Your post reminds me of one of my early ones here at LttD. Maybe you can find some useful information in THIS thread?

These are my thought on the subject.

Xtianity, as well as other Abrahamic religions, (in their little peanut brains) don't require an idea to be in their "holy book" for them to say it's there. How often have we heard one of them say, "It's in the bible." when whatever they are saying isn't there at all?

Or an idea may only have the minutest mention in the damned thing. IE: the witch-hunts on two continents. In reading their book years ago, I found but one verse to "justify" their murdering the people accused of the "crime" of Witchcraft. That being, "Suffer ye not a witch to live." Exodus 22:18.

Back on the original subject. I did find a vaguely xtian text that has (in its terminology) a paper on the "Lucifer Rebellion."

From Wikipedia:
"The Urantia Book (sometimes called the Urantia Papers or The Fifth Epochal Revelation) is a spiritual and philosophical book that discusses God, Jesus, science, cosmology, religion, history and destiny. It originated in Chicago, Illinois, USA, sometime between 1924 and 1955. There has been much debate and speculation on how the papers were produced and who the authors were.

The writers introduce the word Urantia as the name of the planet Earth and state their intent is to "present enlarged concepts and advanced truth" in an "endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception." Among many other topics, it expounds on the origin and meaning of life, describes humankind's place in the universe, discusses the relationship between God and people, and presents a detailed biography of Jesus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

But, I'm sure others here have at least heard of this.

So, if there was an ancient text that described in perfect detail the mythology of Satan, what would that change for you, exactly?

It's important to note the difficulty of searching for textual evidence of a certain mythology from a distant, non-literal society. It's even foolish to try and do so, as if finding the text that clearly states a popular story has any relevance at all in terms of legitimacy. Scholars (theological and secular alike) examine scriptural evidence for lack of other kinds.

Christians know the story because it was passed down orally. It is only recently (relatively) that texts are used to legitimize ideas. But make no mistake, by and large, any textual reference is usually done retroactively to apply to a pre-existing circulating story.

Ok... Now that I have the computer for the moment, I shall begin;



I've already answered this so... Let's move on.



I didn't know about how many texts there are about the Book of Enoch but to me, it looks like there are interpretations or different versions.



Lucifer was one name for the "adversary". His real name is supposed to be Samael. Lucifer or Samael didn't become "Satan" until after his rebellion. Satan is not another person but a new label for the archangel after his rebellion against "God".

So here is my interpretation; According to the holy bible, Lucifer, Belial, Satan, Leviathan, Beelzebub, etc. are representing the same person but by different authors and different stories. Since there are about 20 or so authors, 50 or so books, 50 or so chapters in each book, so on and so forth, so many stories in the bible are completely different but woven together to make one big prophecy book. Alot of scriptures in the New testament often refer to what is in the Old Testament. This evidence concludes that authors in the New Testament have studied exstensively on the Old and proceeded the "lessons" that were intended.



I'm not big on Latin but the christmas story was based off of pagan beliefs. Most of the bible's beliefs on those kinds of stories are originated from paganism. From what I have gathered, paganism at the time was the original and common religion and nobody knew anything else but that one religion. Paganism was based off of Sumerian beliefs I think. Next came christianity which claimed; "These temples of yours are evil and so you must destroy them and create our temples." or something along those lines. So the pagans were forced to tear down their temples and rebuild them. Although the christians didn't know what were the images on the temples represented, the christian temples were thusly pagan based. They practically worshipped their god in a pagan temple.

When the christians confronted the pagans, they forced them to either convert to christianity or die. That is why you heard of christians burning witches. Eventually, it wasn't just pagans who were burned but just about anybody who could be considered a witch by the majority of the populace.



Unfortunately I think that can be impossible because of new versions and different translations. The actual Dead Sea Scrolls are protected in a museum.



My references to you should differ your claim of it not being in the bible. Like I said above, all the other names including Lucifer are directed to one rebellious archangel. Even though you're reading about a "dragon" and a war in heaven, you're reading about a metaphor about the archangel which is mentioned as Lucifer from a previous book in the bible. It's just a different story.



It's not childish. That is why I answered the best way I could off of what I studied. I was curious like yourself and studied it.



I'll see if I can help you look for it if you need it. I wouldn't mind knowing myself.

Point taken Nemo.
I love the humor in your writing.
I know Ayn Rand doesn't care, but I don't know her like you do Satan, or anyone like her who's never been exposed to x-tian religions.
I wish I did. Perhaps I should make more friends in Atheist China.

I expected that much of it is oral folk stories being passed down. From my analytical view of it I find that observation fascinating. However it's does not qualify as an oral story for this project as their are to many written references for the myth.

I'm not looking for a clear detailed word for word reference, just gathering as many sources as possible to build a clear historical picture. I expect Milton is the key not Enoch to the story that's been orally passed down.

It's not a fools errand if it serves my purpose.

I appreciate the new reference. It's hard work sifting through the internet.

Thank you, DCLXVI. Even if I walk away with one new source it wasn't a waste to ask such a repeated question, or as some see it a foolish one.

I appreciate the considered response and hopefully I will find use in the sources you've cited.

HS.

Thank you Tier.
I knew I wasn't the first to ask this question.

I was able to pull some good material references from Witch_Scarlet and Bill_M in that post.

Thank you it was very helpful.

Awesome, Zafttig, Thank you.
That's what I was looking for. I just wasn't able to find it.

I have 2 Apocrypha's and a book called Other Books of the Bible. The books of Enoch are in all 3, The part you've quoted is not in my copies. I knew I was missing something but having never seen it, it's hard to know what it should look like.

Most of my research is done through books not the internet. If I could have found it myself I wouldn't have asked. There's also the reliability of the internet. Satanist have a reputation for being adept researchers, so I'm inclined to be more apt to trust the references you pass on till proven otherwise.

Again Thank you very much, Zafttig this will be very helpful.

I thought I mentioned Milton. I did not.

I have been looking at the influence of Milton on the overall belief. Also I'm using Blake and Dante as well.

I have been hung up on Enoch because I couldn't find an accurate copy, Zaftig has since provide me with one.

It could be much simpler.
What ever it is that causes people to cling to quotes from books they never read, like an infectious meme (I think meme is the right term to explain this passage of thought from one person to another becoming in grained in the psyche.) would be the same thing that caused the spread of this story in the form that we know it.

I recall a study I read while looking up Alice in Wonderland. It said "Alice in wonderland is one of most quoted books in the world. With the bible being the first."
It has been my experience that the person reciting the quote often has little knowledge of where it came from.
Which leads me to wonder what causes that affect on people?
What persuades them to such attraction of the words?

I'm just thinking out loud sorry, but if I had those answers I could write the next Scientology.

Thank you reprobate, I will be using the angle Milton poses for me.

Crosstitutes huh?
Very funny

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it. This might sound rude and I don't mean it to be, but please don't hurt yourself trying to help me.
I have a lot of info on this subject already.
Your 1st post
Was more helpful and accurate. However I responded to it in private, and the part about Enoch 29:4 and 31:4. What book did you use?
I'm confused where did you get the #'s from (29:4)? I've never seen a copy written like the bible. Except one I have a book called YHWH the book of knowledge key's of Enoch, it's written in a format like the bible but reads like Scientology.
It's all about angels but I just started reading it and it's not an easy read.
However your #'s don't match and I'd find them more useful if I knew where the came from.

Their all translated interpretations, like the bible, from the dead sea scrolls.
Looks like I'm going to the museum.

I see you missed something so I'll help you.
No! It's not. Lucifer = Luxfer = luxferre = light to bear, not "adversary".

How do you know that? If it wasn't the perfect example of my question I wouldn't have humored these statements with a response. It's obvious you come from a very x-tian background. Which one is it? And Where do you get that kind of information from? If you don't know, I understand, I don't expect you to be able to answer me. What I was looking for is source references.

So Satan's now an archangel? Revelation 12:7 - 9 I thought he was a dragon.
Actually Satan is the Hebrew word for advisory.
satan = advisory.
Please cite your reference for this info how about an author or a web page. I'm lost. If your using the bible we covered it's not in there unless you have one I don't.
Or, Maybe it's part of the Borg hive-mind I will never understand because I'm an outsider. I'd except that answer too.

Ok, it's safe to say different authors allow for different interpretation.
Yes, according to x-tians belief any imaginary deity except their own is Satan. This has been covered, is well known, and doesn't answer my question.
It's clear this is their belief. What isn't clear is how they know these names, Or How they got to the point of blaming everything on Lucifer. Where does that notion come from?
Also Leviathan is in a bible I have, as one of the creators of earth not as Satan. This bible is also now on the Apocryphal list. As for Belial and Beelzebub I don't recall where in the book they are but believe their mentioned in one story apiece. They are more commonly known for their appearances in Paradise Lost, the grimoire of Solomon and Diablo.

I can't say it helps me to lump them together. It's an x-tian way of thinking. It illiterates for me just how complicated the question is.
It almost makes more since to lump them together, as their all fictional caricature. Any incite into their origins would lead me to the same conclusion. How ever I won't because doing so would be inaccurate. Their stories are different even if the imagination that they stem from is similar.

I noticed or you wouldn't of tried to say Lucifer and Satan mean the same thing.
Yes they are based on pagan beliefs which is the point I was making, to people who knew that already, when I said..

Yes, it was. Sumerian culture was the 1st to have a written language.


No, it doesn't because I mentioned them and cited why their not viable points.
I also pointed out already, most copies of the bible that just say..(a correction to my statement) Day Star in reference to Venus quoted by the king of Babylon not Lucifer.
My original question is how do x-tians even know this name there is no actual written source for it in the bible? How do you go from Paradise Lost to assuming it's in the bible? Perhaps Milton is one of the lost books of the bible or an apocryphal one. If they at least gave him credit I'd be ok with it, but to pass off someone elses work with out reference just add to the pretentiousness of it.
The part about that old dragon in revelations doesn't always say Satan, though I have more than one copy that does. I also have one that doesn't.

The word Lucifer isn't in the bible at all, unless you look on-line. Your reaching to say the two stories are connected or that the caricatures in them are the same.
The Isaiah story is in reference to the king of Babylon. Written years before the story in revelations. Isaiah would have never known about it since the dead sea scrolls were one of the only forms of writing at the time for sharing info, except for word of mouth.

To make a point What's an Archangel and how do you know that? because Michael slayed a dragon in a section of revelations? Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't revelations written in such a way to say it hasn't happened yet? How then can it be assumed that war has already taken place?

"..metaphor about the archangel which is mentioned as Lucifer from a previous book.. " That just not true! Much of the x-tian biblical misconception is illustrated in this statement.
To assume that, what they meant to say is.. "Lucifer is an Archangel who is now Satan because he got cast out of heaven." is ludicrous but makes my point. You stated it in the same fashion as any x-tian. So tell me why you draw those conclusion despite the lack of obvious evidence.

Just admit it's Milton or do you have a book of Enoch I can reference. It's funny I was trying to avoid it but my conclusion plays to the fact Milton has had more influence then Enoch on this story.

That's sweet thank you.
My advice don't get taken in at face value. You didn't dig very deep before drawing a conclusion.


Sorry it's so long.