A lot of people have some very silly ideas about the evolution of the Christian Satan. They look at artistic renderings from the middle ages and assume these satyr like figures have any relationship to scriptural refferences.

First lets be clear about the nature of Satan as presented in Christian thought. He is seen as a angel who was originally God's chief servant but who rebelled for reasons of pride. In several places in the bible we find mention of his description(most notably the 12th Chapter of Revelation) and not once does the Pan description come up. Instead he is called the dragon or that serpent of old(widely considered a refference to the serpent of Genesis). So any physical similarities to Celtic and Greek deities is in the minds of later artists not an actual part of Christian belief. At any rate neither of the gods he is linked to in description have his psychological traits(hating man kind, hating the other angels and God, extreme arrogence).

The true roots of Satan(speaking strictly from anthropology) can be found in the largely universal belief in evil gods and spirits. In African Voodoo(one of the oldest religions in the world) we find discussion of Zang Beitos which are a group of spirits that were originally intended as guardians but turned and have become violent and dangerous. In Egyptian tradition we have the God Set who in some accounts was the god of darkness and evil. Even more fundamentally though we have Apophis. Apophis was a giant Serpent who was bent on destroying the world in Egyptian lore. In Norse mythology we again have a SERPENT called Jormungler also bent on destruction. Aside from this serpent we have Loki the great trickster God who will one day side with the enemies of the gods, Hel the godess of the underworld, and a host of malevolent beings from the shape shifting frost giants to Fenris wolf. In the relgions of Assyria there were demons(creatures of death and destruction) as well as dark gods like Pazzuzu(the god of disease) and most notably the Babylonian conflict between Marduk and Tiamat. Tiamat was the foremost among deities and also a dragon and the other gods eventually rose up against her. Marduk ultamitely faced her in battle defeating her and earning the position of supreme God in the process(akin to Michael's defeating the Dragon Satan and taking Satan's place as chief angel). In Hinduism there are a number of different evil spirits(rahaska for example) and violent gods like Kali. Asia has oni, some of the kami(spirits that can be good or evil), and a number of other spirits.

Yet beyond all of this we have the roots with in Judaism. One of the world's oldest religions. In Judaic tradition there is an angel known as HaSa'tan. Litterally translated The Advesary(when the old Testament was translated they simplified it to Satan since a capital letter in English specificly denotes an individual instead of a group). This angel was seen as the accuser of man(some thing akin to a prosecuting attorney). Aside from this figure legend(particularly Kabbalah) relates the existence of the figures Asmodeus(supreme devil very similar to the Christian idea of Satan the name was even adapted) and Lilith a demoness who had mothered thousands of demons and was one of the first succubi(later legends tied her to Adam suggesting she was his first wife but the oldest stories in Judaic lore present her as evil) she is in fact the being Isaiah refers to as "the terror that flyeth by night(an old name for her)."

A final closing point to consider is the linguistic origins of the words demon and devil. Demon is derived from the Greek daimon and has several possibly meanings. Alternately they were lesser gods, guardian spirits that could be good or evil or a race of evil spirits that were in conflict with the gods (this last was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Xenocrates NOT Christianity). The word Devil also is derived from the Greek(as opposed to the often wrongly suggested sanskrit deva) Diabolos whith translates as The Worst.

I'm sorry for being flip but it sounds to me like you have learned something and wanted to share it with everyone, not that you really want an answer. This may not get alot of reply. (I could be wrong)

ITs actually more that I wanted to share the information and correct some of the nonsense flying around the board. I have no doubt some one sooner or later will post a rant about how "wrong" this is but its also fine if no one say any thing. T

I just posted about this yesterday. Yes, satan is the adversary of MAN. He may be 'fallen' but even fallen angels keep their originals jobs, somtimes their original ranks. Satan was God's favorite angel. God made him higher than any other angel, and gave the most power, one of those powers being that he could accuse not only man, but his own kind, angels. Satan wouldn't bow down to Adam, whinging that he wasmade first and Adam should bow down to him, so he decided to up his throne. He got kicked out. He tempted Adam and Eve, but that in of itself was his JOB. But he had ulterior motives, When, after being cast out of Eden they tried to repent he turned up as an 'angel of light' and told Eve t get out of the water she'd ben forgiven. When Adam saw this he asked her what the hell she was doing out of the water (water up to the neck was a form of cleansing sin, part of where Baptism came from. Even Judaism still believes in bathing/showering after a sin has ben commited to 'wash it away', and until that has ben don, you cannot enter a synaguoge) then he saw this 'anegl of light' and realized it was Satanail (satan, he has many names, one of which is also Mikael, the higher ranking a angel is, the more names he gets, 70 or so. God also has many names). Adam asked why he would d such a thing to them, in which he replied 'it's BECAUSE of YOU' that he got fallen. And henceforth he became the enemy of man. And angel told this to Moses.

Now the 'War in Heaven' was about the demoting of satan from being able to tempt/accuse/test othr angels like he did with the angels of Enoch, and other angels, causing mny to fall. Michael kicked him out and made him thereon SOLEY the accuser of man 'woe to the Earth for the dragon has ben sent unto you' and he 'had accused OUR bretherin night and day before the Lord'. This was said by an angel. An angel's bretherin is ANGELS.

That and, satan works FOR God. Read Job, and the fact that (and satan as already fallen at this time) God said 'there is NO ONE at war with Me'.

Now, demons aren't fallen angels, their are th hybrid offspring of the angels with man, the Nephilim. Testament of Solomon, the full version recounts and explains that in depth. Fallen angels are fallen angels, and even fallen angels have a time limit on their fall (like the Enoch angels being fallen for 9 'days' equivalent to 9000 Earth years), demons are spirits of the Nephillim.

Wasn't Satan originally a pagan god that was assimilated into Christian myth?

No. Chrristianity is 2000 years old. Judaism, wich has Satan as an adversary of mankind is thousdands upon thousands of years old. They DO have satan (although, somewhere along the line they wouldn't accept the notion of fallen angels, and therefore don't see satanail in the same light as Christianity) but just as an accusing angel. There are many accusing angels (satan asked God for a percentage of the 200 that fell in Enoch to work for him which was granted and thus became accusing angels).

Judgement angels - the Irin Quaddism, twin judgement angels, twin being in plural as there are 7 rows of them, all of whom look identical, but one from each side comes in for defense/accustaion against someone - are half accusing angels, and half 'defense' angels. The Grigori, which is what the 'Watcher' angels of Enoch became after their fall, where from the order of Irin Qaddism. Satan, however, is not, he's a Cherubim (four fixed signs of the Zodiac), and acts as prince over accusing angels. Technically he WAS the highest of all angels.

Everyone here has the right to express their thoughts and ideas. So you might as well get used to it.

Yes Max, Satan is the direct descendent of the Zoaroasterian "Evil God" and many scholars identify Judiasm, Christianity, Islam and Mithraism to be heretically cults of Zoaroasterism!

It amazes me how many people do not realize just how old Judaism IS, on both written and oral tradition.

About 3000 years old as a religion and about 2500 years old as a written religion - no matter what the forgery Enouch says!

8000 years old or older. Does Enoch bother you that much that you have to continue to resort to it as a 'forgery'. The historical evidence proves otherwise, and the 'dating' of the texts is a guesstimate.

Actually, its about 4000 years as a written. And it is unknown how old it is as a religion. Written history goes back to roughly 2000 B.C (around the first writtings of biblical text).

Then Exodus must have taken place in 2000 BCE, not the 1250 BCE that all biblical scholars say. After all Moses wrote (supposedly) the first five books. Actually according to Archaeologists and epigraphists, the bible was not written down until 600 - 500's BCE and Yhwh was not actively worshipped as a monotheistic god until around 900-800 BCE. But if you want to believe in fairy tales, it's not my place to forbid it! Oh, and while we are at it, explain Yhwh's wife Asherah no:

NOt even a little. Artists of the middle ages used the pagan god Pan as a template for his appearence but the personality, traits and original appearance of Satan was not based on that. Similar figures to Satan and demons are almost universal.

Judaism is ~8000 year old.. spoken and written combined...

Nature, Goddess, shamatic, anamism, veryious other emerging pantheonic worshiping is ~10-20+ thousand years spoke/writen/drawn/drummed...

Though it makes sence for the monotheistic worshipers (Judaic/christian(and all it's outcroppings)/Islamic) Think the world started 8000 years ago since that was roughly when the Judaic religion was taking form. *shrugs* Known habbid back then to make the beginning of the known world with the beginning of a religious sect.

But that's hella off topic X) Soo.. something on topic.

... I have nothing to add on topic that's not covered...

Hinduism: over 10000 years old one of the oldest religions practiced in the world today(confirmed continued practice not a revival like neopaganism): has demons, rahaskas and several violent gods
The cultures of Mesoptamia: the oldest known socieites any where in the world have demons and dark gods
Voodoo: rooted in african animism the oldest known form of religion far predating godess worship: evil spirits, possesion
Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse cultures: several forms of godess worship, all have evil spirits, evil serpents in both norse and egyptian

Logical conclusion the idea of spiritual evil is as old as human religion and the neo pagan rejection of evil is 100% modern revisionism with out any serious historical basis.

'sactly...

The notion of good vs evil is as old as we are...

Exactly the point I'm making. The idea that spiritual forces exist of evil as well as good is as old as man. As such pinning the concept of demons, Satan or even Hell on CHristianity is historical nonsense.

But then again, as we know.. history is writen by the ones who win.. over power and are sneaky enough X)

Not really. History is written by both sides and the rest of us can guess at who's telling the truth(and most often the answer is a little of both). Think history is written by the winners? Ask England about the Revolution.

Ok, ok. I was geniunely curious, not being sarcastic (for once)

Look at text books from the above then below the mason dixie line... Unless that's changed since I've been in high school.. they're both drasticly different about the civil war.

Having lived in the United Kingdom (England is only one part of it), I can tell you that the Brits are well aware of losing the Revolution and are in agreement with us that King George was a raving lunatic, whose actions brought on the war. They do disapprove of our method of approaching the problem. As for the South and North, I am a native Southerner, schooled in the Deep South. My daugther was schooled in the North, so I have read both text books and can tell you that they may disagree in minor detail, but both agree that the South lost! As has been said, the winner writes history! If the South had won, instead of seeing horrid "Masters" whipping slaves, you would be reading about "Nosy Nelly" Yankees that got their "come uppance"! Christianity wrote the history of the late Roman Empire and in doing so destroyed much of the Classic works that disagreed with their cult, including any history that was embarrassing to them. We only catch a ghost of a glimpse of what was lost, through writers such as Origen and Eusebuis! - CD

Can you show me where you got this info? (About Hinduism being over 10,000 years old)

A half dozen religion courses and text books. Hinduism is considered the oldest major religion in the world.

Agreeing they lost isn't the real point.. that's reality. Though having read text books from both sides, the differences in how much or little is told. In the north, it was all glorifying to Yanks.. and how they did this heroic and that heroic.. and beat down them damned southern's... then a huge two pager about the signing of that treaty. But in the south... it was the opposite. Glorifying the Confederates.. then when it came time for the signen to end the war... it was this itsy bitsy paragraph X)

I thought it was funny accually.

But if we want to go back further...

How come the Bible's survived all these years and hardly any Druidic or other pagan holy books or bardic notes hasn't? Now come? The Church did "win" in a sence to convert the northern european areas... There are tons of historical accounts about that.. but only from the side of those who brought and forced Christianity onto the pagan peoples who lived there... There are hardly any accounts from thier point of view aside what we can assume they felt from what little has and what we do have.

Up to a point in time.. both sides of the story has been lost.. then after this point in history, we see both sides. But each side is displayed differntly depending on where you are. Here, we teach our side of the revolution... I'm sure in England, as case in point by CD... they tought more about what was going on over there during that time in period then we are.

I'll admitt that I wasn't thinking right when I brought up the Civil War... You'll have to excuse me... But it did tie in nicely with what I was trying to get at... which I hope I got at... ._o

I have a freind who's a school teacher who taught for several years in the south. One of the most interesting facts he relayed to me of his tenure there was that according to him many of his students firmly believed the south had WON the civil war. At any rate the point isn't that both sides remember who won or lost that isn't what I was saying. What I was pointing out is that the view points and oppinions of the losing side still exist and are NOT the same as the winners. History is written by both sides.

I've heard the same thing about Judaism.

Mostly by people who are either Jewish or Christian or Muslim and believe fully that the earth is 8000 years old.

But I'm confused here. Every website I've looked at says nothing about hinduism being 10,000 years old. The websites I've looked at suggest around 2000 b.c (which is around the time of Judiasm.)

The difference is that the Vedas(Hindu holy scripture) predate the Torah. Judaism is close but not as old. Most religion scholars(that I've seen) accept that of the major religions(Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism) Hinduism is the oldest.

Right.. and because of those fricken.. "Oooh my crystals talk to me.." types.. Religions that predate hinduism doesn't count. Anamism and Shamanisms... Goddess worship as well to an extent. we know there are female idols that are prehistoric... before hinduism was a twinkle in anyone's eye... but it's not clear if they were Goddess reprisentation. They could be, but because back when these idols were made there was no form of record keeping.. we just don't really know.

If Judaism is defined by Moses, than it is about 3,000yrs old. Hinduism doesn't go back 10,000yrs, thats Pre-Indus civilization and there are few records from that period. i may safely say that it propablly started out about 3,000-4,000yrs ago.

Moses was first in instituting the written side of Judaism.

But to my reasoning, Judaism should lead all the way back to Abraham.

You guys make me want to charge you all so I can afford to be an anthropologist and settle this score with a degree background...

Until then... hobby away... and pass me the asprine.

According to (yes, even Christian) scholars and epigraphists, Moses did not write the five books assigned to him. There is strong epigraphic evidence of 7 different writers and at least one editor, that along with the language usage, etc calls for an assignation of 5-6 century BCE. Written Judaism is only about 2600 years old and Yhwhism is only about 2800 years old (preExilic, but just barely).

Just a clarification - that old "the south actually won" joke is one that we "good ol' boys" love to hit "damn yankees" with. We play it good and most go away shaking their heads at how stupid "rednecks" are - ignoring the fact that many of those "rednecks" have better educations than they!

No not really. For starters notice I said several times over that Hinduism is the oldest of the major religions. There is NO ONE RELIGION OF GODESS WORSHIP. You have worship of Isis, worship of Diana, and worship of a dozen different godesses all over the world. Each uniqute and distinct from the others. The same is largely true of Shamanism or animism. If you want to get technical odds are the oldest religion practice in the world is Voodoo. Its roots lie in the animistic practices of tribal cultures in Africa which go back long before any recorded history probably to the dawn of human civilization as well.

Why its ACCURATELY said Hinduism is the oldest of the major religions is simple. Unlike Godess worship, shamanism, Voodoo, Santeria and the others that to a greater or lesser degree predate them its a wide spread coherent religion with a specific holy book. Hindus can be found through out Asia(particularly India), the US and other countries all practicing a recognizable religion directly inspired by the Bagavad Gita and other sacred texts that rank among the oldest written texts. Further Godess worship was largely destroyed in the middle ages and the groups that exist now are at most following a very modern revival started with in the last two hundred years.

Right and if you read what I said.. I said there's no written out forms for goddess worship... just idols we assume are goddesses. It's not a case of A SINGULARE thing.. just a mess of stone carved or painted on idols and pitographs. For writen and still widely unhindered over the ages practices... I would agree that Hindu is older then Judaic.

I actually did major in Anthropology for a while. I will share an anthropological principal, which shows up again and again:

"The Gods of a conquered people become the dempns of the conquerors."
This is why Astarte/Ashera/Asteroth and Beezebuth, Philistine and Babylonian Gods, become demons in the hebrew scriptures.
The Helenes conquered Greece, and the old Gods became the hated Titans.
This has happened over and over again, since the beginning of the human race.
It makes it completely untderstandable for the xian church to have invented "Lucifer", dresing him in a Pan suit. Did you know that Diana was worshipped in the woods until the 1400's? There was an edict around that time condemning witches for worshipping Diana on the "heath" (get it-"heathens"?), toward the end of the 1300's. The next year, they published an edict with the same exact language, substituting "Satan". The Churrch thus invented there own enemy. All over Europe sprang up "Satanist" Nunneries and Monasteries. The "Satan", in the book of Job, was basically an angel, only operating with the direct permission of god. The "rebellion" is strictly an xian invention.Note that the book of revelations mentions the "Synagogue of satan". The opposite is true What have we had with 2000 years of xianity? Wars, crusades, the inquisition, persecution after persecution of Jews, the people who gave the world jsus in the first place, and any other group the xians could point an evil finger at. They have imposed there will on poor, starving people of the world, forcing them to convert in order to eat a bowl of rice. Who is the real Prince of evil? Sounds like jsus and his followers.

No use Amal- people will never hear you out when they are in monologue. We can post refutations to every single wild claim against the bible, but nobody reads them. Why are we even on this thread?

The idea of devil worship predates the middle ages by a few millenia. Its been 100% ignored that most cultures believed in practicioners of evil magic that had dealings with dark gods and malevolent spirits. Further given biblical refferences(not counting apocryphal works like the Book of Enoch) refer to Satan as a force of evil in Revelation and the Gospels predating the decision to demonize Diana. As to any legitimate diana worship personally I doubt it. The church may have believed it was true but that doesn't prove much.

thanks for not reading the whole post

See I did and its the same tripe that gets dredged up over and over again. Its also fundamentally innacurate. When one tribe absorbs another one of three things happens to the gods of the defeated tribe.
1) they become demons, evil gods etc(as the Judeo Christian tradition did to Baal among others)
2) they become lesser gods in a new pantheon, angels or saints(as the Roman Catholics probably did with St Bridgette, most African tribes do constantly and quite possibly the various ancient pantheons became what we think of them as)
3) the two sets coexist(Hinduism is probably the best example of this ie many hindus consider Jesus as much a representation of Brahma as Vishnu is)

why is it tripe when you bqasically agree with it?

Yes, most catholic saints are old gods.

saint brigette, patrick, dimitra, etc.

Again, Judaism is about 8000 years old via WRITTEN TRADITION and OLDER via ORAL TRADITION.

so much was lost before the invention of writing.we only know what remains.

Found some interesting tidbits. Abraham was from Ur, a city of the babylonians, its history goes back about 1600BC. So Abraham couldn't have pre-dated Moses for too long, a couple of hundred years maybe.

Hmmm, refuting wild claims? Who is coming here making fantastic pronouncements without offering verifiable evidence. If pointing out the total lack of any evidence other than a Bronze Age/Iron Age fairytale is a wild claim, then what would your fantastic claim be called? It can't be called the truth, for lack of proof, so it must be the wild claims! When you folks can offer any verifiable proof of your god and godlet, then we will take your pronouncement seriously!

No, Abraham was from "Ur of the Chaldees", the same city but the Chaldean people did not migrate there and take control until after 800 BCE, which is long after Abraham and Mose both were supposed to have lived! Shows the reliability of your Buybull history!