustration of Q. in his reptilian form, swallowing a human being head first. And there are more than this one.

Also look carefully at many of the sculptures of Q's open jaws. Often you will see a human head peering up from his throat.

The original Eden story in which a dragon god tricks Adam out of eternal life is called Adapa and the Southwind. Bibleorigins is a good site for this, but you will find hundreds of links about it.

I have NEVER made anything up here.

Oh agreed, I am sure Q had sacrifices in his name, but despite this he was well know for his disliking of human sacrifice. Also he is almost always depicted as having plumes.
Do the real dragons you speak of have feathers? Or do you think this is a misrepresentation by the people of the time?

As for the scales? Im afraid i dont see it at all.

Now i dought this would be a real image of what he looks like but

I found the pic of him by searching Quezacotl on google, like i said before i dought its an actual image, but does it come close?

Welcome to the club, and thanks (sic) for stoking DC's fires.