So now the hebrew word "nachash" is also a dragon too? That is the word that describes what Moses made in all the records. A nachash is not a dragon. Here we go again!

I think David Ickes possibility is more probable. Just because his explanations are less biblical and doesn't see things in black and white. Also he doesn't just use thge mesopotamain beliefs but has collected data of reptilian legends from various different cultures from hinduism to the native american indians.

A bronze libation bowl, believed to be booty from Solomons temple, depicts the brazen seraph dragon on a pole. It has wings and limbs, therefore seraphim, or seraph-dragon are probably more descriptive than a word simply meaning "serpent" for this implies a normal snake. The actual creatures described in numbers are seraphs, hundreds of years later it is called nachash. It is probable the later writers forgot that the seraphim were originally serpent-dragons, just as mainstream christianity has"forgotten". Would Jesus symbol mentioned in John be a common snake or a heavenly winged seraph? You disappoint me moondoggy.

I apologize that I use the cannonical text for word accuracy and not art description that came far later and from the imagination of men. It is what a true analytical researcher of the text does. But, I will stick with word origins and you can stick with the imaginations of artist. Your name is not penned on my Masters degree, so please stick with fantasy and book writing.

Scripture is not a game of scrabble where people like you play word games to make it fit your absurd, pre-conceived sunday school mythology. It is possible the brazen serpent looked like a normal snake, but why would it be worshipped if that were so? Why would Jesus say it was his symbol? And why would archaeologists find representations of it with wings, just as the seraph-dragons acknowledged to be the highest of heavenly creatures in Isaiah, Enoch and the Baruch Apocolypse? And why would the Sumerian culture in which the Hebrew beliefs were derived have idential winged reptiles as the highest heavenly servants, in the exact same roles of the Seraphim in the Bible? And why would the Egyptians believe in an identical creature, call it a fiery serpent in their hymns and represent it in a hieroglyph that looks like a sumerian winged dragon?

Hezekiah called the representation of the winged Seraph-dragon, a Neshutan to be derisive. But after this Godly object was destroyed, so was Israel and its temple. Divine punishment for destroying something God Himself ordered created? Possibly so.

Serious students of the Bible take all of the evidence into account, including the related archaeology that can confirm or deny the actual meaning of the words in the ANCIENT period in which they were written. Since the Middle Ages, Seraphim may have been acknowledged by Jew and Christian alike as a pagan-like, winged human diety, but we know they both viewed the Seraphim as winged serpent-dragons in the ancient times closest to when the Bible was written.

What point is it to deceive people more ignorant than yourself, just to perpetuate your naive sunday school mythology which ancient scripture and artifacts prove is is lie? Do you thing if enough people are convinced of your lies that it will make them true?

Hardly, because you know "seraph" only means firey or burning and has nothing to do with dragons. Languages are fool proof unless you are dealing with a fool.

What point is it to deceive people more ignorant than yourself, just to perpetuate your naive dragon mythology which ancient scripture and artifacts prove is is lie? Do you think if enough people are convinced of your lies that it will make them true?

Does it really matter? Dragons or Angels, everyone has the right to believe what they want. To argue over such things is futile since all will believe what they believe no matter what. I believe in angels. Does that make me stupid? No. If there are dragons instead of angels up there when I get there I'll shake your hand and kudos to you. Problem I am seeing that is making me less and less interested in your theories is the fact that you ramble and argue instead of debate. In my mind the person who argues their theories harshly is a person who is more or less trying to convince themselves when their peers say otherwise. I'm sorry but this has gone so off topic and into a endless arguement I am completely uninterested in this topic.

The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Jewish Encylcopedia acknowledge that the word Seraph relates to the serpent-dragon origin of the word, it has been pasted here before. They state in black and white that this is the MOST PROBABLE explanation of the seraphim. These people know far more about the bible than you do. Moreover, this fact is common knowledge in Israel today which is why the Apache Attack Helicopter is called a Seraph in Isreal, complete with its serpent-dragon representation. It seems most logical that the Hebrews took the word from the Egyptian, because there is a fiery flying serpent-dragon called the Seraph in the Egyptian Pyramid Hymns, far older than any hebrew scriptures. The ancient Jews translated the word Seraphim to Drakones. The ancient Christians agreed with heavenly dragons seen in their scriptures as well, with God riding dragons in illuminated Bibles, and dragons surrounding the throne of God in chruch mosaics and bible covers. You are just going around in circles Moondog. You have NOT been able to refute any of the scriptural evidence that has been provided, or explain why the ancient Jews and Christians ALL acknowledged the seraphim as dragon as their scriptures and art prove. You call people fools when you are the fool. It is fools like you who make Christianity seem foolish to everyone else with you insistence in believing in childish nonsense which is not even contained in any Holy Scripture, like your swan-winged cartoon angels. This is the pagan mytholgy of the Roman catholic church that you so cherish. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

What is this "either or mentality"? I NEVER stated the angels of the Bible were dragons. Please get your facts straight before making an erroneous post.

It is the Bible itself that states there are BOTH Heavenly serpent-dragons AND human-like angels. In one early Christian scripture that the catholic church tried to destroy, but couldn't, Baruch asks an Angel about the dragons he sees in Heaven. This should indicated there are both angels and dragons as all of the ancient Jewish and Christian art and scriputre acknowledge. But the winged creatures of Heaven are not angels. Ignorant Medieval Christians and Jews fused the heavenly dragons and angels together to create the modern cartoon angels of today. They did this in their human arrogance, because they could not accept that the highest heavenly creatures were serpent dragons, just as the earliest Sumerian origins of the religion proves. The Bible states angels look identical to normal men. And it says "creatures" , NOT ANGELS called Cherubim and Seraphim have wings, and it says in pslams that dragons sing prasises to God exactly as the Seraphim sing praises in Isaiah. They are called creatures, destroyers, fiery flying serpents, Cherubim, Seraphim, and DRAGON in the Bible, but NOT angels. They are a reptilian creatures which consume the souls of the wicked, an ancient knowledge believed by many peoples, and was accepted for hundreds of years by Chritianity as well, as many scriptures and church art attests. This is why every early Christian Cathedral depicts dragons swallowing up sinners. This was the real Christian Hell, not an imitation of Greek Hades. Then, an italian author of the the Middle Ages called Dante invented the fiery underground Hell ruled by Satan that has become part of the modern non-bilical Christian mythology, like the cartoon angels.

This illustrates perfecty why so many people cannot take modern Christians seriously. They are too arrogant, and ignorant to even acknowledge what their own holy scriptures actaully say. Anything they like better than their scriptures, like Dante's novel, or beautiful swan winged humaoid angels stolen from pagan greco Roman mythology, or the mistranslation of an imaginary fallen angel called Lucifer, are absobed into their non-Biblical mythology.

On the contrary, everything I have stated is based on real ancient scritpure and real archaeological evidence, and statements by the best scholars in the field, such a those who write the Jewish Encylopedia, obvious experts in the Hebrew language.

I am not the one argueng. I am the one waiting for ANYONE to refute the evidence I have presented. You and Moondog can only return my irrefutable evidence with childish personal attacks and namecalling. But this is apparently "the Christian way", as we see in so many subjects here.

dragons are fake

Thou can't hate what is not

I am the one who posted the quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia and they do not agree with you at all, unless you cite the babylonian origin. Not what the Jews think at all. I never called you a fool. I said the scriptures were fool proof unless dealing with one.

Nonsense, Moondoggy. It has been posted here for all to see. The Jewish encyclopedia gives three possibilities as to the origin of the Seraphim:

1. Angelic type beings of fire (least likely)

2. Babylonian Fire God

3. Fiery Flying Serpents. This has nothing to do with the Babylonian discussion. It is in a new paragraph. Read it again and see. The authors of the article who are real Hebrew scholars, unlike you, Moondog, clearly state this is the MOST PROBABLE origin of the Seraphim, and I agree, particularly because the the Egyptians ALSO have a fiery flying serpent, and it is also called a Seraph!!! And everyone in Israel also agree, for the Seraph helicopter is named after "the Biblical fiery flying serpent."

But If they are wrong moondog, why are there Christian scriptures talking about dragons living in heaven, why does God ride on their backs in illuminated Bibles, why are there scenes of God on his throne flanked by dragons decorating Christain churches and Bible, why do dragons decorate the most sacred temple furniture like the menorah?

You cannot answer these questions Moondog, becasue you are wrong and know virtually nothing about ancient Jewish and Christian theologies, though I am quite sure you could teach your modern, non-bilbical Christian mythology in pre-teen Sunday School classes.

And my point is made. People believe what they want to believe. No one can change another persons beliefs unless the person want to change. I wont change yours you wont change mine and so forth. Yes you believe in heavenly dragons, I dont. And so do many other people. But then on the other hand there may be some who do believe the same as you. But does that make it right for you to attack us for not believing you? No. To force your belief on others including me and calling us imbiciles for not believing you or saying your wrong is no better than the inquisitors stringing up pagans and beating them until they say they believe so they dont get hit anymore. You seem to have a good theory but it is carroded by your way of explaining it.

Moondoggy who from what I have read does know plenty about what he is talking about. His main question is were are the facts to your theories. As is mine. But instead of giving us refrence aside from wiki and your book you have nothing. Perhaps even the acknowlegement from a Jewish scholar would be enough prove your theory.

Point is the more hostile your words get the less respected they will be among those you debate with. Here is an example

What point is it to deceive people more ignorant than yourself, just to perpetuate your naive dragon mythology which ancient scripture and artifacts prove it is lie? Do you think if enough people are convinced of your lies that it will make them true?

What point is it to deceive people more ignorant than yourself, just to perpetuate your naive sunday school mythology which ancient scripture and artifacts prove is is lie? Do you thing if enough people are convinced of your lies that it will make them true?

What is the real difference between A and B? Well one is about dragon mythology and the other is about Sunday school mythology. Both two belief systems that are freely believed in. What makes one right and the other wrong? Nothing but the perspective of the one reading it and wither or not they believe in A or B. Then again there is a C and a D and a E, and why? Because there will allways be someone who has a different perspective or belief that should be respected. So really to argue like this is proving nothing and if you are that ignorant to keep arguing like you are you are proving what I am saying with your own words.

DC has a right to promote his theories no question. But when challenged the mood shifts. I have had equally hot debates on other matter here with other folks and it has been far more civil. But I suppose he thinks he is right and everyone else in the thological world is wrong which is OK too. But this business of calling people stupid, ignorant, or blind etc... has got to go. Keep on trucking DC, but I have answered everyone of your questions with scripture and or other sources and have posted them for reference.

Exactly. The ruder you are the less respect you will get. Also I have sided with you not because we have similar beliefs but because you have rationaly proven your side with fact and respect. Its been fun.

Yeah it made me break out my old analyticals, but what really drew me in originally was all the cracks he was taking at christianity in general. He thinks that there is some kind of conspiracy that the christians did to copy some form of Zoastrianism. I will still read his book of course. I do not really care if God made these seraphims dragons or not. I mean he is God and can do what he likes, but it just did not add up for me, not because of what I want to believe, but because of what those word origins really mean in the Hebrew language. It actually warmed me up for a biblical research seminar this spring, so yeah its been fun.

You have proven nothing, and still have not answered any of my questions poised in at least three posts now. Nor do I say "everyone in the theological world is wrong". Just the opposite. ALL of the ANCIENT scripture supports what I have been saying, and the REAL scholars who wrote the Jewish Encyclopedia confirm that the serpent connection to Seraphim is the most probable of all the theories they presented. And it is not even a theory. The ancient Jewish scribes and rabbis translated Seraphim to drakones. This is proven by archaeology, and the early Christians continued this belief with scriptures that speak of dragons in heaven. Yes, Popes tried to destroy all the art and scriptures that disagree with the "product" they are spewing now, but they never convieved the science of archaeology that would bring suppressed truths to light again.

The real problem here is that you simply refuse to accept anything, even from ancient scripture or the most reputable modern sources, if it contradicts your modern "sunday school" mythology that has little to do with the real Bible.

And as far as being rude, it was YOU, not I, who had to be warned on several occasions by the moderators because your attacks were becoming simply too filthy and obscene to be printed here. The proof is in the past posts as anyone can see. You were even so ignorant to brand me a devil worshiper because I have shown through both artifacts and lesser known scripture that both the ancient Jews and Christians believed the Seraphim were fiery flying serpents, as curiously, the Jewish Encylcopedia still acknowledges as the most porbable meaning of the word. The article was printed here verbatim, and it said exactly what I am saying now:

From the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Seraphim: "According to a third and more probable theory, the seraphim originally were serpents, as the name implies. Among many peoples of antiquity serpents played an important part in myth and folk-lore. For instance, there were Tiamat in the Babylonian legend of the Creation, and the Uræus serpent in Egypt. Consequently, since the Jews shared the superstitious ideas of surrounding nations in other respects, it should not be a matter of wonder if they adopted this notion as well. That the serpent filled a special rôle among them as a demoniacal being may be seen from the story of Adam's fall (Gen. iii.). In this connection the names "Dragon Spring" and "Serpent Pool" (places in the vicinity of Jerusalem) are worthy of being noted. A brazen serpent brings relief from the effects of the bite of the fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.) which Yhwh sent among his disobedient people in the wilderness. Isaiah (xiv. 29, ***. 6) speaks of fiery, flying serpents and dragons; and a brazen serpent, Nehushtan, stood in the Temple at Jerusalem, and was an object of worship until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it as being idolatrous (II Kings xviii. 4 et seq.). The worship of Nehushtan was plainly a remnant of ancient superstition, and was reconciled with the worship of Yhwh by connecting Nehushtan with the scourge of snakes in the wilderness and the rescue from them (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.). Therefore the theory seems possible, even probable, that the seraphim have their counterpart in the flying serpents of Isaiah (comp. also II Esd. xv. 29). It is only natural that these winged guardians of Yhwh's throne were soon ranked as higher beings and invested with the human form or with some features of the human body; and it was because of the very fact that they were adopted into the Yhwh cult that they were, in process of time, ennobled and spiritualized.E. G. H. I. B"

So you see moondog, the most scholarly sources AGREE with what I am saying. And as I have shown before, ALL of the ancient archaeology also supports these views, as does the very origin of the Hebrew beliefs in Sumeria. If you read the article, yes, it does say that later on, Jews and Christians alike turned these reptilian guardians into the human formed winged cartoon angels, and I do not deny this. But the whole point is that when the Bible was written they were fiery serpents/dragons. But even today, everyone in Israel knows the word Seraph/Seraphim are heavenly serpent-dragons becasue unlike you, they really speak and understand the Hebrew language.

It is very amusing that you somehow think you have acheived the upper hand on anything here. You actually come off as just another simple minded Christian fundamentalist too blinded by their own egotism to realise your whole argument is a joke. All of the ancient scripture, archaeology, and the most reputable modern sources like the Jewish Encyclopedia confirm what I am saying. Your only defense is bringing in ridiculous Medieval writings from the time people were the most ignorant and superstitious about these things. Don't you get it? Yes, everyone agrees that later theologians turned the dragons into you swanwinged cartoon angels. The Encyclopedia article says that, and I agree. That's why swan winged cartoon angels decorate Christimas cards and sunday school coloring books. But what is more important: What the scriptures really meant at the time they were written, or that arrogant human writers in later periods changed the form of the Seraphim becasue they could not stand the idea that the highest heavenly creatures were more like serpetns or dragons than they were like humans? This is the same reasion why Christian fundamentalists look like fools in their child-like attempts to dismiss evolution and an earth millions of years old. The same arrogant fools who could not accept that reptiles were the highest heavenly creatures also cannot accept that they themselves ascended from ape-like primates. Maybe another reason you do not like the truth, is that the almost worldwide belief that the oldest heavenly creatures were large reptiles suggests a compatibility between evoulution and the Bible.

Perhaps in your mind. But not from what others have posted. Hey I know you are pissed off at me, but will you sign the book when I buy it?

That's one of the funniest things I've seen LOL. Sorry not poking fun just thought it was a bit ironic.

I have to say though I will not be buying DC's book I've read enough, and I don't care what insults he hurls at people who are being 'ignorant' of his point of view, it's just not convincing. I may however write a review. Do tell me when iot's on B&N, WONT YOU dc.

I wonder if he'll still have all the hateful words that are written in his posts in the book? If so I dont see it making any top ten lists. Or even a publishers desk for that matter. Respect is everything. No respect no recognition.

Quite frankly he's just not professional. And he bombards everyone's posts with dragon mythology. This thread has gone so off topic it's ridiculous.

I know! I was accually enjoying it more when it was about Satan than about DC's theories. In my opinion if he wants to promote is theories he should make his own topic and quit using yours. Though I would like it if he'd answer my last posts directed to him. But after that on with the true debate!

I realize you are just a teenage kid that knows almost nothing about theology. Your questions about "dragons teaching people martial arts moves" makes that pretty clear, and therefore any more responses to you is just wasting my time. And you having the nerve to say I have been more rude than Moondog shows me you simply siding with him because you profess in the same mythology as him. The truth of the matter is that moondog has sunk to obscene levels in his attacks and had to be warned by the moderators several times. He also stated I was a devil worshipper because I do not acknowledge his non-biblical theology. The proof is in his own posts.

And Ashely, you are just mad becuase you made yourself look like a fool here. By claiming Enoch was written by an Ethiopian you have revealed that you know absolutely nothing about this book. There is no need to insult you, you make yourself look like one by your complete lack of knowledge about a scripture that you claim to be an expert in. All I am doing is stating the truth.

Write a review? You got to be kidding me Ashely. You have demonstrated your complete ignorance of Judao-Christian theology here. Who could possibly take you seriously? Nobody here does, except maybe a little kid who knows even less than you about these subjects.

You are both no longer worth my time. Neither of you know anythings about these subjects, and can only insult the people that do. You contribute absolutely nothing to these discussions.

Is that so? Funny I did a debate on Enoch and it's origins and I won so go **** yourself. Quite frankly I want you off my thread your dragon mythology is comepletely off topic and I'm quite sure you yourself are some teenage kid who played dungeons and dragons one too many times. Not only that but the only fool here is you your theories have so many holes in it I'm sure you had to pay any supposed publishers off with a handsome bribe. Dragons on helicopters don't mean a damn thing, and I've sent you a Rabbi's opinion and you just ignored it because you have absolutely no come back. When you actually KNOW what you're talking about come and see me. You're talking to someone who IS Jewish and has practiced Judaism since the age of 13. YOU are NOT Jewish and are speculating about something you know jack about to make a few bucks on a book.

Go figure out what this means, since you know so much about Hebrew. Have a nice day.
לך לעזאזל

whats the topic..satans right?...satan is the reptillian beast...he better not be right or ........

Actually stop right there missy.....I had a dream once..saw my aunt...she looked so well..seemed happy...(i have spoken about this before) ..anyhoo...I asked was there really a God...she said yes..but not in the form of a human being, more in the form of a creature..it was hard to describe, and im not kidding here...standing there...I recall not feeling scared, but more so safe...I think when we claim to have seen God...its how we always had pictured him to be...However i sure do believe in Angles...but I have never seen one myself...I don't need to see any..I know they are there...so God could well be in the form of a dragon...to some that is......but that don't make God the ole evil one...think about it Ashley...

I must say...you are such the lady arent you with your FOUL language...Ashley if you get reported for foul language..it's your own fault...as for saying I won a debate...seems to me you are the one acting the 13yr old..by giving in to this guys teasing...I find it really hard to believe that someone like you to claim to have seen God and yet can be so foul mouthed!!

Who's this? Draconics Mum?

Sorry Ashely. Maybe you are Jewish, but you do not know more about this than the Jewish scholars who wrote the article below from the JEWISH encyclopedia. They are saying EXACTLY what I am saying.

And by the way, look up their article on the Book of Enoch, and it also AGREES to everything I said about it. An no, they are not going to say it was written by an Ethiopian. The oldest example of Enoch is from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also confierms the ancient Jews knew the Seraphim were dragons as the arrticle below also verifies.


From the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Seraphim: "According to a third and more probable theory, the seraphim originally were serpents, as the name implies. Among many peoples of antiquity serpents played an important part in myth and folk-lore. For instance, there were Tiamat in the Babylonian legend of the Creation, and the Uræus serpent in Egypt. Consequently, since the Jews shared the superstitious ideas of surrounding nations in other respects, it should not be a matter of wonder if they adopted this notion as well. That the serpent filled a special rôle among them as a demoniacal being may be seen from the story of Adam's fall (Gen. iii.). In this connection the names "Dragon Spring" and "Serpent Pool" (places in the vicinity of Jerusalem) are worthy of being noted. A brazen serpent brings relief from the effects of the bite of the fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.) which Yhwh sent among his disobedient people in the wilderness. Isaiah (xiv. 29, ***. 6) speaks of fiery, flying serpents and dragons; and a brazen serpent, Nehushtan, stood in the Temple at Jerusalem, and was an object of worship until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it as being idolatrous (II Kings xviii. 4 et seq.). The worship of Nehushtan was plainly a remnant of ancient superstition, and was reconciled with the worship of Yhwh by connecting Nehushtan with the scourge of snakes in the wilderness and the rescue from them (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.). Therefore the theory seems possible, even probable, that the seraphim have their counterpart in the flying serpents of Isaiah (comp. also II Esd. xv. 29). It is only natural that these winged guardians of Yhwh's throne were soon ranked as higher beings and invested with the human form or with some features of the human body; and it was because of the very fact that they were adopted into the Yhwh cult that they were, in process of time, ennobled and spiritualized."

Your an expert on Enoch, yeah, right LOL

Draconic ole boy, I should not say that as I have been meaning to ask you a question, actually two. Are you a man or woman? Because your avatar does not say. I would just hate to think I was so brutal with a female, but also what sparked your interest in this line of study?

I asked you about a part of dragon mythology that you say you "??know??" about so well. You couldnt answer so you got upset. Your hopless. I rarely say this due to the fact that some people are ignorant due to the fact that they dont know it but I'm really sorry for you. Your blindness to the true meaning of the faith is so off track. But the big question we all asked you was prove it. And you couldnt and got all upset. I have one saying for you and remeber in your nose and out your mouth and say it until your head cools off. "Gus Phraba"

Draconic you sir are out of hand. You disrespect others, attack others beliefs, and bash them because they do not agree with you. You act as if your theory is 100% accurate and indisputable...In truth you can't prove a thing. You ignore questionings and dance around conflicting evidence. All your evidence seems to come from a mix of Jewish Rabbi, historians, and the like who have the same theory as you and you site passages from the many different variations of holy books. The same holy books that contradict one another and themselves, have questionable authenticity and accuracy, where written by humans and not gods thousands of years ago.

You act as if your an expert on the subject but a true and good experts research and look into the opposing side to see if they may be wrong. Have you ever thought that maybe your wrong? That all your evidence may be also? If I took every "expert's" word to heart and believed in everything I read then I would believe in(without a doubt) UFOs, Bigfoot,
psychic powers, Zeus, ghosts, the Illuminati, and Batman.

I'm also kind of tired of seeing your "dragon theory" pop up in every single thread that even mentions the word "angel". This thread isn't about what Angels, Seraphim, Satan, etc look like...this thread is about whether or not Satan was right or wrong. Create a thread called "Seraphim and Pals are Dragons".

Does it matter if the heavenly entities where dragons or not? The mythology of a religion isn't important the only thing that matters is the teachings and philosophies. If God was a pink unicorn would it change anything?

You've bin playing the same song and dance for awhile now and you haven't brought anything new to the table...you just repeat the same thing over and over again. We get it you believe in dragons...that doesn't mean we should.

If you want us to blindly believe in your theory then your in the wrong crowd and at the wrong website. If you want to politely and respectfully discuss and debate your theory then make a thread and stop derailing others.

Ironically I half believe that heavenly entities could be dragons(considering I only half believe in anything thats a lot) but maybe not in the same manner as you do.

And on that note....Quote Time!

"A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject."
"Keep your mind open but no too open...because your brain will fall out."

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are going into stupid stuff about dragons teaching people kung fu so I simply dismissed you for the little kid you are. You cannot contribute anything to this conversation. I am sure I can answer any question about dragon mythology that isn't blatantly stupid like the martial arts nonsense you brought up. Nor will I waste my time with little kids who insult their elders. Its obvious you know nothing about the Bible already, but you don't even know the basic Sunday School stuff.

The fact that the real Bible says flying fiery serpents are the highest heavenly creatures has nothing to do with "faith". You are attacking me simply because I am revealing things about the Bible that contradict the non-biblical mythology you were taught in Sunday School. Newsflash kiddo, your mythology and what the Bible really says are two very different things. If it is your "faith" to believe in a largely pagan mythology that has nothing to do with the real Bible, or what the early Christians really believed, that is you business.

Did you read my above post? Your the one that is attacking people. How do you know what the "real" Bible is? Stop insulting people. Don't talk down to ND-DAVE just because he doesn't agree with you.

You can't prove a thing...your a fanatic plain and simple.

Yes, I can prove many things, and I have. I cannot prove God or Dragons are real, but I have proven that the ancient Christians and Jews believed both were, as it is stated in their scriptures and documented in their religious art. The scriptures, the archaeological objects and some of the greatest autorities like the Jewish Encyclopedia all confirm what I am saying. I am not the fanatic. The real fanatics here are the ones who begin the insults and attacks because I can provide documentation for everything I say, while they cannot, because their long held mythologies actually contradicts what the Bible and supporting ancient doucmentaiton really says. The posts here are a historical records that speak for themselves.

For the record, I only "talk down" to people who have first started the childish name-calling, just as ND-Dave has. And these people begin the name calling because they are frustrated that I am the one with the facts, and the facts challenge their long-held cherished beliefs that have no scriptural backing whatsoever.

I believe I have a right to "talk down" to be people who begin the personal insults. I have tried to be as civil as possible with the real "fanatics" who unlike me, have had to be warned repeatedly for their abuse on these forums. Moondoggy for example, calls people Satan worshippers that do not agree with his non-Biblical mythology, and on another related thread made some very obscene inuendos about masturbating in movie theaters, simply because I am providing real evidence on the role of fiery-serpents/dragons in the original Jewish and early Christian theologies.

As for your previous post regarding the derailing of this thread, one person cannot do that. Threads seem to change topic if the majority of the people on it begin to discuss other things. Other posters can simply ignore a true derailer and the topic remains intact. But if you go back, you will see that MY comments were indeed related to the topic.

I am a very mild mannered caring person. But as of now I have lost all respect for you or what you have to say. Never once did I name call, Aside from stating your ignorance to respect others. You argue and argue and argue and argue. Honestly I beleive I speak for everyone on this post and perhaps even the forum when I state that nobody cares what you have to say. You are rude inconsiderate for others and You have insulted me and others here enough. No I am not a teenage punk as you stated. I am 22 as it states. You though who doesnt even have the fortitude to show you own age, sex, and even where you live states to me that either your the punk teenager or you run your mouth so much and insult people that you are affraid to show your self due to the fact that more than likely you insulted someone enough in the past to were they accually hunted you down and got physical.

You are a sad sad person obviously with some real personal issues and I feel for you.

I was only off by three years. Not a bad guess. You obviously still act like one.

Warning

If you appear to be getting a lot of these ********* in your posts it means you are breaking the forum rules and will be dealt with accordingly. And just because this thread is about Satan we will not accept the “devil made me do it “excuse.

So keep it on track and refrain from personal attacks.
Thank you,
Irish

There is mention of a dragon cast out from heavan. But then all reference to the devil as lucifer is flawed; the passage in the bible that mentions him is really concerning someone else look it up to find out who. and Lucifer was a latin aspect of the planet venus in the morning. its an example of an older story, and perhaps poetic lament being incorporated into a new book which is a mixmash of older material. looking at the ancient jewish art it is clear that it is a synergy of egyptian and mesopotamian imagery. their dragons are quite different to what u have in mind mr. Id love to read your book if you ever finish it, bet it'd be a great laugh.

I wholeheartedly agree that the "Christian Lucifer nonsense" is a mistranslation as you say, and have stated it many times on these forums before. But just as flawed is the Revelation dragon story. The dragon cast from heaven in that scripture is taken verbatim from much older Zoroastrian mythology, and only the names of the dragon and angel were changed to the names familiar to a Christian audience. Even the being bound up and cast into the abyss were plagiarized by John of Patmos, as is the part about the dragon formenting rebellion again and finally being cast into the lake of fire. I believe the only thing John changed besides the name was the fact that "his" dragon was imprisoned only 1000 years and the persian dragon was imprisioned 3000 years, before escaping to stir up trouble again.

I find it amusing that Christians nowadays are so perturbed over the fact that the earliest Christians acknowledged "dragons" as the highest of heavenly creatures, as anceint scripture and archaeology indisputably proves, and want to cover up the evidence of this, when most of them freely accept the absurd Revelation dragon story stolen directly from Persian mythology.

As to your observations, each culture added their own artistic conventions to what are actually the very same dragons., creating the misconception that they do not have a common origin. You are obviously not familiar enough with the subject, but understand that the "older" dragon imagery of China, such as the Han dynasty, Sumerian Mushsushu dragons, Egyptian Seraphs (hieroglyphic image), Jewish Menorah Cherubs. Greco Roman Ketos dragons, the Mayan Earth God dragon (not to be confused with Quetzalcoatl), the North American Piasa, and even the Red Dragon of Wales, and similar Medieval types, ALL are remarkably similar despite the vast expanses of time and geographic location.

And may I ask how you really know "what I have in mind"? Are you a psychic? Or like the original poster of this thread claims, have you actually met Satan and can assure us that he is not the Seraph-dragon of biblical scripture, but a shoulder length, blond haired, blue eyed surfer dude?

you see this is what happens when you join an established thread and just skip to the end instead of reading it through properly. I can see that your argument is more or less sound in certain respects; and also that it has recieved little real consideration from those who have been quite unfair to you. I can see why you got a bit frustrated and ....to be honest.... abusive. nevertheless you should just refer people to ur earlier posts instead of repeating yourself, saves alot of time and fingerwork. I also believe that 'other' people posting have been guilty of goading you...including me initially because i thought you were being unreasonable, some appear to do so in concert however. I fail to see how 2 people, and principle combatants in a debate can read the exact same text and not acknowledge the existance of a whole paragraph once attention to it has been drawn. Maybe you should be more specific in your reference, citing authors, publishers, dates, page numbers etc. This goes for all of your citations, and everybody's in fact. If you mention evidence from anceint scientists, or Pliny the Elder, say who, what, and where. - This is what professionals do, and is necessary for evidence to be accepted and respected- Then it should recieve due consideration for the argument to progress
So to bring this upto date.....the argument of the thread has moved by your posts radically from its intended purpose, there is a thread available on which you have already set out your point of view elsewhere. I can see how your earlier statements called for a reiteration of your position from the responses you recieved, but why not [again] refer people to the place where you have outlined your theories in full?
In response to your post. I believe that you see the issue from the now looking back....in retrospect if you like. when people do this it becomes easy to draw parallels and comparisons which simply do/or did not exist. Generally artistic conventions reflect how a culture views its subject, where they differ in image and symbolism, they differ in meaning and character. your dragon as i see it appears to be like the watch, from the watchmaker theory...(too generalised for a reference since there is much commentary and debate) i use the analogy to show that you seem to view the end result and not the differences between its constituent parts, which have been brought together to form the unit. I am well aware of your appreciation of the various 'sources' of dragon myths as they appear across the world, and that dinosaur bones etc. might form their ultimate source; but that doesnt mean that the Aryan idea of a dragon is entirely compatible with the chinese, or the mayan, or the egyptian. Some may be 'representations' of entities which are entirely spiritual (having no physical form) where as others might reflect a genuine belief in flying reptiles. How these people saw the entities they represent differ, so then must the entities-since they are constructs.
Undoubtedly you have done more research into the subject than i (i wouldnt write a book on it) but i fail to see how you could get passed this initial point; there is no evidence to show that dragons exist. even the word, for which you supply an accurate etymology, conjurs diverse images. Your 'dragon' requires precise definition.
please dont repeat previous postings, i have read all that you have stated previously, and my posting considers it.
what do YOU mean by 'dragon'?

And to reply to the initial question of the thread 'was satan right?' Course he was, Satan rocks, he's God's best friend.


'love thine enemy' - jesus (supposedly)

Wrong Again! But that is par for the course. It is true that some Satanist hold the same ideas that you have regarding the origins and role of Satan, so what? Early on in other threads, I made that assumption and I did aplogize for it already.

Nothing that satan says is for you to think about.

He is nothing but a low-life, lying crumb.

You are quoting from the "babylonian origin" section, if you really want to know what the Jews thought try reading about them in the Two paragraphs above what you cited. Also the section on Jewish Angelology gives a description of them as well. You may as well base your finding on babyonian, sumerian and a funny little book called Enoch that is not accepted by the Jews since 90 AD. This is why it is in greek and this is why you like the word "Drakones". Because you have no base for your theory in Hebrew.

PLEAAASE!!!!!

Can a moderator or another adult please explain to Moondog that the definition below from the highly esteemed and scholarly Jewish encylopedia has nothing to do with "Babylonian origins" ? That was the second theory. Then it goes to the third theory. There is nothing about Babylon here, it is all about Hebrew and the use of the word Saraph in the Bible. It is saying that this word implies the Seraphim of Isaiah are serpentine in form because the noun Saraph is a kind serpent in Hebrew, just as I have shown from other dictionaries. Here is someone who claims he has a Masters Degree yet pretends he cannot properly read a simple paragraph. I can only surmise he either is just being a jerk and therefore requires moderation, or he has a serious mental block in that any scholarly article that disagrees with his beliefs simply will not be acknowledged.


Let's try it again. From the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Seraphim: "According to a third and more probable theory, the seraphim originally were serpents, as the name implies. Among many peoples of antiquity serpents played an important part in myth and folk-lore. For instance, there were Tiamat in the Babylonian legend of the Creation, and the Uræus serpent in Egypt. Consequently, since the Jews shared the superstitious ideas of surrounding nations in other respects, it should not be a matter of wonder if they adopted this notion as well. That the serpent filled a special rôle among them as a demoniacal being may be seen from the story of Adam's fall (Gen. iii.). In this connection the names "Dragon Spring" and "Serpent Pool" (places in the vicinity of Jerusalem) are worthy of being noted. A brazen serpent brings relief from the effects of the bite of the fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.) which Yhwh sent among his disobedient people in the wilderness. Isaiah (xiv. 29, ***. 6) speaks of fiery, flying serpents and dragons; and a brazen serpent, Nehushtan, stood in the Temple at Jerusalem, and was an object of worship until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it as being idolatrous (II Kings xviii. 4 et seq.). The worship of Nehushtan was plainly a remnant of ancient superstition, and was reconciled with the worship of Yhwh by connecting Nehushtan with the scourge of snakes in the wilderness and the rescue from them (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.). Therefore the theory seems possible, even probable, that the seraphim have their counterpart in the flying serpents of Isaiah (comp. also II Esd. xv. 29). It is only natural that these winged guardians of Yhwh's throne were soon ranked as higher beings and invested with the human form or with some features of the human body; and it was because of the very fact that they were adopted into the Yhwh cult that they were, in process of time, ennobled and spiritualized"'

Now why can't Moondog comprehend this?

its a shame that this is going around in circles.....
it seems that MOONDOG cannot verify his argument, he presents no evidence to counter that proposed by the dragon fella. He repeatedly resorts to cheap insults and goading to get an emotional responce from his opponent. This is not debate. Either present your evidence or shut up. do you have a copy of the book handy, be a good lad and have a look will you? To invoke your masters degree doesnt cut much ice really, doesnt mean youre clever - but i think it would have required that you support your arguments; these days you can get a masters in darts, and hogswatch studies - what was yours in, and what work did you produce for it? why not post it, or provide a link to it (i presume u have the capacity to put it online) if you have to rely on bringing it up to get respect constantly it must mean that your argument is weak. i dont bring up my qualifications because i dont need to.
im not jumping to anybody's defence, id like some answers from the reptilian lover too, but at least i go about things constructively. You seem to only want a rise from him.
if the passage that the wing'ed bloke cites is not there at all, then give us what is there....go down and copy for us the next (3rd) paragraph to prove that he is lying. Also while you are about it post a link to an online version, or give details of edition, publisher, date, and page ref. so that others can look it up for themselves. Im sure ur used to doing as much in your academia.

if your'e right dont be a fool.

ok i found the reference you both are using online, no surprises there...
the link is here http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...search=seraphim

as can plainly be seen, it mentions only one occurence in the ot in the vision of isiah.
that ref bears out what moondog says (theory one)....but wait

the next section distinguishes the seraphim from angels

the THIRD section, which is under BABYLONIAN ORIGIN deals with the origin of the concept of seraphim.
Delitzch and Hommel think that seraphim would be the flames in which this god (NERGAL) manifests himself.(theory two)

"BUT ACCORDING TO A THIRD AND MORE PROBABLE THEORY".........
"The seraphim originally were serpents, as the name implies"
read on for their support of the proposition, though it will look rather familiar by now.

looks like someone is owed an apology.....

THAT is how to resolve it boys.

ps. i forgot this
By : Emil G. Hirsch Immanuel Benzinger
sound jewish to me.

Well, I'm here to defend Moondog, no one disputed the fact that Seraphim are flaming serpents with eyes of fire, but that Seraphim are ANGELS, 1, just as the animalheaded Cherubim are, just as the eye coevered 36 winged Metatron is, just as the eye covered Azrael angel of death is, etc. No matter what their form they are ANGELS. Angels are the SONS OF GOD and they take on many forms. Secondly, flaming serpents don't make them dragons. Only ONE other reference refers directly to a dragon is in Revelation and it is a metaphor. Just as the 7 heads represent the 7 hills of Rome, the 10 horns ten kings etc. It is quite clearly told by the angel to be simply a metaphor and nothing else.

Draconic continually insults members by claiming they are 'ignorant' for not believing his thoery, and I have sent him the opinion of a Rabbi on his theory and he has completely ignored it. His evidence, if you can call it that is patchy and relies on such things as pictures on helicopters in Israel. That is NOT evidence. Artwork, is NOT evidence. WOrd of later foreign translations of texts is NOT evidence. I could go on.