Lucifer/Satan/Jesus/Venus: Gods of the Dawn?
Will Dockery
from: alt.mythology,alt.magick,et cetera [Google Groups]
-------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher Wallhagen
Subject: Re: Lucifer/Satan/Jesus/Venus
It is interesting and important to note that the Septuagint uses the
word "Heosphoros" for what the NIV translates as Morning Star in
Isaiah
14:12, and the Vulgate follows with the Latin word "Lucifer".
However,
this is not the word is in the Greek text of Rev 22:16, instead it
is "ho
aster, ho lampros, ho prwinos" translated by the vulgate as "stella
splendida et matutina".
This does not mean that a case cannot be made for Jesus as a
personification for the Morning Star, but I don't think you will find
good evidence for it in the scriptures themselves.
-------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher B Siren
Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick
Helel is Hebrew for "light-bringer". I have not seen Helel as a
Canaanite
deity in any of the surviving myths or inscriptions, so it is possible
that the Isaiah author was simply being poetic and was not refering
to a
mythological being.
However, in the context of Isaiah 14:12, Helel is probably refering
to a
morning star (which is usually the planet Venus, but could be any of
the
planets seen just before dawn). Venus in turn, was associated with
the
Babylonian goddess Ishtar as well as her Canaanite analog Athtart
(Astarte/Ashtoreth/Ashtart) so one could draw a tenuous relationship
between Helel and Astarte that way, but it would be tenuous.
The Canaanite goddess Athirat (aka Ashera, Astartian) is usually
considered a separate deity from Athtart. It is she who is usually
identified as one of the two mothers of the gracious gods, who include
Shachar and Shalim (Dawn and Dusk).
Added to the mix, is the Canaanite god Athtar (aka Ashtar, Atra of the
sky) who was Athirat's son in some traditions and son of the moon and
the
sun in others. He is also identified with the planet Venus and was
the
great god of the Sabeans and of Himyar in south Arabia.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
Canaanite Mythology FAQ: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-
faq.html
-------------------------------------------------
From: jake stratton-kent
Subject: that old inverted pentagram.
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi, alt.mythology, alt.pagan,
alt.religion.angels,
talk.religion.misc, talk.religion.newage, alt.satanism
In article <tyagi.857443914@kudo20>, nocTifer
<ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com> writes
93 sinister dudes,
>the origins of these two terms stem way back in time, the first
>(Lucifer) being possibly older by virtue of connection to the
>planet Venus (bringer of dawn or light),
okay so Lucifer is connected to the planet Venus - this is a matter of
occult tradition, but what does it mean? Just recently - at long last,
I've started to see wider recognition that the Pentagram symbol
originates with cultures like the Sumerians who were aware of the
eight
year-five pointed cycle of conjunctions of Sun and Venus. This also
accounts for the 8 pointed Star of Ishtar. The Mayans based their
calendar entirely on the Sun-Venus cycle.
This cycle which traces a pentagram in the sky over eight years is
actually a double cycle, there are in fact two simultaneous
pentagrams,
an upright and an averse. This is a curious connection with 'Satanic'
symbolism - but I am unaware of any 'Satanists' who are even
acquainted
with the outlines of this 'tradition', let alone know what to do with
it.
<G> 'Luciferians' however, that could be another matter.
<snip>
>
>si...@orac.office.onechip.co.uk (Simon Richardson):
>>>Therefore the name "Lucifer" might be considered a title, rather
than a
>>>personal name. A title for a planet, for an angel, or for a match.
>
>it was a nickname and became a name and nickname, though completely
>illogical given the usual associations with Satan (who is more often
>called the Prince of Darkness otherwise).
not so illogical if the ancient christians had an inkling of the Venus
connection....
<snip>
>I think you're playing chaos with the city of angels, though your
name
>does sound familiar. where's that (Rofocale) from? why do you
consider
>'Los' to be Lucifer?
>
If it sounds familiar then you must have heard of Lucifuge Rofocale
somewhen, (Lucifuge = Flees the light, it is an insulting pun, just
like
Astaroth is an enemies twisting of the original name).
<megasnip>
L.A.Y.L.A.H.
In nomine Babalonis
93 93/93
Jake
-------------------------------------------------
URL: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html
Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ 1.2
by Christopher B. Siren
[for reference on the Canaanite "Shachar/Shahar" - the supposed
father of
Lucifer, Heylel ben Shachar]
-------------------------------------------------
From: Puck T. Smith
Subject: Re: Oldest God Of The Dawn?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.pagan, alt.religion.wicca
Big Hair Televangelist [bighairtel...@my-deja.com]
proclaimed for all the world to see:
> Who is the oldest God of the dawn?
>
> Does he date back to Sumerian times, or later?
>
> Regards,
>
> Big Hair
>
>
Khepera was an Egyptian god associated with the dawn. I don't
know if he is the oldest though. In the Payrus Ani, Ra is
refered to as "Kephera in the morning." He is usually depicted
as a scarab rolling the sun, like a ball of dung, above the
horizon.
Hope this helps.
--
Puck the Smith [p_t_smith (at) hotmail (dot) com]
-------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher B Siren (cbs...@unh.edu)
Subject: Re: seeking info on Diana & Lucifer
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
View this article only
Date: 2000/07/26
The Canaanite connection isn't even that clear as far as I can tell.
The
Hebrew/Canaanite is "Helel" (the word is the same in both languages)
which
is the name of the morning star, regardless of whether it is seen as a
deity or a naturalistic object. I'm not aware of Helel appearing as a
deity in any discovered text. However, Dawn, that is the Hebrew &
Canaanite "Shachar" is a Canaanite god. Shachar is also the literal
"dawn". The question is, was Isaiah referencing Canaanite cosmology
(i.e. Shachar sired Helel), or was he simply being poetic? (i.e. the
morning star is the son of the dawn in a similar sense to which, say,
Bill
Clinton is the son of Arkansas or, going further afield, the Age of
Reason
is the child of revolutions in 17th century math and physics.)
Even if Isaiah intended a Canaanite connection, I don't think those
who
made the Latin translation were aware of a Canaanite deity named
Helel,
even if one existed.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
Canaanite Myth FAQ: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-
faq.html
-------------------------------------------------
From: AngelWolf70 (angel...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: seeking info on Diana & Lucifer
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Hello again,
This is to clear up what was said in the reply that was posted to my
post.
Diana and Lucifer are both Roman deities. The following passage I am
quoting
comes from Charles Leland's "Aradia, Gospel of the Witches."
"Before all creation, there existed a goddess of darkness called
Diana. At the
beginning, all things were one in her, as they were in the coiled
serpent or
cat. She later divided herself into male and female, and into
darkness and
light. The light half of Diana was her brother, Lucifer. The goddess
of
darkness loved and desired the god of light, but Lucifer did not want
to be
possessed by darkness. Although Diana pursued him every night, he
repulsed her
immodest advances. Diana eventually discovered that Lucifer had a
beautiful
fairycat which always slept beside him. She persuaded this cat to
change places
with her one night. From the union of the goddess of darkness with
the god of
light, there was born a daughter, Aradia. Aradia was named the first
of the
witches. Diana sent her to the earth to teach human beings the art of
witchcraft. That was the beginning of black magic and was taught in
the name of
Diana, Queen of the Witches, who had changed places with a beautiful
fairycat."
No offense was taken though. I do hope to hear from others who have
any info
for me on them. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Keith
From: Gale (ga...@futuresouth.com)
Subject: Re: seeking info on Diana & Lucifer
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
On 21 Jul 2000 22:38:45 GMT, angel...@aol.com (AngelWolf70)
wrote:
>Hello again,
>
>This is to clear up what was said in the reply that was posted to my
post.
>Diana and Lucifer are both Roman deities. The following passage I
am quoting
>comes from Charles Leland's "Aradia, Gospel of the Witches."
>(snip)
While Leland and his _Aradia_ are quite delightful in their way,
and have had a seminal impact on 20th. Century Wicca, it might
be useful to offer a word on Leland's "scholarship," especially
in a mythology newsgroup, where folks might be concerned with
historical accuracy. Brief summation by Ronald Hutton in _The
Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles_:
"Now, since its publication, no historian or folklorist or
(indeed) modern witch has uncovered any trace of the sort of
hereditary cult in Tuscany which Leland claimed to exist. And
experts in medieval Italian literature have found no
similarities in it to his so-called _Vangelo_, which he claimed
to be fourteenth-century. It reds, in fact, like an
unmistakably nineteenth-century work. ..."
I don't have the details of the myths Leland appropriated or the
gods and goddesses he combined (I'll leave that to the more
scholarly mythology regulars), but Leland generally should be
taken as more "creative" than "historical."
(And I'll go back to lurking, as I am, indeed, less than expert
on the subject of myth.)
Blessed Be,
Gale
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (original
Tarot, poetry, fiction
ga...@futuresouth.com
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
-------------------------------------------------
From: Sepp Rothwangl
Subject: Re: On Venus and Lucifer
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Luzifer means "fire bringer" and describes or expresses some three
functions of stars:
1. Morning star (Ishtar....and so on
2. Spring equinox constellion as the the morning constellation
3. The polarstar, because all other stars are turning around him like
a
fire bow for rubbing fire in stone age. Therefore Prometheus (Greek:
rubbing forward) is nothing else than Thuban (alpha draconis) the same
as pramathys in India.
Satan(a) is first mentionend in some Asian (Mordwinian, Kaukasian)
myths
as a stone deep in the sea.
I think it derives from Chronos/Saturn and later changed to Satyr..
bye
CountDAWN
www.calendersign.ric.at
-------------------------------------------------
From: Carl KICE Brown
Subject: Re: Cicero on Hercules
Newsgroups: sci.classics, humanities.classics, alt.mythology
SPBurris wrote:
>
> In article <5r8bj5$fp7$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, dcl...@best.com wrote:
>
> > In article <spb11-2307972051060001@cu-dialup-
0723.cit.cornell.edu>,
> > SPBurris <sp...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > >In article <5r5nq5$sqa$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, dcl...@best.com
wrote:
> > >> the gods' celestial manifestations are the planets. you see
who your
> > >> neighbors (or people that you have just met) call the planets,
and you
> > >> know what gods correspond to your gods in the local system.
it's nothing
> > >> more complicated than that.
> > >Not too long ago, someone posted something about this very
topic. Turns
> > >out that the planets are identified with Olympian gods rather
late in
> > >antiquity. Or maybe a professor of mine brought it up in a
class we were
> > >teaching... whatever.
> >
> > it is more accurate to say that it is a currently fashionable
opinion
> > among academics that 'the planets [were] identified with Olympian
gods
> > rather late in antiquity'. the ancients themselves had no such
notion.
>
> Well, I must say you are right. I have gone and looked the matter
up in
> my "Book of Classical Knowledge Untainted by the Classicists
Themselves",
> and wouldn't you know -- the "Ancients" never once refered to the
future
> identification of their gods with the planets. Thanks goodness I
had the
> foresight to purchase the BCKUCT, and likewise concerning my dog-
eared
> copy of Flimmy Peevish's "On the Dangers of Fashionable Opinions
among
> Those Familiar with Classical Literature" (featuring a convenient
> interlinear translation).
>
> Oh, why didn't I listen to my Mammy and stick to trusty Penguin
editions?
>
> --
> SPBurris at Cornell University
> Greek, Latin and bagpipes!
According to Adrian Room's new book (1997) "Who's Who in Classical
Mythology" ISBN 0-8442-5469-X, between the 5th and the 3rd centuries
BC
the Greeks, under the influence of information coming from Babylonian
astronomers, renamed the 5 planets, identifying them with gods deemed
equivalent/identical to the gods the Babylonians had identified these
planets with. Subsequently, of course, the Romans named the planets
after their names for the Greek gods. I don't know, and Room
generally
doesn't say, whether the Romans also had had different names for the
planets in earlier centuries.
Anyway the earlier name for the planet Mercury was Stilbon, meaning
'shining', 'glittering', or 'sparking', for Mercury always accom-
panied
the sun and resembled a spark flown off from a larger fire. Mars was
originally known as Pyroeis, meaning 'fiery' for its blood-red color.
Both Jupiter and Saturn had names meaning 'shining', with Jupiter
being
Phaethon and Saturn being Phaenon.
As to the planet Venus, which appears in the sky as both the morning
and the evening star, in the 5th century it was still believed to be
two
separate entities (though Pythagoras was the first Greek to suggest
the
two might be one). Prior to that the two entities had separate
names --
the evening star being Hesperos ('evening') while the morning star was
variously called Eosphoros ('dawn-bearer') or Phosphoros
('light-bearer'). Interestingly, Room notes that the Romans also
considered these two entities and their names were translations of the
Greeks -- Vesper and Lucifer. Again the Babylonians had long known
the
two as one -- as Ishtar -- and under their influence the Greeks
identified the one planet with Aphrodite (the Romans subsequently with
Venus).
The rub here is that Adrian Room doesn't annotate his book with
references, and I'd like to be able to check further on a lot of what
he's stated "with authority". His only references come in a short
Bibliography, and these include two books he recommends. One is a
Dover
reprint of Allen's 1899 book "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" and
I
wonder how much it might need updating. The more recent book (I
forgot
to record the date) is Karpenko's and apparently published in Russian.
The title translates as "Names of the starry sky". Neither of these
appear very useful for a late 20th century English-speaking reader.
--
Kice Brown
-------------------------------------------------
[CHECK LINKS...]
From: Yezmeth
Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick
Wow...I may have found a newsgroup that actually has discussions about
things that I know about and like to discuss... Like I mentioned
with the
Nephilim...I have studied Lucifer in great detail... Here are some
URLS
that will help understand him a bit better. He is awesome...utterly
awesome...
www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm
www.csee.usf.edu/~black/judaism.html
www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab051.htm
www.fni.com/worship/199807/msg00479.html
These two links are for Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology and Assyrian-
Babylonian
Mythology... you have to make the name correspondences first to find
who is
who in relation to Jewish Myth...and that is sometimes vague... but
it is
interesting reading. If you read about the twin sons Shahar and
Shalem you
will see the sons of dawn...
I find it very interesting to see how the Jewish religion and faith
developed in many ways from these two cultures. I guess it was bound
to
happen when you have all those tribes dwelling amongst each other in
such a
rich spirit filled land...
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html
-------------------------------------------------
From: Denis Bridoux
Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick
They tend to be more goddesses than gods in the Indo-European
pantheon,
latin Aurora
Greek Eos
Vedic Ushas.
--
Denis
From: Xeva438 )
Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Ushas was the Goddess of the Dawn, (and sister of Suyra, the sun, in
some
accounts); however, in later times, Arun, the half-brother of Garuda
and
brother of Takshak & the Nagas (he's the son of Diti and Kashyap),
became the
charioteer of Surya, and the embodiment of Dawn. Usha still means
dawn in
Hindi, and is a common Indian name.
Vik
-------------------------------------------------
From: mark...@io.com
Subject: Re: Gods Of The Dawn?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology, alt.magick
i can make a pretty good guess as to why the babylonian king would be
referred to, disparaging, as the god of the dawn.
from the ugaritic texts:
can't we make athtar the awsome king?
let athtar the awesome be king!
then athtar the awesome went up to the peaks of zaphon
he sat on baal the conqueror's throne
his feet did not reach the footstool
his head did not reach the headrest
then athtar the awesome spoke
i can't be king on the peaks of zaphon
athtar the awesome descended
he descended from baal the conqueror's throne
and he became king of the underworld
the god of it all
that last part pretty much explains the lucifer bit too.
-------------------------------------------------
From: Frank T. De Angelis
Subject: Re: I am That I Am (the names for the Hebrew gods):
THE BURDEN OF PROOF: to my critics
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate, alt.philosophy, alt.mythology
Gentlemen:
This entire interpretation of Isaiah and Revelation is bogus. It is a
gross distortion, mistranslation, embellished-upon interpretation, and
assumption of what it absent in both original bibles, Hebrew and Greek
Christian. This was the entire topic of my book, *THE POLYTHEISM OF
THE
BIBLE AND THE MYSTERY OF LUCIFER (ISBN # 0965783464).*
The *heylel* -- or, simply a *rising morning star -- as it appears in
the original Hebrew Isaiah, presumes nothing about a devil (including
St. Jerome's invention and insertion of *Lucifer* into the first Latin
Vulgata). There is no Lucifer, and the Greek (Old and New Tests.)
refers to Eosphorus, the light from the *god of Dawn,* not phosphoros
(also a Greek term). No god or devil was implied in any of the
biblical
(or pre-biblical *stolen* passages for the *Bible(s),* from Ugaritic
or
other less relevant pre-biblical influences in building the entire
biblical and Hebrew foundations of Judaism, and hence, X-tianity).
I am sorry, but many of the above equations made, reflect more of
institutional priestly caste wish fulfillment than a close and
rigorous
biblical reading and analysis.
Sincerely,
Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis (For an more of an intro. info., see...)
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
-------------------------------------------------
From: Frank T. De Angelis
Subject: Re: Hell
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate, talk.philosophy.humanism,
alt.mythology,
alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
(a few notes from my book, Pt II - on historically and linguistically
tracing gods/devils, good/bad- evil/ etc, from Sumeria to
Judeo-X-tianity ...compliments of F.T. De Angelis):
Tracing Lucifer back from St. Jerome is - to be sure - no easy task.
If
we begin our search from the other end of history, so to speak, we
find
that the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism contained the
origins of monotheism. The original writings and beliefs of a
monotheistic god, coupled with the strict ethical dualism of Good and
Evil, are represented in this ancient and hitherto unique religion.
It
is here where we find the origin of, not Lucifer per se, but the
concepts of fallen angels and the Prince of Darkness. Both are
interdependent with the descriptive concept of the devil€ ąs
deception,
by
appearing in the form of a bright morning star. All of Lucifer€ ąs
characteristics (and, as a matter of fact, the Devil€ ąs, in
general)
are
found within this Persian religion. What is lacking, however, in
Zoroastrianism, is the name Lucifer itself.
The very next civilization and empire in history, overtaking and
replacing the Persians, was the Greek. Greek culture, however,
contained both the god - Lucifer (little known in our culture), and
the
Greek version of Zoroastrianism (with Zarathustra), Manicheaism.
Manicheaism was extremely popular in Greece, and was the original
religion of St. Augustine, the very first philosopher of the
(Catholic-Christian) Church, (within the fourth century C.E./A.D.),
immediately following the tolera-tion and recognition of Christianity
as
the official state religion of Rome. It was Augustine€ ąs City of
God,
that was written as a reply to those who accused Christianity of
bringing about the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Who else but Augustine could have been influenced by such historical
forces, being responsible for re-creating and securing Lucifer, solely
for Christianity? Who else could have had the ability, knowledge, and
opportunity?; the intellectual passion, imagination, and power?; the
intimate and first hand knowledge of Zoroastrianism, as well as Greek
culture?; and - more importantly - who else lived within the same time
frame, as a contemporary of/with St. Jerome?
Reverend Joseph A. Grispino, in his Confraternity-Douay Version of
the Bible, claims that early € łFathers of the Church€ ˛ influenced
St.
Jerome in his insertion of Lucifer for the Hebrew heylel in the Isaiah
14:12 passage; accompanied by a very perplexing footnote preceding it,
suggesting that perhaps this came from € ła Chanaanite myth.€ ˛1
Not
much
more in the way of details is given, nor is known about this, judging
from the commentaries by Catholic scholars (e.g., in the modern St.
Jerome Edition of the Bible). The limited, inconsistent, and even
contradictory information given by priestly sources - I believe - is
an
admission of ignorance, more or less, concerning the origin of
Lucifer.
As a Manichean, Augustine was well aware of the fallen angel imagery
and
the Prince of Darkness epithet inherited from that Greco-Persian
religion he embraced earlier. Not long after Emperor Constantine€ ąs
conversion to Christianity in the fourth century C.E., Christianity
was
accepted - if not proclaimed - as the offical state religion of Rome.
This € '¬introductory€ ą period, from the toleration and acceptance
of
Christianity to its official sanctioning, spanned the fourth century,
from 313 to 381 C.E. Augustine, who had just converted from
Manicheaism
to Christianity (also within this century), struggled intensely with
the
philosophical and theological problems of Good and Evil, raised in
Persian religious thought. Later on, Augustine became a bishop of
Hippo, in Africa. St. Augustine€ ąs magnum opus, The City of God,
along
with his equally famous On Free Choice of The Will and The
Confessions,
all point to the invention and origin of Lucifer as an alternative
Satan
or Devil. Although it is certain that Venus (from the Greek
Aphrodite,
and originally from Asherah and Ishtar) is the € '¬rising morning
star,€ ą
how does Lucifer fit in with this astral deity, and through whom,
before
reaching the ecclesiastical pen of St. Augustine?
From the themes of Good vs. Evil and (good) angels vs. bad -fallen
angels, to the the preoccupation with refuting Greek and all other
previously inherited € '¬pagan€ ą sources, St. Augustine makes for
the
perfect candidate responsible for inventing Lucifer, to be passed on
to
St. Jerome, for his Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. Clearly, both
Greek mythology and Greco-Persian religious influences worked their
way
into the theological and philosophical mind of Augustine. Judging
from
his philosophical-theological treatises, we confirm his obsession with
trying to explain how evil comes into the world. He claims that God
is
neither the author nor the creator of woe or evil (although yahweh
asserts this, in Isaiah 45:7); he insists that evil is not a positive
phenomenon, but only a € łprivation of good.€ ˛ This, in itself,
reflects
his personal struggle against his own Greco-Persian past.
According to the Persian scriptures, Zoroaster (the prophet of
Zoro-astrianism), bitterly refers to € łAngra Mainyu,€ ˛ a devil,
from
the
time of creation, who opposed God, Ahura Mazda, and the € łSpirit of
Good.€ ˛ This arch enemy, a fallen angel, fought God, from creation
on,
creating an evil for every good: e.g., the killing frost of winter;
the
excessive heat of summer; and the snakes, pests, and human vices€ 'Ş
from
doubt and disbelief, to witchcraft, the oppositions of good and evil
are
always present, from the beginning of time, i.e., creation. This evil
character was the author of death, and was responsible for creating
99,999 diseases, according to Chapter Twenty-two of the Videvdat.
This
personal representative of evil also created a number of demons and
devils, or daeval characters. Thus, this ethical dualism stems from
God, Ahura Mazda, and his arch rival enemy, Angra Mainyu. 2 It is
here
- with Zoroastrianism, and the scriptures of the Persian Bible, the
Avesta - that the Devil begins his infamous reputation, as the Prince
of
Darkness. Augustine€ ąs personal struggles with the origin of evil,
along
with his earlier affiliation with Manicheaism, led to a philosophical
must- avoiding the conclusion that God created evil. The concept of
the
fallen angel, one that came from Manicheaism, and whose origin in
Christianity can be attributed to St. Augustine, leaves one with the
unshakable conclusion that Augustine passed the € '¬Lucifer
baton€ ą to
Jerome.
If God does not create evil, and if evil is a privation of good, as
Augustine claims, then one wonders how this first € łDoctor of the
Church€ ˛
could have avoided, ignored, or explained away passages in the Hebrew
Bible; such as, for example, Isaiah 45:7, where God creates evil:
€ łI
am
the Lord, there is no other; I form the light and create the darkness.
I make well-being and create woe. I the Lord do all of these
things.€ ˛
How could Augustine really disavow the heavy influence of
Zoroastrianism
on him, despite his new acceptance of Christianity, since much of it
too
came from his former Persian religion? Is the 666 symbolism of evil
in
the Book of Revelation, for example, just a coincidence, or is it
perhaps an Augustinian afterthought in connection with the so-called
author of death€ ąs creation of 99,999 diseases?
Exactly where and what are we to look at in the Judeo-Christian
Bible,
in order to make consistent and non-contradictive sense of evil? In
the
New Testament, for example, we are told by St. Paul that € '¬money
is the
root of all evil€ ą (Timothy I, 6:10). The actual quote, people of
our
contemporary bourgeois society will be quick to tell us, is not that
money is the root of all evil, but that the € '¬love of money is the
root
of all evil.€ ą The implication behind such a qualification,
however,
is
that some perverse preoccupation and attachment with money is at fault
here, i.e., extreme greed - as with lustful, gluttonous, and
avaricious
sins - is behind such a warning. The original Greek text, and a
faithful translation into English, however, will render the word and
phrase as a fondness or friendship of money, instead of love of
money;
implying a very mild and minimal attraction to money, and not some
exorbitant, usurpious, ostentatious, and/or an exagerrated
preoccupation
and attachment to it, reflecting greed. The word used for love is
philos, from philia (filia), meaning fondness or friendship.
Other Greek words for love, are eros (erow or eroV) and agape
(agape);
the latter is used to describe universal and unconditional love, also
known as Christian love, and is frequently found in the New Testament,
while the former is used to describe erotic, sensual, and sexual love
and/or desire. If some greedy preoccupation, commensurate with some
lustful, desirous, and avaricious sense was meant in the Timothy I,
6:10
passage, then the term eros would have been used; this term, however,
is never used in the Greek New Testament, even though it is considered
the basic term for love, and the Life Principle, in general. The
opposite of the Life Principle of love (eros), thanatos (qanatoV), the
Death Principle, is used consistently throughout the New Testament.
Eros, of course, is the Greek god (the Roman Cupid) inseparable from
Venus, goddess of love. Philia (filia), emphasized as a
friendship-love, was the main concept, preferred by Aristotle, in his
Nicomachean Ethics, being necessary for € łtotal well being€ ˛ -
happiness
(eudaimonia, eudaimonia), as well as being a root word for
€ łphilo-sophy€ ˛(filosofia), literally the € łfriendship-love of
wisdom.€ ˛
Thus, there is no connotation of € łlove€ ˛ as an attachment or
preoccupation with money, intended here, but merely a fondness of
money,
since the very € '¬weakest€ ą sense of love was chosen for this
Timothian
St.
Paul passage. There is nothing of a strong desirous nature implied
here, at all, or the term eros would (and should) have been
employed...
First, I would like to convey to the reader that the section in
Augustine€ ąs On Free Choice of the Will, Book One, Part III, is
entitled
€ łLust is the source of evil.€ ˛ He does not say that lust is a
source
of
evil, implying one of many, but that it is € łthe source of
evil.€ ˛ In
Book III, Part X, the connection is made between € łsin€ ˛ and the
supposed
€ łlust€ ˛ in the Garden of Eden. (Lust, of course, is identified
with the
god/dess of love, Eros and Cupid, and with Aphrodite and Venus.)
Augustine, then, explores the all-important connection of these
concepts
with devils and angels, especially with angels as devils. It is here
where Augustine asserts that God created the angels, and that the
Devil€ ąs origin had to come into existence in this manner. We thus
have
the theory of fallen angels, here with St. Augustine, which will later
become so prevalent and obvious in the erroneous translation of Isaiah
14:12. Moreover, Augustine translates and transfers the Manichean
influence of Ahriman, the Persian Prince of Darkness, into his
Christianized description of the Devil. His incorporation and
transfusion of Zoroastrianism into Greco-Romanized Christianity,
fomenting and cementing the coming of Lucifer in the Book of Isaiah,
is
crystal clear. Augustine is quite emphatic in pursuing the ethical
dualism and monotheism of his earlier Persian beliefs. He is
responsible for € '¬creating€ ą the primordial distinction in
Christianity
between Good and Evil, with (good) angels vs. fallen angels - or
devils.
Extending the original Zoroastrian distinction, St. Augustine assures
the reader, in Part XII, that € łeven if all angels were to sin, the
Creator of angels would continue to rule His empire with no
defect.€ ˛ 1
Second, is the connection and development of Lucifer, by Augus-tine,
through The City of God, his main work, his magnum opus. Book XIX is
of
particular note, here; since it is full of his allusions to the
Manichees and their concepts of God and angels, including € łThe
Supreme
Good and Supreme Evil.€ ˛ We are both instructed as well as warned,
in
Part IX, not to be € '¬openly friendly to all € łHoly angels,€ ˛
since Satan
some-times takes the form of an angel of light in order to tempt
men.€ ą2
One must still ask the nagging question, however, of where the actual
name of Lucifer comes from; conceding that all of the characteristics,
descrip-tions, and epithets fit perfectly with Zoroastrian origins.
From the de-ceptive transformation of the devil - as Satan, the fallen
angel - into a € łbright light,€ ˛ and then as the € łprince of
darkness€ ˛
(also attributed to Baal, the Canaanite god), we have clarified what
was
previously ambigu-ous and obscure. Thus, in the final analysis, the
nature and origin of the Christian personifications of evil have been
partially discovered and uncovered by tracing the origins of Lucifer
back from (1) Zoroastrianism and (2) St. Augustine to his
contemporary,
(3) St. Jerome. Notwithstand-ing these discoveries and revelations,
we
are still obligated to push further in solving the mystery surrounding
the name Lucifer, itself - the rising morning star that fell€ 'Ş
seemingly an allusion to Venus.
Lucifer, according to ancient Greek mythology, is the god of
bright-ness; also, as the morning star and light bearer, this is the
star that brings in the day with gladness. He was also the father of
Ceyx, a king of Thessaly, where Mt. Olympus is located, housing the
gods. € łAll of his father€ ąs bright gladness was in his
face,€ ˛
according
to Greek legend.3 This mythological-religious account is embellished
upon by Ovid, the Ro-man; it includes the important involvement with
gods of nature, e.g., Storm, Wind, Black Clouds, and Lightening.
Ceyx€ ąs
wife was the daughter of Aolus, king of the winds. These Latin-Roman
gods of nature seem to contain many of the characteristics of El,
Baal,
and Yahweh, from the Ugaritic and Hebrew scriptures. Light and fire
were exalted and deified, from one religion to another. Light, photos
(fotoV), however, was tradi-tionally reserved for the Greek son of
god,
Apollo, and later, Jesus, based upon the gospel of St. John. Aside
from
the prestigious sun god, found in almost all religions, both Light and
(interestingly enough) Fire were of primordial importance in Persian
Zoroastrianism. Cremation, as opposed to burial, a misunderstood and
exagerrated aspect of Zoroastrianism, was condemned, (up until
recently)
by the Roman Catholic Church. Fire, it has been thought, destroys
the
soul, not just the body; therefore, fire is a tool, source, and
application of the Devil. Light vs. Darkness, (good) angels vs.
fallen
angels, etc., seem to be crucial in the theological and philosophical
problems of ethical dualism that greatly influenced St. Augustine.
So,
this is the origin of Lucifer, from Greco-Persian culture, which was -
to be sure - well known by Augustine in his day.
In roughly a three hundred year period - from the time of Jesus to
St.
Augustine and St. Jerome - there seems to be fertile ground for this
composition and synthesis, culminating in the (re)creation of Lucifer.
Lucifer represents all that Christianity has to oppose and hate, much
like Judaism, with its former pagan cultures. What elements are
accepted, though, become immortalized, symbolized, and deified in the
person of Jesus, e.g., as the son of god, the Light (photos, fotoV ),
the Truth, and the Logos (Logos, or € łthe logical-ordered and spoken
word€ ˛)€ 'Ş exactly what Apollo stood for. What, on the other
hand (the
one
on the conservative € '¬Right,€ ą to be sure), was ruthlessly
opposed -
with
a hateful vengeance - was the other side, the abysmal dark side, the
deception of light - personified in Lucifer - as a fallen angel. Ovid
lived and wrote his mythological and historical poetry, mostly during
the Augustan periods of 27-20 C.E., making him a contemporary of
Virgil;
ergo, both poets must have been well known, and had to have made a
considerable impact on St. Augustine, as well as on all of the other
early Church Fathers and scholars. Tertullian, Plotinus, Origen,
Augustine, and many other € '¬early€ ą theological scholars - no
doubt -
take
some credit for influencing St. Jerome; all were most assuredly
influenced by the famous Romanized versions of Greek mythology,
especially since they continu-ously referred to the Latin-Roman names
of
the gods and goddesses. It was from the Latinized versions of the
Greek
accounts that these early Christians drew from; especially in - and
for
- their relentless sexual-pagan criticisms. Tertullian, born in
Carthage, lived circa 160 to 230 of the Common Era (A.D.); Plotinus
lived between 204 and 270 C.E.; Origen, from circa 185-253 C.E.; St.
Augustine, from 354-430; and St. Jerome, from circa 345- 420 of the
Common Era. Augustine€ ąs intellectual and passionate synthesis of
the
sexual and pagan traits associated with Ishtar, Isis, Asherah,
Aphrodite, Venus, and Lucifer culminated in a new version of a satanic
and devilish character called Lucifer. Christendom now had its own
personified version of evil, to call its very own.
All of the early Christians attacked paganism and eroticism (in
par-ticular), and women and sex (in general). From the well known,
and
notoriously infamous (if not outrageous) writings of St. Paul
(formerly
Saul, a tax collector), addressing the Corinthians, to the fanatical
raving of Plotinus, e.g., against € łthe vulgar harlot Aphrodite€ ˛
and
Eros, we have a very clear sense of the values and attitudes of the
€ '¬early Christian fathers.€ ą4 We also get a general picture of
the
atmosphere surrounding early Christian culture, during - and
preceding -
the lives of Augustine and Jerome.5 From Tertullian€ ąs unequivocal
condemnation of women€ ąs apparel, ornamentation, and the use of
perfume,
to Paul, Origen, and Jerome€ ąs fanatical warnings of the
temptations of
the flesh, we have a hysteria that is unparalleled in all of world
history. This € łhysterectomy€ ˛ goes far beyond the Hebrews€ ą
patriarchal
and monotheistic sexism, with a fanaticism and fundamentalism
necessary
and indispensable for any understanding of the success celebrated by
the
Lucifer character...
...rubric of € '¬pagan€ ą and € '¬witchcraft€ ą; thus, goddesses
and women per
se,
were not the only targets of Jerome€ ąs € '¬Ruth-ful€ ą and
hateful
vengeance.
Lucifer is mythologically connected to Dionysius and Orpheus; the
former, being designated as the god of wine, and the vine, but also
being associated with the characteristics of intoxication,
celebration,
dance, narcotic-orgasm, and referred to as the he-goat or goat
song(tragos, tragoV ), the god of tragedy. Similarly, Orpheus is
first
and foremost the god of song, and is known as a god € '¬from the dark
underworld.€ ą Lucifer, literally from € łlucre€ ˛ (light), is
associated
with
the former two gods; thus, cementing the association of evil with the
dialectical, diabolical, and downright deceptive oppositions of
light/darkness and comedy/tragedy.
The masks of comedy and tragedy mask a dialectical development of one
out of the origin of the other. Dance, music, and celebration, in
general, often mask the tragedy of depression and oppression,
neces-sitating the former, as a cathartic safety valve...
So, we have all of the imagery conjured up by the gods and cults of
Isis, Dionysius, and Orpheus, in building up a personal message of
evil,
culminating in Jerome€ ąs Lucifer.
It should be crystal clear to the reader by now, that tracing the
historical development of Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Persian,
and, finally, the Greco-Roman influences on Judeo-Christianity, has
led
to a fictitious character of evil, Lucifer. From Ishtar, Isis,
Asherah,
Aphro-dite, and Venus, to Dionysius and Orpheus, we have a pantheon of
gods and goddesses, offering many traits to be condemned by the new
€ '¬centurians€ ą of censureship and censorship. The casually
flippant
reference to our culture - understood as an evolutionary process
leading
up to the present € łgeneration X€ ˛ - as one of € łsex, drugs,
and Rock
n€ ą
Roll€ ˛ (at best, and € '¬clueless-ness€ ą or €
'¬nothingness,€ ą at worst),
clearly
embodies all of the decadent and irresponsible values symbolic of
evil -
according to fundamentalists and other religious zealots. Pan,
another
god of music, characteristic of the Pied Piper, attracts followers as
he
travels with his music, and is also associated with Dionysius and
Orpheus. A host of evils have been accumulated into such a collection
of sins, that we find the traits of numerous Greco-Roman gods and
goddesses - all being attributed later to Lucifer.
From Hera/Vesta, Athena/Minerva, Aphrodite/Venus, Persephone
/Proserpine, and Artemis/Diana - to Demeter and Cybele/Semele, we
have a
plethora of goddesses connected to Dionysius/Bacchus, a € łtrue king
of
gods.€ ˛ Strictly from the female lineage of divine world history,
Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Aphrodite, and Venus all represent aspects of
fertility, deception, passion, promiscuity, and in a word, love.
(Although Isis also maintains the contradictive title of virgin, as
stated earlier, the characteristics of fertility and promiscuity are
also present within her description.) Love, from and beyond Eros€ ąs
limited domain, is surpassed only by women, and is celebrated in
festivals, reflecting fertility and passion. Far beyond the
celebrations of the Dionysian cults, were the wild and exclusively
female Dionysiac-Aphrodysiac festivities, e.g., in the yearly
€ łall-female€ ˛ festivals on the Island of Lesbos, in honor of
Dionysius
(the lone male), Hera, Demeter, Cybele, Proserpine, Artemis-Diana,
Athena, and the other deities worshiped by the sisterhood of women.
The
Dionysian principle has always stood in opposition to the Apollonian.
From the nineteenth century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, in his
Die Geburt der Trag€ ödie (The Birth of Tragedy), to the twentieth
century
anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, in her Patterns of Culture, we have the
establishment of a perennial distinction in history, separating the
Dionysian cultures from the Apollonian. Apollo, representing the god
of
light and truth, is also portrayed as an archer, and reflects the art
of
€ łgentle comedy.€ ˛ In contradistinction, Dionysiac traits
include
violent
dance, music, promiscuity, intoxication, and wild festivities per
se€ 'Ş
summarized in tragedy. The Romanized version of Dionysius, Bacchus,
is
even more usurpious, ostentatious, and perhaps even rapacious; fitting
the decadence of the Roman Empire to a € łT€ ˛'Ş for Tragedy.
Both the bull and goat are of great significance here, too, with the
Greco-Romans, as they were in all of the ancient pre-Greek cultures.
From Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Ugaritic Canaanites, and Israelites to
the Persians and (Pre-Greek ?) Minoans of Crete, the veneration of the
bull (and bovine, in general) and goat are of the utmost importance.
Re-member that the goat is the symbolic animal of Dionysian cults,
re-quiring sacrificial initiation for rites of passage. It is also
the
he-goat that is characterized as the Devil and Satan; since female
veneration (i.e., by and for women) was directly tied to the Dionysian
cults, the she- goat was also included in the festivities. Thus,
once
again, in the biblical accounts, it is somewhat unclear if the male,
as
a devilish shaggy he-goat, seduces the female (as in the Garden of
Eden), or vice versa.
The Etruscan (early Roman) bronze statue of The Capitoline She-Wolf
(of
circa 500 B.C.E.), with the brothers Romulus and Remus suckling, begs
the question of analogy here, notwithstanding the fact that the she-
wolf
was a symbol of Rome. 1 Although the wolf is not as significant as
the
bull, cow, or goat, we must realize that the analogy is apropos, since
the wolf in sheep€ ąs clothing (first found in Aesop€ ąs Fables,
prior to
the fifth century B.C.E., only to be copied later, in Matthew€ ąs
account
of Jesus) depicts the most (in)famous character flaw in the
Devil-Satan-Lucifer personification; the deception and seduction via a
change in appearance, much like Zeus€ ą seduction-rape of Leda, after
transforming himself into a swan (and perhaps later copied in the
Bible,
with the rape of Leah)...
In Nietzsche€ ąs works, Die Geburt der Trag€ ödie and Also Sprach
Zarathustra, one finds the hero figure in the Greek Dionysius and the
Persian-Greek Zoroaster/Zarathustra, respectively. He describes
Dion-ysius as barbaric - and being from Babylon (originally) -
reflecting total promiscuity, bestial savagery, and the Anti-Christ
himself. In opposi-tion to Apollo, the Lucent One, the God of Light,
Beauty, and Peace (purposely leaving aside Truth here), Nietzsche
contrasts him with Dionysius, a god of Storm, Wind, narcotic rapture,
ecstasy, and orgy. Are these not the traits of the biblical Lucifer,
as
well as the original Greek Lucifer? The first two traits, i.e., as
the
gods of Wind and Storm, are connected to Lucifer through Ceyx and
Aolus,
even though they are also exhibited in Zeus, Baal, El, Yahweh, and
others. Apollo and Dionysius parallel the dialectical unity of
opposition in comedy/tragedy, joy/sad-ness,
celebration/mourning-depression, peace/war-aggression, pleasure/ pain,
and, so on. The rapture of narcotics and wine, Nietzsche
acknowledges,
is the saving grace of redemption through € łillusion.€ ˛
€ łDrugs€ ˛ are
necessary in order to get through life, € łto ease the pain.€ ˛ Do
we not
understand this psychological truth today, reflecting alienation and,
hence, the needs of the consumer and the marketplace€ 'Ş legal or
illegal?
Out of Medieval Germany, the same Dionysian power drove an
increasing number of people, singing and dancing from place to
place; we acknowledge this in the St. John and St. Vitus dancers, the
Bacchian choruses of the Greeks (who had their predecessors in
Asia Minor), and as far back as Babylon and the orgiastic Sacaea.4
-------------------------------------------------
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus/
INTRODUCTION (€ © THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE MYSTERY OF
LUCIFER,
BY F.T. DE ANGELIS: Spartacus-Tribune Publications)
This book will undoubtedly shock you. Filled with amazing discoveries,
reinterpretations, and expositions, this biblical analysis was
written with two
audiences in mind, appealing to both scholars and the educated
general public.
Rich in interdisciplinary approaches, I have sought to incorporate
theology
with history, ancient studies, anthropology, linguistics, and
philosophy.
Having had an academic background in the humanities, philosophy,
religion, and
sociology, I come to this area of study from a global, as well as
from an
interdisciplinary perspective. I am grateful for having the
opportunity to have
studied under so many great thinkers in so many different fields.
This project
is the result of a lengthy study of - and fascination with - the
Bible and its
origins, and should be of particular interest to all of those who
take religion
seriously. After reading this book, Jews and Christians will
undoubtedly
reassess the meaning of the Bible and the values of religious
institutions.
This work also warrants a very special perspective for women,
especially
feminists. In making use of the most recent biblical scholarship, as
a spring-
board, I believe, I have gone beyond the present state of biblical
knowledge
and theories, exploring deep into virgin territory. I have found no
other
single book containing as many little-known-facts, along with
probable and
plausible biblical interpretations, as this one. Thus, for all of
these
reasons, I believe that this book is truly the first of its kind
anywhere, with
much more information and philosophical truths than any other single
work
to-date.
Part I of this work is the basis for my research and main thesis, the
"Polytheism of the Bible," and the investigation of good and evil, as
portrayed
in the Bible. This search has led me to several astonishing
discoveries based
upon pre-biblical texts and cultures, particularly the Ugaritic of
ancient
Canaan and Syria. Much of this research is unknown outside of the
strict
academic disciplines and esoteric intellectual circles. For the first
time, a
complete biblical exposition, along with the author's own
speculations,
interpretations, and conclusions, has been made available in a
relatively easy-
to-read style and format.
The biblical transition of world history - from Adam's son, Cain, to
Canaan,
and from Abraham to Moses - parallels and reflects ancient Canaan and
present
day Israel as being Hebrew in origin, with Abraham representing the
first
Hebrew patriarchal leader. Furthermore, the biblical account of
Creation, with
the"naming"process, along with the account of Babel (the Tower of)
and Babylon
(in the Book of Genesis) suggests that Hebrew was the primordial
language (cf.
Isaiah, 19:18), but we know from our present state of knowledge that
none of
this could be true. The Ugaritic culture and language of ancient
Canaan was not
originally Hebrew, but a variation of a Mesopotamian wedge-shaped
alphabet
known as cuneiform. In addition, based on my studies, i t is most
likely that
this culture, complete with language, belief system, and writings,
was directly
influential on the Hebrews - and the development of their language,
religion,
and (relatively recent) canonical writings, known as - the Bible.
According to evolutionary evidence, the development of man, from the
use of
fire and tools (and tool making) to the domestication of animals,
spans the
epochs of Homo erectus, Australopithicus, Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon
man, and
Homo sapiens. From approximately one-half million years, B.C.E. to
about ten
thousand years, B.C.E., including the Great Ice Age and Paleolithic
Stone Age,
man evolved into a sign, symbol, and tool (maker and...) user;
painting cave
walls, depicting bison and bulls, such as those at Altamira, Spain
and in
France, at the Hall of Bulls. This kind of prehistory, of course, is
all
somewhat speculative. It is, however, with the era of between six
thousand and
one thousand years B.C.E. that the present inquiry begins. It is here
where we
come to the very beginning epoch of history, that is to say, written
history.
Now the traceable human evidence is much less speculative. On the
contrary, we
now approach data rich in historical evidence going far beyond the
limited
archeological evidence from strictly artifacts. The discoveries of
cultural
parallels are quite staggering. The art of the Indus valley, for
example,
reiterates and confirms the emphasis - and fascination with - bovine
symbols.
The veneration of bulls and cows becomes paramount in Persian, India,
and later
in Greece. The bull reappears once again in almost all cultures, as a
principal
connecting link with divinity, even to the biblical Hebrews. It is
with the
written scriptures of history that we are now able to fit together
many of the
missing pieces into a highly cohesive and tightly fit mosaic.
Our present day understanding of ancient history has come a long way
since, The
Histories, of Herodotus, a sixth century Greek who was also the first
historian
of western civilization. Aside from archeological discoveries, his
first (and
mostly second-) hand information still remains the main corpus of work
regarding ancient Egypt and Phoenicia. In his famous Book II of The
Histories,
he explores many of the parallels between ancient Egypt and Greece,
comparing
the principal gods and goddesses of both cultures. Included in his
analysis is
the crucial connection of Osiris with the Greek counterpart,
Dionysius, and the
worship of divine bulls and cows. Aside from his fallacious
extrapolations and
errors from second hand information, his analysis seriously lacked
information
on ancient Mesopotamia and Canaan-Syria, where archeological
artifacts and
written evidence proved to either precede or be concurrent with
Egyptian
culture.
We all know that Mesopotamia and Egypt were the first cultures in
history to
have settled into developed cities and empires. What most people do
not know,
however, is that biblical Hebrew, both in the stories and language,
did not
just parallel - nor precede many other cultures, but, on the
contrary, copied
them. The Ugaritic Canaanite-Syrian culture in particular, was one
that
preceded the settlement of Jews in that region. Consequently, it was
their
language, gods, and scriptural writings that were the basis for the
Hebrew
Bible. In addition, a massive priestly cover-up of these historic
events is
demonstrated through evidence of priestly scribal modifications,
mistranslations, and misinterpretations... all purposely orchestrated.
Furthermore, in avoiding, denying, and suppressing these earlier pagan
influences, religious leaders have undermined their own religious
institutions
and heritage. This has been done, I believe, out of their own self-
interests,
for their own survival and enrichment. Consequently, in order to
downplay this
heritage, and lessen the originality and, hence, the importance of
the Bible,
an all-out attack had to be waged. This process, I hope to show
convincingly,
encouraged priestly castes to: (1) create (that is to say, 'invent')
and
radically embellish upon already existing biblical characters,
personifying and
individualizing them far beyond the original intent, and (directly and
indirectly related to the first point) (2) form necessary social,
political,
economic, and legal alliances with/in the State.
It is well known that priestly castes developed simultaneously in
both India
and Persia, due to the influence of the invading Aryans. The most
privileged
socioeconomic class and caste in India was (and still is) that of the
Brahmins,
made up of mostly educated priests and intellectuals. Similarly, the
Persian
Mobadn, also a caste of priests and intellectuals, represented the
second
highest caste, being directly under the emperor and nobles. It was
the great
religious revolutionaries, Buddha, Mohammed, and Gandhi, who strongly
opposed
the caste system, helping to eliminate it from their society. It is
clear that,
in addition to these great men, Judaism and Christianity also
contributed their
revolutionary leaders, such as Moses and Jesus. Unfortunately,
although very
successful, these men did not rid their culture of privileged
priestly castes
nor of patriarchal authority and power. The writing of the Bible
itself,
starting with the Torah, reflected the input of the "P"-riestly
source of
authorship and a "R"-edacter who synthesized it all into one
harmonious work.
This, I believe, was the very first Judaic trace of a movement
towards a male
dominated caste of priests, who were descendants from the tribe of
Levi.
Likewise, the Christian Church, formed by St. Paul and other
disciples of Jesus
(Apostles), along with many early Christian leaders, also represented
a strict
patriarchal hierarchy of priests (bishops) and philosophers. All of
these
religions reflect institutions of a very stratified social order, with
political-economic incentives always operating beneath the surface.
"Generation X," coming directly from the "me" (and before it,
the "we")
generation, experienced and exhibited a deep-seated alienation and
repressiveness from our society. This cashed out as aesthetic,
religious, and
political estrangement. It was the nineteenth century philosopher -
Hegel, who
laid down the foundations for the dialectical relationship of
religion and art
to philosophy€ É Through a meticulous, rigorous, and critical
analysis
of the
Bible and ancient history, I have sought to explore that relationship
of
inseparability. From the priestly 'censorship' of religious
scriptures and
history - to the censorship of art and, ultimately, all forms and
freedoms of
expression - philosophy reveals the inner Dialectic, as the true
awareness of
the totality€ É of the relationships in world history. From Socrates
to
Hegel,
and from Marx to Marcuse, philosophers have connected Beauty
(aesthetics, i.e.,
artistic imagination and expression - including and applied to
pleasure,
beauty, sex, and love), Ethics, and Religion to Freedom, and hence,
to the
political realm of power. I am of the opinion that it is philosophy
that can
best reveal both the inner and inter-connections of politics and
religion; the
politics of religion mirrors the religion of politics, since the
history of
philosophy is the philosophy of history, being two sides of the same
coin.
Religious history, especially biblical and pre-biblical history,
reveals a
distortion, requiring a revision of that history. Women in
particular, have
been subject to a 'historectomy' of sorts, facilitated by a system of
patriarchal monotheism; a system that inevitably condemns them as
being
"hysterical," rather than "historical." This process completes itself
in the
identification and equation of women with a host of evil demons, via
specific
personifications - including witches, Lilith, and Lucifer... as
a "Venus in
blue jeans," i.e., a 'Venus in disguise.'
From the Philosophy of Ordinary Language Analysis and Meaning to
comparative
etymological studies of language, a meticulous scrutiny of the
historical
development of language is of the utmost importance. The Greek word
for
happiness is eu daimon ia, literally "good demon/s," while the
biblical
Greek for gospel€ É evangelist is eu aggelion, literally "good
angels/news-
messengers." The difference between the two, as with Good and Evil,
may very
well rest on - or cross - a very fine line.
#PART I: POLYTHEISM (€ © THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE MYSTERY
OF
LUCIFER,
BY F.T. DE ANGELIS: Spartacus-Tribune Publications)
Many critical biblical theories and discoveries have been accepted
within this
century, by scholars of theology, Hebrew, and archeology. First and
foremost,
is the wealth of evidence - demonstrating the radically divergent,
and quite
distinguishable authorships - later synthesized into one integrated
body of
scriptures known as the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible. This
process, based
on the Torah, i.e., the first five Books of the Bible, was one of
relatively
recent projects, with a completion date of around four hundred B.C.E.
A minimum
of five separate authors were responsible for this initial work. This
theory
has been long accepted, and is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
It must be
understood, however, that these multiple authors were responsible for
giving
both separate and numerous names for god. The different names also
reflect very
different characteristics and modes of behavior. El, Elohim, Yah,
Yahweh,
Adonai(ay), El Shaddai(ay), Abyir, Kadoosh, Kneah, and many other
names and
epithets were given to god(s) by the various contributors to this
highly
eclectic work - now known as - The Bible.
* * * * *
Although these themes of distinct and obviously problematical natures
have been
common knowledge, and have been accepted by biblical scholars from
all circles,
they have not as yet led to (1) the appropriate changes in
translations and
interpretations of the Bible that should have followed from that
knowledge and
(2) the historical and anthropological revisions that should have
placed the
ancient Hebrews as followers, rather than innovators, of a supposedly
new and
unique religion and culture.
It has only been within the last thirty years that we have witnessed
tremendous
advances in our biblical knowledge and interpretations, reflecting
the cross-
cultural influences on the original Jews of the Old Testament. These
advances
however, have been highly conservative - and minimal at best -
compared to the
implications and conclusions that could and should have been made. No
serious
scholar has been bold enough to enter the treacherous waters that I
am about to
enter, risking public censure. The Mesopotamians (from Sumer, Akkad,
Babylon,
and Assyria), Egyptians, Phoenicians, and early Greeks have provided
writings
much earlier than those of the Bible, and, therefore, reflect a
history
predating the biblical Hebrews. This alone should have led to
startling
re-evaluations of the Hebrew language and scriptures, but the Ugaritic
Canaanites provided the conclusive evidence for the present thesis of
Hebrew
non-originality. Both the language and scriptures of the Hebrews have
to be
reassessed as being a much more recent development than the current
popular
belief allows. Their development from these other cultures - rather
than on or
with them - renders the basis for the Hebrew Bible less and less
unique, at
every step along the way, on this historical path.
One of the major conclusions to be eventually drawn from all of this,
I
believe, is that the Hebrew culture, language, and scriptures reflect
(ed) a
polytheistic rather than a monotheistic conception of god. This
conception
seems to be inherent within the Hebrew Bible itself, and is clearly
embedded
within the very language of the Hebrews. Most of the biblical names,
concepts,
and stories have their roots in previous non-Jewish pagan religions.
The
Ugaritic Canaanites, whose language and scriptures left the most
substantial
mark and permanent stamp of influence upon Judaism, can never be
separated out
from the ancient Hebrews, nor ever be underestimated (although they
were
destroyed by them, militarily).
From all of the non-Hebraic religious influences - deemed as being
either
positive (and, therefore, not acknowledged as being "pagan" in
origin) or as
being negative (and severely criticized and condemned) by Hebrew
leaders -
comes the constant and continuous struggle against all foreign
influence (so we
thought, and were led to believe up until now). This vengeful ethnic
cleansing
consisted of expulsions, as well as genocidal exterminations, and can
be found
all throughout the Bible. The ecclesiastical hierarchy led this
ruthless
struggle, I am convinced, in an attempt to establish patriarchal
monotheism.
The Hebrew transition from polytheism to patriarchal monotheism took
place over
a long period of time. This process inevitably required a
condemnation, and in
the final analysis, resulted in an extermination of all matriarchal
and
polytheistic remnants. Due to the zeal and fervor of the Hebrew
patriarchal
leaders this process usually involved extreme and uncompromising
measures.
The foreign gods and goddesses, especially Baal and Asherah, were the
object of
continuous, relentless, and protracted struggles and attacks - found
all
throughout the Bible. Hebrew patriarchal leaders were almost always
behind such
campaigns. Coupled with the sexism of that patriarchal grab for
power, was the
combined attack of, for example, Elijah, in going against both
Jezebel (a
worshiper of Asherah) and Baal, in Book II of Kings, Chapter Ten.
Asherah was
the most influential, famous, and worshiped of all goddesses in
Ugaritic
Canaan-Syria. All of the drastic attempts to eliminate foreign
influence were
implemented under the guise of the Chosen People ideology.
* * * * *
We can easily find clues deeply embedded within the language of the
biblical
texts themselves, especially the original ones. The officially
accepted text is
known as the Masoretic Text (MT), established by Hebrew biblical
scholars at
the end of the Middle Ages, complete with paragraphs, sentence
dividers, and
vowel marks; but these signs were added to an alphabet originally
consisting of
only consonants, similar to most ancient languages, lacking vowels.
Unfortunately, the MT is the oldest complete codex of the Hebrew
Bible in
existence (and there is no one version); fortunately, however, all of
these
texts are more than adequate for the purpose of revealing
their "borrowed"
nature, from previous "host" cultures.
* * * * *
Reconstructing the original biblical Hebrew is not an easy task,
since the
earliest complete Bible is from several different versions of the
Masoretic
Text (which first introduced vowel marks, paragraph separations,
sentential
cutoffs, etc.), going back to the Middle Ages, from the Ben Asher
version
(900 A.D. - or C.E.). The so-called "Received Text"
(supposedly 'direct from
God') is no more than a limited, incomplete, and hence, failed
attempt by
Erasmus to provide a new translation of the Bible in 1516, based on
Latin and
Greek texts. The oldest version of the Hebrew scriptures is actually
the Dead
Sea Scrolls, indicating a very different - and much more simplistic -
Hebrew
alphabet.
The Hebrew scriptures are not at all unique, as they are claimed to
be, but
are, more or less, copies of the Ugaritic religious scriptures found
at Ras
Shamra (1928). The excavation of the tablets began in 1929, revealing
a
hitherto unknown language and culture. I am convinced that the Hebrew
language
evolved, from this Ugaritic alphabetical cuneiform (wedge-shaped)
language.
These tablets, along with many other archeological finds, lend proof
to the
thesis of Hebrew non-originality; revealing the polytheistic and
Ugaritic
origins of the Hebrew Bible.
-------------------------------------------------
> > =====
> > visit my website, updated
> > often:http://www.angelfire.com/al2/willdockerypoems/index.html
> >
> > __________________________________________________
Brenda G. Kent
Dawn, morning..a fresh new beginning...inspiration...thought...light.
I have always thought of all these rebels as bringers of light. Satan
...an adversary like many sacred clowns...testing the constructs...showing
absurdity of the rational to get us to question why..Jesus...bringing back
the truth to many of the Old Testament who had forgotten it....lunching
with the ho's and the thieves and doing work on the Sabbath to test the
constructs of that day..lovely.
Hey guess what? I got my name in the latest edition of the Light Bringer!
neat huh? down ego...I say down girl!! :D
Blessings
Bren.
Will Dockery
Eve, I wouldn't wanna slight Lady L. All she wanted to do was ride on
top and show Adam some new tricks. Adam, I sometimes think, was our
first dogmatic fundie, which usually means not very fun. I think,
though, perhaps it was Eve who came up with the idea of the blow job:
that's where all that snake/apple stuff came about. Lilith was too
pushy, Eve seduced Adam rather than trying to dominate him. So she
went down on Adam's "apple", which the snake, erect and glistening
with pre-come, urged her to do, and Adam went down on her little clit
fruit. That's when the fan hit the shite, perhaps Jah wanted all the
blowjobs to himself. One traditional method of keeping virginity is
to have the concubine suck cock. On rare times, a "tubular" prgnacy
can occur from oral sex, if the sperm is persistant, and the
concubine swallows enough, I read in my Kabbalistic research of 1983.
This could explain the Virgin Births of Jesus, Baldur, Osiris,
Hercules, mithras, et al. A "tribble" being can be creatyed through
Sex Magick in a similar way... but have a use for this being, or it
hangs around in the shed lonesome when created without good purpose.
Will
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Isis-House
--- In Isis-...@yahoogroups.com, BLACKWOLF <BLACKWOLF247@Y...>
wrote:
> Try this on for size,
> Eve was the first illuminati the first to spiritually
> consciously wake up to her goddessspirit self and the
> serpent represents the kundalini energy the sexual
> energy is one way to put it, so the male dominated
> religions are put togeather by the Power Seekers while
> the illuminated whether withen or without the
> dominators churches are free.
> Women are suppressed withen these domains of control
> because woman was the first freeone.
> amongst the humans.
> We have always had amongst us the open awake
> messengers so Eve then is the first of a long long
> line including Jesus,Gautama and others who are not to
> blame for what thier followers do.
> --- Anne Hart <annehart@d...> wrote:
> > The sacred book of John, but you have to read the
> > anti women stuff as it
> > saying that the blame will be given to women, not
> > that women caused this.
> > These men lived in a time where the women were
> > either very close to becoming
> > equal in that society or the opportunity passed them
> > by. You have to
> > realize the importance of this book is that it is
> > referenced in the man
> > controls the world Bible from what is now mainstream
> > Christianity. It
> > wasn't supposed to be a Christianity. Jesus was a
> > Prophet master like many
> > people who walk around today and say things of
> > wisdom and no one listens.
> > In his case they listened. 24 prophets were sent to
> > fix what Moses had
> > done. See the thing about not building temples to
> > him, he meant it. We are
> > to be our own temple and have meeting places to
> > share what we know as
> > friends having coffee, not worshipping a God. It
> > got all mixed up. I hope
> > I haven't offended anyone. I get a different take
> > on these works. There is
> > a reason male religious organizations didn't touch
> > it for almost two
> > thousand years. We have to hear what we read with
> > no bias towards women so
> > we can see how it was written wrong. Like where it
> > says women causes the
> > desires. It is supposed to mean that women will be
> > blamed for desires of
> > men that are not good for women. The God and
> > Goddess do not like how men
> > treat women on this planet, nor how we treat our
> > children as though they
> > have little worth when in truth they are the most
> > precious, we take them for
> > granted and they somehow forget to care about you
> > when they grow up. That
> > happens even if your a loving Aunt but I am rambling
> > again. It all fits if
> > you read it with a positive approach and the
> > knowledge that Jesus stood for
> > women many times and even allowed them equality in
> > his presence so we have
> > to see that these men wrote it with the wrong
> > perspective of what was being
> > told to them. My humble opinion of course.
> >
> > Anne
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <charmdsj@n...>
> > To: <Isis-...@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 10:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Isis-House] Pagan Gnosticism
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I would like to know where to start to study the
> > life of Jesus from a
> > Gnostic view. Sad but true that the Christian church
> > hates to admit this is
> > truth. It reminds me of a kid telling another kid
> > 'you're not sick' when
> > they are.
> > >
> > > -GRIFTER-
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030423214539.21348A-100000@vtn1>...
Brenda G. Kent
oral sex. First of all one's stomach would have to have a
perforation...and secondly the acids in a stomach would kill sperm. To
myself the word "virgin" meant differently in days of old....not
necessarily a woman who had not had sexual intercourse but one who was not
owned by her father or her brother or her husband...a free woman.
Anyway...my two cents.
Bren.
Old Coyote
> to have the concubine suck cock. On rare times, a "tubular" prgnacy
> can occur from oral sex, if the sperm is persistant, and the
> concubine swallows enough, I read in my Kabbalistic research of 1983.
> This could explain the Virgin Births of Jesus, Baldur, Osiris,
> Hercules, mithras, et al. A "tribble" being can be creatyed through
> Sex Magick in a similar way... but have a use for this being, or it
> hangs around in the shed lonesome when created without good purpose.
> Will
You are a major league idiot. I've never seen anyone write down
and apparently support anything so outrageously stupid in my entire life.
Kabbalistic research indeed. Stick to cereal boxes there Doc.
d
the internet ... I have read in several different sources that in the days of
Jesus the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "virgin" in the new
testament meant simply an unmarried woman.
Brenda G. Kent
> I don't have a source to sight but you can probably verify it by a search on
> the internet ... I have read in several different sources that in the days of
> Jesus the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "virgin" in the new
> testament meant simply an unmarried woman.
>
***thankyou kindly d.
Bren.
Will Dockery
The more I think of that definition of *virgin*, the less sense it
makes. It may be a true definition, but somehow, I mean, what's the
point? I virgin it seems would be universally known to be a woman with
an unfucked vagina... I'm not afraid to admit I don't understand. 2000
years may make a lot of difference, but I just doubt the world was
that different from ours. Jeeeze.
Will
d
but somehow, I mean, what's the point?
well Will, if you heard today than an unmarried woman was pregnant would the thought immediately come to mind " immaculate conception" ?
Will Dockery
would the thought immediately come to mind "immaculate conception" ?
Will wrote
Well, no. I guess times have really changed a lot, looking at it from
that perspective.
Will Dockery
Thanks, Brenda, jsut something I stumbled across in my wanderings. I
keep swinging, sometimes I score a hit... *grin* but I need to do my
hopework... what's light Bringer? I assume a magazine? Tell me more..?
Will
Viola
Mysteries at an early date.
Gabriel is thus a Angel of Annunciation, informing Mary the Virgen of her
pregnancy.
The Incarnation of God was not a unknown event in ancient times, rare
though it might be.
A valuable clue is provided by the sacred of Melkizedek ( King of
Righteousness ) ruler of Salem ( Peace )
These Prest Kings had to be without father, without mother without
descent.They were unique beings.
--
Peace, Tolerance,Truth !
LVX
Viola Schmidt
To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Keep Silence.
"Will Dockery" <willd...@blackplanet.com> skrev i melding
news:2883cd71.03042...@posting.google.com...
Brenda G. Kent
***heheee...I meant "Light Bearer" actually. Light Bearer is a
Theosophical magazine that comes out four times yearly.It's not a big
deal but just seeing your name in something that goes around the world is
rather neat. Not an article I wrote...just a mention of me. This should
not matter...heh...but I've still got work to do on my ego.
Bren.
t_naismith
<chop>
> ***It's not a big
> deal but just seeing your name in something that goes around the world is
> rather neat. Not an article I wrote...just a mention of me. This should
> not matter...heh...but I've still got work to do on my ego.
>
> Bren.
>
Still burning that ego candle at both ends, eh? Shooting for ego
dissipation and ego-enhancement as you do will tear what remains of your
mind apart.
I applaud your efforts. Keep us posted on your demise, it serves as an
example of what not to do for others.
Blazin' Tommy D.
"Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:bacaf0e0.03042...@posting.google.com...
Ironywaves
"Blazin' Tommy D." wrote
I love this guy:)
"Old Coyote" wrote
> > > to have the concubine suck cock. On rare times, a "tubular" prgnacy
> > > can occur from oral sex, if the sperm is persistant, and the
> > > concubine swallows enough, I read in my Kabbalistic research of 1983.
> > > This could explain the Virgin Births of Jesus, Baldur, Osiris,
> > > Hercules, Mithras, et al. A "tribble" being can be creatyed through
mika
> Will, for the life of me I can't see a tubular pregnancy happenning from
> oral sex. First of all one's stomach would have to have a
> perforation...and secondly the acids in a stomach would kill sperm.
Exactly. It sounds like ancient speculation based on lack of
knowledge of physiology... or a metaphor with no literal application.
> To
> myself the word "virgin" meant differently in days of old....not
> necessarily a woman who had not had sexual intercourse but one who was not
> owned by her father or her brother or her husband...a free woman.
This question came up on alt.magick recently. I think "virgin" used
to mean a woman who had not yet given birth.
Joshua Geller
> I think "virgin" used
> to mean a woman who had not yet given birth.
Rather an unmarried woman.
.
luciferan_x
http://luciferan.chaosmagic.com/
Some reference materials on Lucifer; and I'm working on getting more
stuff typed up.
:: Ascent ::
Frater Solarius
Non est ad astra mollis e terris via.