The first and most beautiful angel that god created. The Light-Bringer and the Morning Star.
Buuuuut.... things didn't really pan out so well for his ego and stuff.
Something funny that I also like to point out is that Satan and Lucifer weren't the same thing. Satan, originally, also was an angel. It was the accuser. It's job was to put question into the minds of the faithful to test their faith. Satan, also, wasn't a very good wrestler.
...a Zoroastrian deity antithetical to the creator deity, Ahura Mazda and grafted onto Christianity. Some forms of Zoroastrianism referred to this force as "druj" but most personified it as Ahriman. It was the Zoroastrians, extant from the 6th century BCE, that gave rise to the idea of a conflict between divine good and divine evil and to the concept of human free will in choosing one or the other.
They also invented the concept of an "end times" battle between these forces with a savior-like figure, a Saoshyant, that would renew the world and raise the dead to live with Ahura Mazda, forever. This savior would, of course, be conceived by a virgin without sexual intercourse, the virgin having sat in a sacred lake that held the seed of Zoroaster. The Zoroastrian savior was not divine. The concept of half-divinity came about from pagan heroes who were, nearly always, demigods, usually conceived by virgins or by queens. Theseus, Perseus, Orpheus, Cuchulain and Merlin were some of these demi-gods.
Zoroastrianism was a very popular religious cult in Rome at the turn of the millennia BCE/CE.
Judaism has no such beliefs and does not see "Lucifer" in the same light as Christians. Jewish concepts of angels, fallen or otherwise, is that they are merely messengers doing the will of their god, with no power of their own.
Got any good books you want to recommend? I like books that show the way many of our "modern" traditions and ideas are rehashed, remade copies of the old.
Zoroastrianism: A Guide for the Perplexed
Who Wrote the Bible?
Paul: The Mind of the Apostle
The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries
The Bible Unearthed - This is the foundation book of biblical archaeology from a scholarly perspective
The Legends of the Jews - Vols 1-3 (Amazon has this in free Kindle format.
If you belong to a library, most of them can order any book not on their shelves for you. It may take a while to get to you but it's a good way to keep your book budget in boundaries.
You might also want to check out the Egyptian Negative Confession, the original (and much more extensive) version of the Decalogue. The Jews stole it. http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Co...
Thanks, you the bomb. I do prefer to buy my own books. Some things you gotta have, just in case the book burnings start again, ya know. The only one I have on your list is "Who Wrote the Bible?"
Btw
the uninitiated call them the "negative confessions", a much better term is "Declarations of freedom from sin".
also
as far as stealing goes, the Hebraic tradition states that Moses as an Egyptian prince, therefore he would have been very versed in their culture, no doubt even a priesthood member. Those were some very religious folks after all. Of all the main characters in the Torah Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.... Moses is perhaps the only one that was real. The others copies from myth.
Actually, the Egyptian title, from the Papyrus of Ani, is the "Forty-Two Declarations of Purity". "Negative Confessions" is just a handle that has worked its way into English. Also, there was no one carved-in-granite version.
ETA: And, I do know about the book burnings... We "subversives" probably ought to design a hidden, fireproof storage area...just in case. heh, heh, heh
My concern about the Moses story is that there is no external corroboration. The Egyptians kept very good records. A prince, adopted or not, who went against his "family", killed an overseer, ran away and then came back to lead an escape of 2 million slaves would have made the nightly news...and the temple walls.
There is also no record of a pharaoh who was killed chasing a bunch of slaves through a magic sea. The Egyptian King List is very accurate. No mention exists, as well, of the "plagues".
Ramesses II is generally considered as the pharaoh of the Exodus and he died in his bed, a very old man. I've read of others being put forth, Thuthmose III, among them, but I don't find current arguments compelling. I'm open to new discoveries, however.
I am skeptical that such a huge story has not one, single, solitary mention in Egyptian annals. The only place it is found is in the Tanach.
What do you think of the suggestions that Moses was Amenhotep IV? Or the more likely one of Moses being a priest who supported the Hyskos and being driven out with the Amorite workers who rebelled in Avaris into the Levant when Ahmose reunited the kingdom?
Sorry...no evidence. I'm just not into speculation, no matter how interesting it might be.
Modern archaeology has evidence that the "Israelites" were actually "Canaanites" who arose to be dominant from within the indigenous populations. IOW, there was no "exodus" and no need for a historical "Moses" or a "pharaoh of the exodus". The Bible claims that 2 million people, and their livestock, camped in the Sinai for 40 years. The area has been, and still is being, extensively excavated. There are ZERO signs of a large group of people in the area...at all, let alone for 4 decades. No graves, no bones, no middens, no cookfires, no pottery...nothing, nada, zilch.
Linguistically, it has been definitively shown that the book of Exodus was written, in spurts, during the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, MUCH too late for accurate history. In fact, it wasn't compiled in it's finished form until circa 450-420 BCE.
The Moses story is mythology, pure and simple, and trying to assign a pharaoh is an exercise in counting dancing angels. In fact, "Moses" isn't even an Egyptian name and anyone who had actually lived in Egypt would have known that. "Mose" was a name suffix meaning "born of". It would NEVER have been used alone. (Hey, Born Of, put your toys away!) It was put on the end of a god's ...
Sorry...no evidence. I'm just not into speculation, no matter how interesting it might be.
Modern archaeology has evidence that the "Israelites" were actually "Canaanites" who arose to be dominant from within the indigenous populations. IOW, there was no "exodus" and no need for a historical "Moses" or a "pharaoh of the exodus". The Bible claims that 2 million people, and their livestock, camped in the Sinai for 40 years. The area has been, and still is being, extensively excavated. There are ZERO signs of a large group of people in the area...at all, let alone for 4 decades. No graves, no bones, no middens, no cookfires, no pottery...nothing, nada, zilch.
Linguistically, it has been definitively shown that the book of Exodus was written, in spurts, during the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, MUCH too late for accurate history. In fact, it wasn't compiled in it's finished form until circa 450-420 BCE.
The Moses story is mythology, pure and simple, and trying to assign a pharaoh is an exercise in counting dancing angels. In fact, "Moses" isn't even an Egyptian name and anyone who had actually lived in Egypt would have known that. "Mose" was a name suffix meaning "born of". It would NEVER have been used alone. (Hey, Born Of, put your toys away!) It was put on the end of a god's name to show that the child was under the protection of that god. So...Thuthmose = "born of Thoth" and "Amenmose" = "born of Amon". Calling this mythological hero "Moses" is a sure sign of a writer who was not familiar with Egypt, the Egyptian language or Egyptian naming conventions and who was simply making it all up out of earlier mythos.
I was not suggesting that the Hebrew nation was a product of an exodus. Yes that is no way real. Yes indeed the so called Hebrew Language and even religion is really Canaanite. I know the so called Hebrew angels are really remnants of the Canaanite deities.
I was only suggesting that perhaps a small group of rebel priest left and made a very strong impression on a less developed folk.
It certainly isn't impossible, Mungo, but I don't think it's very likely.
In the first place, the Egyptians were the original "us against them" people. They didn't look at other nations as "people" and Egyptian literature (and poetry) is full of statements showing that they were never happy outside of Egypt.
In the second place, Egyptian priests were educated and high-status. It is practically inconceivable that they would leave to live with a bunch of flea-ridden goatherders. Historically, rebel priests either took over the government, (as in the case of Petiese I) used magic or outright assassination, to make changes (as in the cases of Ramesses III or claimed supernatural intervention to change royalty (as in the case of Thuthmose III). Why would such people run off into the desert with a group that could give them nothing? Additionally, to die without a tomb, outside of Egypt, was guaranteed eternal death.
Recent scholarship leans toward small groups of surrounding peoples moving into and out of Egypt, usually because of famine, and such people could have brought Egyptian religious thought back to the area around Canaan. I think it's especially important that Israelite monotheism was late...very late. Shrines to household deities have been dated to the late 5th centu...
It certainly isn't impossible, Mungo, but I don't think it's very likely.
In the first place, the Egyptians were the original "us against them" people. They didn't look at other nations as "people" and Egyptian literature (and poetry) is full of statements showing that they were never happy outside of Egypt.
In the second place, Egyptian priests were educated and high-status. It is practically inconceivable that they would leave to live with a bunch of flea-ridden goatherders. Historically, rebel priests either took over the government, (as in the case of Petiese I) used magic or outright assassination, to make changes (as in the cases of Ramesses III or claimed supernatural intervention to change royalty (as in the case of Thuthmose III). Why would such people run off into the desert with a group that could give them nothing? Additionally, to die without a tomb, outside of Egypt, was guaranteed eternal death.
Recent scholarship leans toward small groups of surrounding peoples moving into and out of Egypt, usually because of famine, and such people could have brought Egyptian religious thought back to the area around Canaan. I think it's especially important that Israelite monotheism was late...very late. Shrines to household deities have been dated to the late 5th century BCE and, given that the Tanach wasn't actually codified until over a hundred years into the Common Era, I think that the story of Moses was a "backdated" legend. At that time, Egypt was, for all intents and purposes, Greek so I think the final redactors of the Tanach were basically clueless when it came to historical accuracy.
Mungu, you might want to start with The Bible Unearthed.
It doesn't really fit with your interest but it gives a really firm foundation in Middle Eastern topography, ruins and timelines...and is a neutral, extremely scholarly refutation of the biblical "explanation" for various artifacts. It examines Jewish legends in light of modern archaeological techniques from the head of the department at Tel Aviv University.
It is, indeed, interesting but Finkelstein did take a lot of heat from the Orthodox. He kept his post...barely. And, he's still at it. Most Jews value scholarship over dogma.
I think that many Christians don't realize that the Jews look at their religion differently than the Christians' vision. Excluding the ultra-Orthodox (who are likely to be American...go figure) most Jews see their religion as part of their ethnic heritage. They have no problem with accepting the bad with the good and don't find it conflicts with milennia of midrashic thought.
I have a friend whose husband came to the US when he was 37. He's a graduate of Tel Aviv University. In the Bible, there is a quote where "the LORD" states that he created evil. Christians twist themselves into knots over this one, trying to make the word Râ‛âh mean just about anything other than evil. So, I emailed Meir and asked him. His answer, "Râ‛âh" means "evil". What's the problem? Of course God created evil. He created everything." This from a man who still dreams in Hebrew.
An arch angel of praise, who rebelled and was thrown from paradise and in an attempt to get back at G-D he tries to take as many people with him to hell as he can.
Sorry, given the nearly infinite number of issues and definitions of "issue", either side of the argument would be unproveable. We probably agree that the popular opinion is often, very often, incorrect.
Buuuuut.... things didn't really pan out so well for his ego and stuff.
Something funny that I also like to point out is that Satan and Lucifer weren't the same thing. Satan, originally, also was an angel. It was the accuser. It's job was to put question into the minds of the faithful to test their faith. Satan, also, wasn't a very good wrestler.
They also invented the concept of an "end times" battle between these forces with a savior-like figure, a Saoshyant, that would renew the world and raise the dead to live with Ahura Mazda, forever. This savior would, of course, be conceived by a virgin without sexual intercourse, the virgin having sat in a sacred lake that held the seed of Zoroaster. The Zoroastrian savior was not divine. The concept of half-divinity came about from pagan heroes who were, nearly always, demigods, usually conceived by virgins or by queens. Theseus, Perseus, Orpheus, Cuchulain and Merlin were some of these demi-gods.
Zoroastrianism was a very popular religious cult in Rome at the turn of the millennia BCE/CE.
Judaism has no such beliefs and does not see "Lucifer" in the same light as Christians. Jewish concepts of angels, fallen or otherwise, is that they are merely messengers doing the will of their god, with no power of their own.
OTOH, if you want to pay me...
Got any good books you want to recommend? I like books that show the way many of our "modern" traditions and ideas are rehashed, remade copies of the old.
Who Wrote the Bible?
Paul: The Mind of the Apostle
The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries
The Bible Unearthed - This is the foundation book of biblical archaeology from a scholarly perspective
The Legends of the Jews - Vols 1-3 (Amazon has this in free Kindle format.
If you belong to a library, most of them can order any book not on their shelves for you. It may take a while to get to you but it's a good way to keep your book budget in boundaries.
You might also want to check out the Egyptian Negative Confession, the original (and much more extensive) version of the Decalogue. The Jews stole it. http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Co...
Btw
the uninitiated call them the "negative confessions", a much better term is "Declarations of freedom from sin".
also
as far as stealing goes, the Hebraic tradition states that Moses as an Egyptian prince, therefore he would have been very versed in their culture, no doubt even a priesthood member. Those were some very religious folks after all. Of all the main characters in the Torah Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.... Moses is perhaps the only one that was real. The others copies from myth.
ETA: And, I do know about the book burnings... We "subversives" probably ought to design a hidden, fireproof storage area...just in case. heh, heh, heh
There is also no record of a pharaoh who was killed chasing a bunch of slaves through a magic sea. The Egyptian King List is very accurate. No mention exists, as well, of the "plagues".
Ramesses II is generally considered as the pharaoh of the Exodus and he died in his bed, a very old man. I've read of others being put forth, Thuthmose III, among them, but I don't find current arguments compelling. I'm open to new discoveries, however.
I am skeptical that such a huge story has not one, single, solitary mention in Egyptian annals. The only place it is found is in the Tanach.
Or the more likely one of Moses being a priest who supported the Hyskos and being driven out with the Amorite workers who rebelled in Avaris into the Levant when Ahmose reunited the kingdom?
Modern archaeology has evidence that the "Israelites" were actually "Canaanites" who arose to be dominant from within the indigenous populations. IOW, there was no "exodus" and no need for a historical "Moses" or a "pharaoh of the exodus". The Bible claims that 2 million people, and their livestock, camped in the Sinai for 40 years. The area has been, and still is being, extensively excavated. There are ZERO signs of a large group of people in the area...at all, let alone for 4 decades. No graves, no bones, no middens, no cookfires, no pottery...nothing, nada, zilch.
Linguistically, it has been definitively shown that the book of Exodus was written, in spurts, during the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, MUCH too late for accurate history. In fact, it wasn't compiled in it's finished form until circa 450-420 BCE.
The Moses story is mythology, pure and simple, and trying to assign a pharaoh is an exercise in counting dancing angels. In fact, "Moses" isn't even an Egyptian name and anyone who had actually lived in Egypt would have known that. "Mose" was a name suffix meaning "born of". It would NEVER have been used alone. (Hey, Born Of, put your toys away!) It was put on the end of a god's ...
Modern archaeology has evidence that the "Israelites" were actually "Canaanites" who arose to be dominant from within the indigenous populations. IOW, there was no "exodus" and no need for a historical "Moses" or a "pharaoh of the exodus". The Bible claims that 2 million people, and their livestock, camped in the Sinai for 40 years. The area has been, and still is being, extensively excavated. There are ZERO signs of a large group of people in the area...at all, let alone for 4 decades. No graves, no bones, no middens, no cookfires, no pottery...nothing, nada, zilch.
Linguistically, it has been definitively shown that the book of Exodus was written, in spurts, during the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, MUCH too late for accurate history. In fact, it wasn't compiled in it's finished form until circa 450-420 BCE.
The Moses story is mythology, pure and simple, and trying to assign a pharaoh is an exercise in counting dancing angels. In fact, "Moses" isn't even an Egyptian name and anyone who had actually lived in Egypt would have known that. "Mose" was a name suffix meaning "born of". It would NEVER have been used alone. (Hey, Born Of, put your toys away!) It was put on the end of a god's name to show that the child was under the protection of that god. So...Thuthmose = "born of Thoth" and "Amenmose" = "born of Amon". Calling this mythological hero "Moses" is a sure sign of a writer who was not familiar with Egypt, the Egyptian language or Egyptian naming conventions and who was simply making it all up out of earlier mythos.
I was only suggesting that perhaps a small group of rebel priest left and made a very strong impression on a less developed folk.
In the first place, the Egyptians were the original "us against them" people. They didn't look at other nations as "people" and Egyptian literature (and poetry) is full of statements showing that they were never happy outside of Egypt.
In the second place, Egyptian priests were educated and high-status. It is practically inconceivable that they would leave to live with a bunch of flea-ridden goatherders. Historically, rebel priests either took over the government, (as in the case of Petiese I) used magic or outright assassination, to make changes (as in the cases of Ramesses III or claimed supernatural intervention to change royalty (as in the case of Thuthmose III). Why would such people run off into the desert with a group that could give them nothing? Additionally, to die without a tomb, outside of Egypt, was guaranteed eternal death.
Recent scholarship leans toward small groups of surrounding peoples moving into and out of Egypt, usually because of famine, and such people could have brought Egyptian religious thought back to the area around Canaan. I think it's especially important that Israelite monotheism was late...very late. Shrines to household deities have been dated to the late 5th centu...
In the first place, the Egyptians were the original "us against them" people. They didn't look at other nations as "people" and Egyptian literature (and poetry) is full of statements showing that they were never happy outside of Egypt.
In the second place, Egyptian priests were educated and high-status. It is practically inconceivable that they would leave to live with a bunch of flea-ridden goatherders. Historically, rebel priests either took over the government, (as in the case of Petiese I) used magic or outright assassination, to make changes (as in the cases of Ramesses III or claimed supernatural intervention to change royalty (as in the case of Thuthmose III). Why would such people run off into the desert with a group that could give them nothing? Additionally, to die without a tomb, outside of Egypt, was guaranteed eternal death.
Recent scholarship leans toward small groups of surrounding peoples moving into and out of Egypt, usually because of famine, and such people could have brought Egyptian religious thought back to the area around Canaan. I think it's especially important that Israelite monotheism was late...very late. Shrines to household deities have been dated to the late 5th century BCE and, given that the Tanach wasn't actually codified until over a hundred years into the Common Era, I think that the story of Moses was a "backdated" legend. At that time, Egypt was, for all intents and purposes, Greek so I think the final redactors of the Tanach were basically clueless when it came to historical accuracy.
IOW, they made it up.
It doesn't really fit with your interest but it gives a really firm foundation in Middle Eastern topography, ruins and timelines...and is a neutral, extremely scholarly refutation of the biblical "explanation" for various artifacts. It examines Jewish legends in light of modern archaeological techniques from the head of the department at Tel Aviv University.
It's also a fascinating read.
I think that many Christians don't realize that the Jews look at their religion differently than the Christians' vision. Excluding the ultra-Orthodox (who are likely to be American...go figure) most Jews see their religion as part of their ethnic heritage. They have no problem with accepting the bad with the good and don't find it conflicts with milennia of midrashic thought.
I have a friend whose husband came to the US when he was 37. He's a graduate of Tel Aviv University. In the Bible, there is a quote where "the LORD" states that he created evil. Christians twist themselves into knots over this one, trying to make the word Râ‛âh mean just about anything other than evil. So, I emailed Meir and asked him. His answer, "Râ‛âh" means "evil". What's the problem? Of course God created evil. He created everything." This from a man who still dreams in Hebrew.
It's a whole 'nother outlook.