Are God and Satan really one and the same as some say. . .? Part 11

 Many Atheists or Satanists would claim that God and Satan are the same, leading many Christians to be offended unnecessarily. As always, I seek to find a middle ground and look at the issue from both sides, and as historically as I can, because I have been there and understand how blindsided you can be when you want to believe something that everyone else does.

Christians need to know a few things though. You cannot fight your "spiritual battles" against "the lies of Satan" by burying your head in the sand and not learning about the opposition's argument least you come "under the spell" of it. You need to be able to ":study to show thyself approved unto God", right? So here are some key verses that are used to "prove" Satan and God are one, to the mind of many non-religious people:
  

"AND Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (I Chronicles 21:1)

"AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (II Samuel 24:1)

Now my rebuttal: This discrepancy can be explained, not in the typical way that all the rest of the numerous names for God are, (as discussed in my last post: Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10) but by a proper understanding of the original language and the history of Satan.

The term satan is used when someone plays the role of an adversary, or judge. This word was always in reference to the role, whether it was used in place of a spiritual being or human.

Just as often as it was used for a spiritual being though, satan is used as referring to the actions of a human adversary in the Old Testament. Examples of this use of satan, with their proper translation of "adversary" in the English are:

• Numbers 22:22,32 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
• 32 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
• 1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
• 2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
• 1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent."
• 1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite"
• 1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
• 25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"

In the case of the first mentioned verses, (that seem to confuse God and Satan) God is simply being a satan, but cannot be the Satan. . .

At the time of the writing and compiling of the New Testament, an emerging idealism about God being perfect, all powerful, and being able to control everything, was coming up against much criticism. . . because as Christian people struggle with today, that idea obviously doesn't fit with our imperfect, chaotic world, where bad things happen to good people. So the ancients had to make peace with that contradiction in some way.

 So in-between the time of the writing of the Old and New Testament an idea evolved. It started with a verb, and by the time the canon was formed, powerful people had made it into a noun. Turning a term into a title,  "a satan" became "THE SATAN". A previously unheard of character came into being.

If you were to go with the thought that Satan was still real, and not made up in necessity because of a bad doctrine about God to start with, you will want to hear all about why he was in the form of a serpent in the Garden, the one who tormented Job, and the angel who fell from Heaven and was previously called Lucifer, because surely those are proof that there was a real character who was while being a satan, also was Satan. So, then let's look at the origin of those thoughts and verses. . .

So, was Satan in the Garden as a serpent? 

No other animal within ancient civilizations was more prominent or as important... than the SNAKE. The snake is just one among many other symbols of the Brotherhood. The snake is also a symbol used within Freemasonry. These may lead some to think Devil worship or cults, but they are actually the bloodline from the gods of old. So if anything, snakes would be an idol similar to the statues of Jesus and Mary that the Catholics venerate. . . that can also be traced back to more ancient symbolism representing what some would think of as pagan gods. . .

If anything, the snake was used as a symbol for health, healing, or sometimes the spine. This is still seen today in old symbols for healthcare. In no case that I am aware of does the snake show up as anything but a symbol or allegory in the ancient times, even though it is seen often, and usually with a stick or tree.

If it was talking about a real snake, being possessed by Satan, this would be a first. . .but we'll just look at the evidence for that now.

 In Genesis 3:14 we read:

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
As you can see, only the Serpent is cursed for his trickery to Eve. . .and Satan seems to get off almost Scott free! The serpent has to crawl on it's belly forever and "eat dust". Metaphorically of course.. that is, his proximity is so close to the ground that dirt cannot help but get into his mouth. I think it's fair to call this one a metaphor.

So when the snake was cursed it is presumed by Christians that it is a just punishment from God, and a sensible one too. . .and yet, the only logical thought about Satan being the serpent, is that he simply possessed the innocent serpent. So any punishment for a poor dumb animal seems harsh and pointless!

 If on the other hand, one Snake was suppose to embody Satan for all time, the punishment may have been somewhat appropriate for his descendants  . .yet we know that isn't the case, because after the curse we see that Satan isn't later crawling around on his belly forever.
We read in Job 1:7:"
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

So, did the Bible make a mistake? Or is something sounding fishy? Oh, but the rest of the curse was for Satan no doubt, and his partner in crime was just getting a "slap on the wrist" to be without any appendages. . .
The next part of the curse goes like this:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

So let's just say that I wasn't desperately looking backwards hundreds of years to justify my present belief, and wishfully thinking about Jesus being the salvation from oppression. . .would any logical reading of that even hint to a savior? It makes a lot more sense to read it straight and see that it is right. Woman, and humans in general hate snakes, and when a snake goes around biting heels, humans crush their heads in return. There may be a deeper meaning I'm not aware of, but one thing I'm sure of, and that is that the Christians prediction of Jesus dying to crush satan's head in those verses has no bearing in reality.

Of course, these aren't the only verses in the Bible about Satan that are associated with a snake, or vise versa, there are quite a number of places that associate the snake as Satan. We do know however that when the new testament came along, the writers injected their own culture's ideas about what they thought they were reading in the Old Testament, and brought their own biases and agendas into their writings as well.

 Many religious folks today simply assume that the serpent is Satan, without much investigation. It truly doesn't add up. I challenge those that are skeptical: DON'T take my word for it, study it out for yourself! It will simply blow you away at how much your church simply isn't telling you. In fact, they can't. Most of them don't know either. 

Source

                  What about the verses about Satan in Job?
 We read in Job that satan is a member of the Divine Council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is actually seen to be charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. He is not cast down from Heaven, or rejected, as he was going back and forth regularly, and on good speaking terms with "God" and a council of gods. . .of which he was a part.

 So, while this particular god/Angel in the original story was certainly put in a position of A satan, he didn't fit the bill for THE Satan which followed in the New Testament. Anymore then the real St. Nicholas would fit with the conjured up new version of Santa Claus. This "god" or Angel went through an evolution that was similar. Thanks in part to the association of Satan with Lucifer. . .

             So let's discuss where the term Lucifer came from. . .

The name Lucifer (commonly believed to be another name for Satan) means light bearer, or morning star, as seen in this verse: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer to the ground..." (Isaiah 14:12)

John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains about the historical Lucifer:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else. The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript? In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the context of the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!" After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (The origin of "the pit" for "Hell") Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"

J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man. (who may have evolved into a god in mythology as all the rest of the ancient aliens though mind you. . .)


For the unnamed "king of Babylon" a wide range of identifications have been proposed. They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began, or Nabonidus, and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib. Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers. (The elite bloodline perhaps?)


In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the original name given to the "morning star" (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). In Babylonian mythology numerous "myths" were connected to this story, some of which involve Ishtar, who is also like Baal associated with Venus. Perhaps the many deities were all associated with Venus because they came from there originally? Whatever the case though, we know now that the King James version of the story is simply a fragmented, made up invention of a fallen Angel, and not from the more original Hebrew account.

The concept of a powerful and wicked Angel thrown out of Heaven, and wishing to overtake the throne was apparently still a new thought, and the translators, wishing to expand on that doctrine, (as it only makes sense when you have the doctrine of an Omnipotent and good God) took this opportunity to demonize and embellish on the newly realized and personified "Satan" with the story of a king of the past. 

Even the early church authorities knew about the mistranslation and invention though. For instance, John Calvin said: “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.” Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil, but advocates of the "King James only" silenced both of their voices.

The association of Isaiah 14:12-15 then with "the Devil" had actually developed in the period between the writing of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and was very instrumental in the writing of other later New testament texts. . . As an example, it is commonly believed that the "War in Heaven" theme of Revelation, in which the dragon "who is called the devil and Satan … was thrown down to the earth", derives from the passage in Isaiah 14. It is the only book to also mention the connection of Satan with the serpent in the garden. By the time of the writing of Revelation, the belief in an evil deity was fully realized, and soon after the affects of that belief were made manifest in the inquisition, the witch hunts and even the crusades, in the era known as the dark ages. One of the hallmarks of the enlightenment that followed though was a much lessened belief in Satan. He became a joke for a time, and even a sexual hero for a while too!

Source

Interestingly, the Bible reveals this same "Bright and morning star" title of Lucifer for Jesus throughout it's pages as well. One of which is here: "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Rev. 22:16 It seems that this is also a key point for Atheists wishing to prove that Jesus and Satan are one and the same. As I mentioned before though, not only was Lucifer a Babylonian king, and no Satan, but the term was associated with Venus, and many gods from that same bloodline would have inevitably been associated with Venus because of their tie with it in the ancient past. (Presuming you already know of the Ancient alien evidence, discussed in my previous posts of this series.) Jesus was most likely no average man, and was a direct, (probably genetically modified and implanted) seed of the pure alien creation bloodline into Mary. Which would make him become associated with Venus, just as his predecessor "gods". So no shock that a King from the same royal line, and Jesus would both have the name. . .

There is a similar story as the Babylonian king being identified with Satan (and Satan/or the king being identified with Jesus) as there is for the connection of Satan to Beelzebub. It is originally the name of a Philistine "god".

The name is a form of Baal, the compound name: Ba‘al Zebûb, lit. "Lord of Flies"

Source

 As I discussed in my last post, Baal is associated with just about every "false god" in the Bible, and it is also a name equated with the many names for the "One true God". It was originally very likely an Ancient alien's name, but later became known as a generic term for the family line.

    What about the term Devil? Where did that come from?
In the Septuagint the Hebrew ha-Satan is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament is the English word devil. So the person who slanders would be known as a Devil, in a similar way that a person who accuses would have been known as a satan. Again, not a title, but a verb.

"In mainstream Judaism (From which the other religions of the world sprang) there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. Texts make no direct link between the serpent that tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden from Genesis and references to a Satan in the first book of Chronicles and in Job. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (השָׂטָן) means "the adversary" or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge). As much as the Devil exists in any form of Judaism, his role is as an adversary and an accuser which is assigned (by "God") rather than assumed."
Source

While all these points do not show that God and Satan are the same, much to the chagrin of some,(hopefully the title wasn't too misleading. . .) they nonetheless certainly discredit all the  major supportive verses on Satan. . . but if you still want to believe that Satan is real, then you should know that some Satanist cults use the same Bible as the Christians. 
Besides that, considering the connection to "pagan" worship that words like: Amen, Bible, Church, Cross, Easter, Ghost, Glory, Holy, Testament, and all of the names for God have, (as discussed in my last post) to use them at all should be considered Satan worship to your enlightened mind now. Because if you still believe in Satan, you must now believe that those words all originated from a false god concocted by Satan for sure!

Source Source

Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10

While this post is part of a very interconnected series, I don't want to presume that we start with the same knowledge or presumptions about God. . .so for starters one could ask: "Who is God?" "What are his names?" Or "What do his names say about him?" Well the names and their origins are a very good starting place.

Gad - the origin of the term "God".

"In the Hebrew and Chaldean languages we find that the vowels are represented by points, because the written form consists ONLY of consonants. Therefore 'Gad' would only have the consonants 'G-D.' (Which Jews to this day spell God like.) It could just as well be spoken as "Gad, Ged, Gid, GOD, Gud, Gawd," or ANY other vowel sound."

The Definition Of The Word Gad, (from which God comes):

"Gad is a Syrian or Canaanite deity of good luck or fortune. . . identified with. . . the Sky-deity. "


Strong's definition for #H1408: "Gad" (gad); a variation of #H1409; Fortune, a Babylonian deity.

..........................................................................

This is seen in the name of Jacobs son Gad meaning "luck".

Source

A poor translation of Gen. 30:11 renders the word Gad as "troop", and makes the sentence read:

"And Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. Then Leah said, 'A troop comes!' So she called his name 'Gad'"  

Now lets read these verses in a better translation:
"And when Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son, Leah said, 'What luck! So she named him 'Gad' (Gen. 30:10-11 Tanakh)

Next let's see those verses in the New Revised Standard Bible:
"Then Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. And Leah said, 'Good fortune!' so she named him 'Gad'" (Gen. 30:10-11 NRS).

We see the acknowledgement of "troop" meaning the God of luck or fortune in different translations of the same Bible verse! So according to the original and right translation, Leah was really more saying "here comes my luck" or "what luck, (a boy)!". . .which makes a lot more sense with that man centered society then "a troop" coming in a time of peace, and with having a singleton child. Especially considering the fierce competition to be the favored wife through bearing children, especially a male heir for Jacob. . .

Another example of the poor use of "troop" is found (as usual) in the KJV translation in Isaiah 65:11

 "But you are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop. . ." (KJV) What sense does "that troop" even make?

 The same verse in the NIV says, "But as for you who forsake the LORD and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for Fortune. . ." (Here "Fortune" should include "the god of" before fortune, as it does elsewhere. . .)

Other references for this name "Gad" are found in the Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, page 157. There we read:
"...Fortune... specially the divinity of fortune, worshiped by the Babylonians and by the Jews exiled among them; elsewhere called 'Baal'." In Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, under "Ba--al Gad:" it says 'lord of fortune!' Other sources of research also testify of "Gad" being the Sun-deity or Baal. "There can be no doubt, therefore, that Gad, (Gud, Ged, Gid, Gawd. . .or GOD) originated from Baal (Bel), the god of good fortune."

So then Gad, God, Gud. . . are all associated with the "Sky god" of luck/fortune, or Baal, whom the ancient astrologers identified with Jupiter, the Sky-deity or the Sun-deity. Could that belief have derived from the fact that the original Gad would have came from the sky, or perhaps even Jupiter I wonder? Could he have been idolized later as bringing luck or fortune to you if you found favor with him, or were "his child"  and thus the association with luck or fortune? Makes sense to me. . .

As for the name Gad being synonymous with Baal though, this is not a shocker to many.
Every educated and "good" Jew likely knows about the pagan origins of many newer terms in the Bible though, and consequently avoids the newer, generic terms like "God". . .opting instead for ones like Yahweh.

                    So what about that name for "God"?
The Name Yahweh comes from the root YHWH, from which all the other forms of it (with the added vowels) are derived. YHWH in all it's variations all lead back to the sky god/ Sun god/Baal, and is  seen 6820 times in the Old testament alone.
There are many different additions to the name YHWH though that are said to describe him. These are :

· YHWH, Yahuah (I AM that I AM)

· YAHUAH NISSI (Yahuah My Banner)

· YAHUAH RAAH (Yahuah My Shepherd)

· YAHUAH RAPHA (Yahuah Heals)

· YAHUAH SHAMMAH (Yahuah Is There)

· YAHUAH TSIDKENU (Yahuah Our Righteousness)

· YAHUAH MEKODDISHKEM (Yahuah Who Sanctifies You)

· YAHUAH JIREH (Yahuah Will Provide)

· YAHUAH SHALOM (Yahuah Is Peace)

· YAHUAH SABAOTH (Yahuah of Hosts)

· YAH shortened and poetic form of Yahuah, the name found in the Son's
name
 (Yah is also found in compound names such as Eli(J)Yah  which according to the Hebrew means "Yahuah is Elohim".)
So here we see that Yahuah (with all it's forms) is equated with Elohim, the root of which is "El", meaning "The mighty one".  Titles like "Mighty One",  do not necessarily refer to a god though, in what is generally thought of as a god anyways - Nimrod proclaimed himself as "mighty one" also. 

 Elohim, in Hebrew means gods, (which is traced back to all gods like Baal) or spirits/Angels. In the singular, it is El, meaning the supreme Canaanite god. Thus the early Hebrews worshiped the same God or gods as their "heathen" neighbors.

El too is part of many compound names that are descriptive in the Hebrew. Names like:

· EL OHIM (Strong One)
· EL OLAM (The Everlasting GOD)
· El SHADDAI (Yahuah Almighty)
· El ELYON (The Most High GOD)
Source

Most translations today, despite all these nuances, have simply changed the names (and singular or plural) of El into "God"! It is correctly used as it's plural form 10% of the time or 216 times in the Old Testament for "gods" and mistranslated 2366 times for a singular "God".

 A good example of how the English translation seems to intentionally mislead the uninformed into believing in one biblical God can be found in Genesis 3:5. "For God [Elohim] doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods [Elohim], knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:5 KJV) Modern translations convert both Elohim's to the singular God (instead of making them both plural as they should be) to hide a critical embarrassment. Of course, neither would perfectly fit as it is, because the grammar would be lacking with out adding a "the" before the first god. . .



Another example of the Bible contradicting itself is in John 10:34, 35 which has Jesus saying, "Is it not written in your Law, 'l said you are Gods?' (referring to Ps 82:6 where the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used.)


Another memorable example of the plural of gods is in Samuel 28:13 where the witch of Endor saw the future and made some accurate predictions. "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (Elohim) ascending out of the earth." (KJV)

So, either the witch was wrong, or she actually had powers and saw the gods coming out of the earth. . .


"In the following verses Elohim was translated as God singular in the King James Version even though it was accompanied by plural verbs and other plural grammatical terms."

Gen 35:7 and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed (plural verb) himself to him when he fled from his brother (Genesis 35:7, ESV)

"Here the Hebrew verb "revealed" is plural, hence: "the-gods were revealed". A NET Bible note claims that the Authorized Version wrongly translates: "God appeared unto him"."
Source


The singular form of Elohim is Eloah and it is used only 55 times in place of "God." This seemingly intentional mistranslation hides the pluralistic nature of the Hebrew pantheon of gods. To the Israelites, Elohim encompasses all supernatural beings: spirits, angels, semi-gods and so forth. So whenever they spoke of  Elohim, they were inferring some or the entire pantheon.

According to the true Hebrew translation, (which is consistent with all previous beliefs that their beliefs were derived from) there were many gods involved in creation. There was not one single god all by himself, though there was consistently believed to be one top ruler of the counsel of the gods.

If God was one, then why was he said to be jealous of other imagined gods? Furthermore, why does the Bible so often speak of God in plural and in a counsel? "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment." (Ps. 82:1)

We see evidence of this pantheon of gods from the very first verse in the Bible! "In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Which then explains the true meaning of, "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:22)
Source

According to the "pagan" definition of all immortal beings as gods, Christianity is just as polytheistic.

Even in the Ten Commandments, "God" recognizes the existence of other gods. There is a big difference between, "you shall have no other gods" vs. "there are no other gods." (Ex. 20:3)

"Bear in mind that Christianity is on even shakier grounds in maintaining the existence of only one God first, by canonizing Jewish Scripture the Christian Fathers gave recognition to Yahweh and the pantheon of lesser gods mentioned by name throughout the Old Testament. In conclusion, if the English translators stuck to the original god names, they would not be able to deceive their readers into believing that Judaism was always a monotheistic religion."

Source

One of the problems with trying to make all the gods into one with the generic names, is that sometimes one "god" is pretty obviously not another one in the text. . .

 One such example is in Isaiah 65:11. "But you are those who forsake the Lord, (YHWH/GAD), who forgot my set-apart mountain, who prepared a table for fortune (or Gad), and filled bowls of mixed wine for Destiny." (Or literally "Meni".) As GAD is the deity of fortune, Meni is the deity of Destiny. Suddenly it goes from a sentence of condemnation for idolatry, to a statement of fact of their past hospitality towards GAD and his presumably fellow deity Meni.


Though often the generic naming justifies the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, it is also contradictory on the doctrine of the Trinity in many places that cannot be denied. Nonetheless, the "trinity" is one, in that they all originate from one name.

 Even coming from a christian source we see that "YHWH, YAHUAH also known as Yahuwah/Yahuweh/Yahweh and Yahveh, YAH ("I AM that I AM"). . . Along with YAHUSHA, translated as Joshua the Messiah / "ha Mashiach" (YHWH's only Son) and his Ruach (Spirit) ha (the) (Q) (K)odesh (Set Apart, Separation or the Separator) or רוחהקודש the "Spirit of YHWH" are all One!"

And all originating from GAD or Baal. So if you didn't catch that, let me reiterate; Yhwh, (God) Yhwh's only son, *Jesus) and the spirit of Yhwh/God are all one, that one being Baal! Though you won't catch that site admitting to that. . .

Source


What many feel is a generic "Pagan" title of "GAD or GOD" that "Yah" and "El" (and all their forms) come from, are in reality the origin of the Christian's faith! 

Maybe you are still not convinced though, and believe that some name is worthy of the true deity, and you will just worship "the unknown god" for lack of a better term until you find out what is the right one. . .sound familiar? That is the foolishness that Paul in the Bible spoke of. . .and yet his solution was not much better.

Well, we know so far that God is generic and a "Heathen" term, and a lot of others too. . .but what about Lord? Is that a safe one to use when praying? I hate to burst your bubble here too, but the title, "lord", is applied to all ancient deities, if the word "god" is not used for them.

In most cases "lord" and "god" are used interchangeably for idols or sky deities. For instance:

Strong's Hebrew Number 1168 Hebrew word: Ba'al {bah'-al}Strong’s shows:

Baal = "lord" (Baal equals Lord).

Strong’s says: Lord or Baal was the "supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites."

Baal also means "Master" as much as it means "Lord". "Protector", "Healer", "Savior", etc. are also of "Pagan" origin, and describes none other then the sky deities.

The Lord also translates to Adonay  430 times in the Old Testament, and Adon 211 times. And yet, Lord is used very generically and can refer to separate gods in history, and even in the Bible. Take this verse for instance: "For I know that the LORD [Yahweh] is great, and that our Lord [adon] is above all gods. (Ps. 135:5) It doesn't make much sense to be talking about one God! THE Lord is only "great" vs. OUR Lord "is above all gods" seems suspicious to me on many points. . . but then, it is already a closed book on "God" actually being plural throughout the Bible, so we should expect numerous names of different gods to show up in the same passages.

And yet, despite all this proof of different gods and also yet from the "pagan" origins,
most translations today, have simply changed the name of YHWH to "The Lord" to simplify matters. "Lord" is substituted for Yehovah -a form of YHWH-over 6,400 times.

If this all doesn't bring it home to you about how the Israelite's god was just one in the council of gods back then, "Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, [she was] the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat."
Source

Oh but you say, "that is the OLD testament, and I think people have messed with it in time". . .or "Jesus was the only true "God"." (For lack of a better term.) Sorry to say, but in the New Testament, typically, the translation of Yahusha/Jehoshua or "Joshua the Messiah",  (all forms of YHWH) is "Jesus". . .
Source

 YAHUSHA is translated as Joshua in the Old Testament, and Jesus in the New Testament. There has been a lot of confusion over Jesus's name, but it is not too hard to trace back to the real story. It goes like this:

"In Bux and Schone, Worterbuch der Antike, under "Jesus", we read, that JESUS's real name was Jehoshua. The Greeks, who venerated a healing goddess Ieso, (a savior who healed) must have immediately equated Jehoshua with their similar "gods" from antiquity, so the Greeks changed Ieso into a regular masculine Iesous to fit Jehoshua.

 Later the latin translation rendered it Iesus. By the year 1611 the letter "J" was officially part of the English language and the King James Bible printed the name Iesus as "Jesus" for the first time. The name "Jesus" has been in use ever since. To hear the long story of the evolution of the name through many languages, check out my source called "evolution of the name. . ." below.
Source

"Jesus" became a very common name, and is one reason why there is much confusion over Jehoshua's real life to this day. His life, healing abilities, leadership qualities, marriage and family tree, as well as his death got confused with numerous people, and in the end, the biblical editors took all the stories of the different famous leaders of the time and wove them together to make the most sense of it and to make every sect happy or pacified. 

Source 

This name, as all the others I've mentioned, is of course traced back to Baal, but not just in name we now know.  His life or the myths about him, follows a pattern very similar to many aspects of the said "life" of Baal. A tablet discovered in Nineveh, Assyria and in the possession of The British Museum contains references to the BAAL myth. In it we see some interesting parallels to Jesus:

(1) Baal is taken prisoner.(1) Jesus is taken prisoner.
(2) Baal is tried in a great hall.(2) Jesus is tried a great hall—the Hall of Justice.
(3) Baal is smitten.(3) Jesus is smitten and scourged.
(4) Baal is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a hilltop).(4) Jesus is led away to Golgotha.
(5) With Baal are taken two malefactors, one of whom is released. (5) With Jesus two malefactors are led away; Barrabas is released.
(6) After Baal has gone to the Mount and is executed, the city breaks into tumult. (6) After Jesus is executed, there is an earthquake, the veil of the Temple is rent, the dead rise from their graves and walk among the living.
(7) Baal's clothes are carried away.(7) Jesus's clothes are carried away after soldiers cast dice for them.
(8) Baal goes down into the Mount and disappears from life.(8) Jesus descends to "Hell" after being in the tomb.
(9) Weeping women seek Baal at the Tomb.(9) Weeping women seek Jesus at the Tomb.
(10) Baal is brought back to life.(10) Jesus is resurrected—rises from the grave/Tomb.
Source


                    What about "Christ"? Well, as Jesus is connected with Baal already, it is almost pointless to bring up the history of "Christ", but here goes:

"According to The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, the word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning "good." According to a French theological dictionary, it is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus, Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani were used indifferently by the Christian authors of the first two centuries A.D. The word Christianos is a Latinism, being contributed neither by the Jews nor by the Christians themselves. The word was said to be introduced from one of three origins: the Roman police, the Roman populace, or more likely from a "pagan" origin. Its infrequent use in the New Testament suggests an earlier pagan origin though they say. According to Tertullian and Lactantius, the common people usually said "Christ" instead of Chrestos."

According to Christianity and Mythology, Osiris, another sky-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. In the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mount Hermon, built in the third century A.D., the title "Messiah" is rendered Chrestos. Not surprisingly then, the title's "Messiah", and "Christ" are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and both said to describe Jesus. Remember, YAHUSHA, (a form of GAD) translated as Joshua/Jesus the Messiah?

Source

 The knowledge of this generic naming of the deities connected with "Heathen" deities or religions has caused some names to be shunned by some religions and sects (i.e. Jews, Muslims) as false gods, while other more ignorant and newer sects just accept "God", (and other common  names for him) as generic names for their "one true God". The funny thing is, they all originated from the Sky god(s), and were almost definitely speaking of the ancient aliens that I have discussed in detail in the rest of this series!

Sadly, those who don't study history, just allow the faith to continue to evolve into more ignorance?

Of course, no one wants to admit to their ignorance of religion's evolution, especially when they are still in the religion, but the many facts are really undeniable when you honestly look at them. Through "patternism" came all the religions of the world, and they have evolved to such a disconnected bunch of religions and sects that at a glance one might think there is no connection with them now. . .but there is!

It all goes back to the start. . .with the first known writing; the Sumerian text. If you haven't been keeping up with my series, the Sumerian text was an ancient work that the later ancient (religious) texts all took their words and stories from. The writings describe men who came down from the sky and seeded the earth with the human race. A creation genetically modified with their own blood (what we know of today as the blood alien to the planet; the RH- blood.) that they called their children. These extraterrestrials were called the Annanaki, later their name was translated "Tall men" (or tall guys) and this is (one of) the names given to the ones we call "Gods" in every religion.

Commonly, the generic word "God", is not understood for meaning "tall men", yet that is precisely what it has always meant. The original "tall men" were sometimes also referred to as Angels, sometimes sons of God, and other times giants, but always they were the ancient aliens. This god-like bloodline that were their"children"/creation has always been venerated and kept pure by many small secret groups. Secret societies like the brotherhood, the Free Masons and the scull and bones society, and are still around. . . only allowing certain families in. . .those today who just happen to be "the elite", who are controlling the world.  There are many strong indications that they know about the bloodline (Rh-) connection, and are (and have been) using their knowledge and special powers to gain control in every way possible. A subject which I discussed in my popular post:

The difference in our blood, and what it means. Part 3

Have you ever noticed how the term "In God we trust" is on the dollar bill in The USA, and right alongside the masonic/ancient "cult" symbols of the third eye, and pyramid? It is not a contradiction to a Christian's concept that this country was founded on a belief in "God", as some want to believe. . .instead, it goes way back to the original -but forgotten- "Christian" beliefs. If you define God as some spirit in the air who answers your prayers and fights your battles, listening to your every thought . . .well, you both don't know history, and you have believed a fairy tale with no evidence for it but your emotions.

As you can see from this post, the names pretty much tell it all, if you follow history and languages at all.

After hearing about all of this myself though, one question remained in my mind:

Why so many names for mostly the same "gods"?
What I found out was, that in the Ancient Near East, a number of deities were known be several names. For example, the Babylonian deity Marduk had 50 names, the Egyptian deity Re had 74 names, and Osiris had 100 to 142 names. Such deities also had hidden or secret names known only by certain priests who supposedly knew the proper way to invoke them without offense. It was believed that these hidden names would give the speakers access to and influence with-and sometimes magical powers over- the named. This is also strongly implied in many verses in the Bible as well.

That, in and of itself, is responsible for much of the confusion over names in the Bible. 

The confusion is not always just about lots of different names for the same gods, or even different gods being made into one though. . . sometimes one god is made into two!

Beelzebub, meaning "Lord of Flies", is a Angel/god whose original name has been reconstructed as "Ba'al Zabul," meaning "Baal the Prince." Considering that Baal is always translated as some form for "God", as we've seen already in this post, it stands to reason that some people have mistaken Beelzebub, (said to be another name for Satan) for "God",. . .but I'll get into that in my next post called: "Are God and Satan really one and the same as some say. . .? Part 11"

The reality of Heaven and Hell in HISTORY! Part 9

I like to give the ancient texts the benefit of the doubt, and see the ancients as not the ignoramuses many scientists and fellow Atheists presume they were. And while I know some knowledge now known by us today was unknown to them, some knowledge known to them is still unknown to us. . . Times have changed, and we have evolved in some things, while loosing the knowledge and skills to do other things. That knowledge should give us some humility and flexibility with our understanding of the past, as I discussed in my last post of the series:

All myths change and evolve, it's just human nature. . . "God" is no exception. Part 8

So now I want to expand on one of the most famous and ancient myths/legends and how it has evolved; the myth of Heaven. As it seems to have predated the myth of Hell, we will start there. . .

Sometimes people speak of Heaven as Paradise, and Paradise as Heaven, not seeming to see them as, or understanding them to be different places. . .or are they? Let's look at these two places mythology describes, in reference to the god(s). . . which I have identified in previous posts of this series as none other then the "ancient aliens" or "Tall men".
So let's start with:

                                 Paradise

There are connections between "paradise" and the Biblical "garden of Eden", but seemingly not Heaven, "where God is". Actually, there are a lot of places in mythology that all trace back to Eden, and it seems very confusing the more you trust on the newer myths for your facts. Going back to the oldest version of the Garden of Eden though, it seems pretty clear to me. . . The Garden of the gods (Sumerian paradise) is the oldest version of the Garden of Eden in the Sumerian text, (the upper right picture) and likely where the later myths all started from.
   Edward Lipinski and Peter Kyle McCarter have suggested that the forests of Lebanon (spoken of within the Bible and other writings,) is also connected with the Garden of the gods. Emain, Abalach, Avolon, the isle of glass, the isle of apples, the isle of man, the fortunate isle, Paradise, the Garden of the Golden Apples, the Garden of Idun and Thule, etc. are all believed to be one and the same thing: an allegory or namesake of the original cradle of civilization spoken of in the Sumerian text.

There has been some confusion, from what I have read, over a generic use, or even the allegorical use of "the garden of Eden" or "Paradise". Especially in the case of Avalon, the enigmatic conical hill that rises above Glastonbury in the UK. Avalon was also called "the isle of glass" which is similar to the name "Glastonbury". Glastonbury Tor was where King Arthur was buried after his death.

Yes, he is believed to be real and not myth. Furthermore, from his bones he was said to have been a giant, at least 9 feet tall, with blond hair in his casket. He was made into stuff of legend just as Jesus was, because of his magical and honorable life. (Which by all counts was very long. He died in war after 100 years of reigning as king. . .again typical of the giant race of god/men to have had a long life.)

Like many myths, there evolved with time exaggerations of King Arthur's life and death. He supposedly cheated death by a miraculous healing of a head wound when his servants took him to Avalon (or paradise). But there is ample evidence of his death now.
Source
Source

Back to Paradise though:


In the Talmud and the Jewish Kabbalah, the scholars all agree that there were two types of spiritual places called the"Garden of Eden". The first is rather terrestrial, of abundant fertility and luxuriant vegetation, known as the "lower Gan Eden". The second is envisioned as being celestial, possibly in the sky or above the other, and known as the habitation of the righteous, immortal souls. It is called the "higher Gan Eden".
Source

This original understanding of "Eden" in the Hebrew and around the Bible times brings some additional clarity to the debate of whether or not at least one cultures' Eden was the celestial or the other Eden.

The famous Eden, paradise or Avolon of King Arthur, according to the Bible, could not have been the original "lower" Garden of Eden, or cradle of civilization. Why? Because it was an island for one thing, The Bible states that the original Eden had 4 rivers running from it and through it. Genesis 2-3 locates the garden of Eden in these verses:

"Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon. . . The name of the second river is Gihon. . .The name of the third river is Tigris. . .And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

So the Jewish account of the lush and fertile "lower" Eden, as described in the Bible, was not surrounded by water, but it sprung from it. No one has yet found that Eden, but I suspect I know where it is, which I will get into in a future post.  . . .

So the notorious and "magical" Avolon of King Arthur, while not like the original lush "lower" Eden, could simply have been a namesake of sorts to commemorate a place long gone, or far away, but still in remembrance to the family (as it seems clear that King Arthur was).  That memorable place being, the likely later version of the original "lower" Eden, the "Higher" Eden. This then original "Higher" Eden was an island I believe; that Island of myth: Atlantis.

As further evidence of my theory, Isidore's description in about 600 BCE of the (presumably original) Fortunate Isles (another name for paradise or Atlantis) reads:

"The name of the Isles of the Fortunate signifies that they bear all good things, as if happy and blessed in the abundance of their fruits. Serviceable by nature, they bring forth fruits of valuable forests; their hilltops are clothed with vines growing by chance; in place of grasses, there is commonly vegetable and grain. Writers and the songs of the poets have held that these islands are Paradise because of the soil."


"The island of apples which men call “The Fortunate Isle” gets its name from the fact that it produces all things of itself; the fields there have no need of the plows of the farmers and all cultivation is lacking except what nature provides. Of its own accord it produces grain and grapes, and apple trees grow in its woods from the close-clipped grass. The ground of its own accord produces everything instead of merely grass, and people live there a hundred years or more. "

In medieval geographies, Isidore's Fortunate Islands were identified with the Canaries. Which is ironically right off the coast from the area of Morocco and Spain. Which area would have been connected with the place where Atlantis was, before the rise in the ocean and earthquake that destroyed the island continent. (According to evidence of it's whereabouts from the ancient texts, and the ancient ruins that have recently been found there.)

Plato also spoke of the island in 360 BCE as full of a special race of people. "Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power." According to Plato, Atlantis was a naval power that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa in approximately 9600 BC.

In Critias, Plato claims that his accounts of . . . Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt . . . In Egypt, [he met a guy named] Solon [who] met a priest of Sais, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on papyri in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek."
A later commentator defending Plato said that some of the things Plato wrote of were written on pillars in Egypt, which are still preserved.
Source

 Also, these people in Mu, that seem to be mainly from Atlantis, were described by a historian named Churchward:

"According to Churchward the white people were the dominant group on Mu", "Besides these", he goes on to say, rather enigmatically, "There were people of other races - people with yellow, brown or black skins. They, however, did not dominate."

 The passage of Pliny (Hist. Nat. 4:26) on the Hyperboreans of Atlantis/Mu is worth quoting:

"Beyond the Aquilon one finds a blessed nation called, according to tradition, the Hypeboreans. Among them, men reach an extreme age. Many marvels are told of this people. Some say that the hinges of the world and the limit of the course of the stars lie in their region..."

Pliny also evokes the description of where they live in Celtic poems:

"Treason is there unknown and so is sadness.

There no pain, no regret, no death, no grief,

No disease, no weakness, ever afflict anyone.

For such is the fortune of Emain. [another name for paradise or Eden]

What a wonderful country is this one!

There the young never grow old at all!"

More recently the Nazis believed in a historical Thule as mentioned before being not only equal to Paradise, but as the ancient origin of specifically the Aryan race. . .leading me to speculate that they were speaking of the "lower" Eden.

 A race of giant supermen were said to have lived in Thule, They were linked into the Cosmos through magical powers. They had psychic and technological abilities far exceeding the technical achievements of the 20th century. This knowledge was to be put to use to save the Fatherland and create a new race of Nordic /Aryan/ Atlanteans when they found it. They made many expeditions looking for an opening into a hollow Earth said to be at the North pole, apparently because they believed it must be there to be in a "lower" part of the Earth. They may have actually found something too, putting a sudden end to a war that by all counts, they should have won. . . but that's for a future post. . . 

Source

                                                              What about Heaven then?

Our translated word "Heaven", was often in reference to being "above", (like the "higher" Eden, but with little mention of a garden, island or even the lower Eden, the place where man started) which has been presumed for hundreds of years to be in reference to somewhere in space, as most people no longer believe in a hollow Earth as the lower Eden. . .yet we have explored space with our telescopes and see no way that the space theory of Heaven could be logical either, (in this dimension at least). . .

The ancient Egyptians (the early ones called "gods") in describing where they and their ancestors came from, said that "Heaven" was a physical place far above the Earth in a "dark area" of space where there were no stars. . .while they could have been talking in simple terms to simple minds, not having telescopes yet. . .I think every patch of sky would show stars under normal conditions. . .so what could cause a blockage of the stars shinning? Sounds like a large space ship to me. . .but more on that in a future post.



 So as you can see, not only is there a huge confusion between the different Edens, but just to add to the confusion they add another place for the gods to live, and use the same word. We actually see this pattern repeated throughout the Bible. It is one of the difficulties of translating a language with many descriptive words, to one with fewer words. Take the example of "love". There are numerous words for love in the Hebrew language, but just one in English. And so, the place "where god is" became at different times the lower or higher Eden, the space ship, different mountains of God or/the gods, and lastly it's said that someday,  "God" will return and the New Jerusalem will come from the sky.

Back to Atlantis though: believe it or not it is also connected to and confused with Hell!

"The sinking of this realm is told in the legend of the Flooding of Ys, another central tradition of Celtic mythology. And their sunken Paradise became the Land of the Dead, the "Tomb of Glass" (Glastonbury the paradise of King Arthur)  or "Island of Glass" (Ynis Wydr) that we encounter so often in their Celtic legends. This sunken paradise is also the Hades of the Greeks, the Hanebut of the Egyptians, the Nefelheim of the Germanic Nations and the Sheol of the Jews. "

Source

So while Paradise/Eden and Heaven seem to be used interchangably in our language, (though they are obviously different in some cases) it is ironic that the original Hell is even confused with it too! Of course, just as no Christian would claim Atlantis as the Garden of Eden,  rare Christians would claim Greek myths like that of Hades.

Of course consequently, it is claimed by some Jews or Christians that Sheol is slightly different then the Greeks Hades, because Sheol is sometimes equated with the grave/death, instead of being "a sunken paradise and land of the dead". While it's easy to see that it did become synonymous with death and the grave later in the New Testament, that rendering makes little sense in interpreting the Old Testament. For instance, check out this translation of the verse in Psalms 6:5 , "For in death [Sheol] there is no remembrance of thee ["God" or the ancient alien/tall men]: in Hell/the grave [same word Sheol] who shall give thee thanks?" For a Christian to say that you don't remember "God" when you are dead and in Heaven with God, is actually pretty funny (unless you believe in a sleeping sort of wait time "under the throne" before you get taken to Heaven. . .) Answer me this Christians: How can you stand in front of him at his throne and say to him, "I never knew you"? I thought that was God's line to Atheists like me. . . Ha ha.

Anyhow, as the Eden had an higher and lower version, it appears the same could be said of what is translated as Hell. On the one hand, Hades and Sheol were associated with the upper Eden/ or Atlantis in it's association with death after the flood, but in many references it was also spoken of as "below" or "under" like the "lower" Eden). In ancient myths it was referred to as the "underworld". There is always confusion with the evolution of myths, but I think if we go back to the original "under" or "netherworld" myth, it may make more sense.

The Sumerian netherworld Irkalla was a place for the spirits of the dead to exist after death.
Both the deity in charge of it and the location were called Irkalla, much like how Hades in Greek mythology is both the name of the underworld and the god who ruled it.

Source

Source

Irkalla is similar to both Hades of classic Greek mythology, and Sheol of the Hebrew Bible. Irkalla had no punishment or reward, being seen as a more dreary version of life above, with the ruling god (actually all the original myths had a male and female team ruling.) being seen as both warden and guardian of the dead rather than a sinister ruler like Satan or death gods of other much later religions.

The ancient Aztec's gods of the underworld also had a similar role of keeping watch over the dead. Their gods of the dead were said to have presided over the ancient festival of the dead. The modern Day of the Dead from which Halloween comes, evolved from the Aztec traditions. Only the future and quite recent Christian view of the sinister ruler Satan and the evil death gods of other spin off religions made Halloween into a scary and wicked event. . .but it wasn't intended as such. It was a day to honor the spirits of the dead ancestors.

Whatever the case, Hades, Sheol and Hell were all apparently in reference to the sunken and lost paradise of Atlantis and also a lower place, presumably the "lower" Eden, the cradle of civilization. Fire was not invented for Hell until the New Testament, and had more to do with a visualization from Jesus comparing the death there with the city dump where everything dead got put, and was occasionally set fire to.

If Heaven and Hell are basically the same in most cases, what about the ones in charge of them? We already studied out about the term "God" meaning "Tall men" and quite obviously coming from the original Sumerian text's ancient aliens, the Annanaki, but next we'll get into a more in-depth study of God's names, including a study of Lucifer and the origin and invention of Satan, the notorious villain of the Bible in my next post called :"Do you know God's names and where they came from? part 10"