• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Tricked by the Light

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#1
Wayne Bush | The Archontic Human Farm, Culture Co…:

 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#2
Bump
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#3
I guess it's a moot point if this is a sim or an illusion. Were here and while were here we still have to play the game. I wouldn't mind going to the moon. Maybe after that we get to go through the huge stargate around Saturn to wherever that leads.

http://www.theorionzone.com/egyptian_stargates.htm
The Book of the Dead, an ancient Egyptian manual of resurrection technology, identifies both the falcon and the heron/phoenix as key icons, each of which is apparently associated with aspecific directional portal or doorway in the sky. In Spell 13, the Spell for going in and out of the West (symbolic of the Underworld), the afterlife journeyer states: “I have gone in as a falcon, I have come out as a phoenix...”1 The former bird corresponds to the southern stargate of what may be termed “ex-carnation,” (“..gone in...” to the Underworld),
providing a conduit for the soul to leave the body after death. The latter bird corresponds to the northern stargate of incarnation (“...come out...” to the Earth), allowing the soul to return to a new body. The northern stargate is now located between the constellations Gemini and Taurus. Due to precessional shifting, this region of the sky was formerly known as the Gate of Cancer. The southern stargate located at the opposite end of the Milky Way between the constellations Sagittarius and Scorpio was likewise known as the Gate of Capricorn.2 We currently know that this latter region of the sky points to the center of our galaxy, where scientists believe a mysterious black hole lies hidden.
The Egyptians conceptualized the phoenix --a.k.a. the Bennu bird of the northern
stargate-- as “the patron of reckoning time” and “the soul of Osiris.”27 In essence, he was an agent
of purification by fire in the Netherworld, allowing souls to be reborn on the Earth plane.
Conversely, Horus was perceived as the falcon god who ushered them through the southern
stargate, out of this temporal world and into eternity. Hence, the dual stargates of immanence and
transcendence served as ports along the great sidereal river whereon all souls sail.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#4
Ok one more what if. Maybe they made CERN in an attempt to "cheat"?


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_whenry02.htm


Mayan prophecy says a ladder will emerge from the center of our Milky Way galaxy in 2012.

From out of the ladder will emerge the serpent rope carrying the god Nine Wind (‘Quetzalcoatl’).

From the Codex Vindobonensis







The symbol for the source of the serpent rope matches the Babylonian symbol

for the Sun and the logo for the Holy Grail found on the tombstone of

William St. Clair at Rosslyn Chapel, Scotland.

Each of these is the same as the Buddhist Dharma Wheel of Time.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot
Sephirot (/sfɪˈroʊt/, /ˈsfɪroʊt/; Hebrew: סְפִירוֹת‎‎ Səphîrôṯ), meaning emanations, are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which Ein Sof (The Infinite) reveals Himself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms (Seder hishtalshelus). The term is alternatively transliterated into English as Sefirot/Sefiroth, singular Sephirah/Sefirah etc.
The ten Sephirot are a step-by-step process illuminating the Divine plan as it unfolds itself in Creation. They are fully found in the Medieval Kabbalah texts, such as the central work in Kabbalah, the Zohar. The Hebrew etymology of their names in Kabbalah is understood to refer to the nuanced aspects of meaning of each Sephirah. This direct connection between spiritual and physical creations
Describing the material world Below in general, and man in particular, as created in the "image" of the world Above is not restricted in Rabbinic Judaism to Kabbalah, but abounds more widely in Biblical, Midrashic, Talmudic and philosophical literature.[8] Kabbalah extends the Man-metaphor more radically to anthropomorphise particular Divine manifestations on high, while repeatedly stressing the need to divest analogies from impure materialistic corporality.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#6
Best I can tell the Sephirot leads to Sama-El, Yaldabaoth, Jehova, Bel, Bael, etc.... a.k.a. the gnostic Demiurgos!
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

This article is about philosophical concept of a Universal Fashioner. For other uses, see Demiurge (disambiguation).

Part of a series on


God


General conceptions[show]

Specific conceptions[show]

In particular religions[show]

[show]

  • Experiences

  • Practices
[show]

Related topics[show]

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge (/ˈdɛmiˌɜːrdʒ/) is an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. The term was adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered to be consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered to be either uncreated and eternal, or considered to be the product of some other entity.

The word "demiurge" is an English word from demiurgus, a Latinized form of the Greek δημιουργός, dēmiourgos which was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually it came to mean "producer" and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper noun derive from Plato's Timaeus, written 360 BC, in which the demiurge is presented as the creator of the universe. This is accordingly the definition of the demiurge in the Platonic ( 310–90 BC) and Middle Platonic ( 90 BC – AD 300) philosophical traditions. In the various branches of the Neoplatonic school (third century onwards), the demiurge is the fashioner of the real, perceptible world after the model of the Ideas, but (in most Neoplatonic systems) is still not itself "the One". In the arch-dualist ideology of the various Gnostic systems, the material universe is evil, while the non-material world is good; accordingly, the demiurge is malevolent, as linked to the material world.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael

This article is about the archangel. For other uses, see Samael (disambiguation).

upload_2017-4-7_23-21-55.jpeg


The Angel of Death I made by Evelyn De Morgan

Samael (Hebrew: סַמָּאֵל‎, "Venom of God"[1] or "Poison of God," or "Blindness of God" Sammael or Samil)[2][3][4] is an important archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore, a figure who is an accuser, seducer, and destroyer, and has been regarded as both good and evil. Rabbinical writings describe Samael as the guardian angel of Esau (and the Roman empire)[5] and a patron of Edom.



He is considered in Talmudic texts to be a member of the heavenly host (with often grim and destructive duties). One of Samael's greatest roles in Jewish lore is that of the main archangel of death. He remains one of Yahweh's servants even though he condones the sins of man. As an angel, Samael resides in the seventh heaven, although he is declared to be the chief angel of the fifth heaven, the reason for this being the presence of the throne of glory in the seventh heaven.[6]


For Yaldabaoth said, "I am God and there is no other God beside me."
upload_2017-4-7_23-21-55.jpeg


According to the ancient Gnostic texts, there is a creator God named Yadabaoth (Ilda-Baoth or Ialdabaoth ) who is described as the Child of Chaos, and was the son of Sophia (wisdom) in Gnostic Cosmogenesis. Yaldabaoth is called an angel in the apocryphal Gospel of Judas. He is first mentioned in "The Cosmos, Chaos, and the Underworld" as one of the twelve angels to come "into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld]". In the "Gospel of Nicodemus," Yaldbaoth is called Satan, and Dante called the Devil simply a worm.


This article is about the word Jehovah. For the deity, see God in Abrahamic religions. For other uses, see Jehovah (disambiguation).

upload_2017-4-7_23-21-55.png


"Jehovah" at Exodus 6:3
(1611 King James Version)

Jehovah (/dʒᵻˈhoʊvə/ jə-HOH-və) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה‎, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה‎ (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible.

The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[1] The derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century.

"Jehovah" was popularized in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translations such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version.[2] It is still used in some translations, such as the New World Translation, the American Standard Version, and Young's Literal Translation, but it is does not appear in most mainstream English translations, as the terms "Lord" or "LORD": used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is Yahweh or YHWH.[3][4]:5


Baal (/ˈbeɪl/ BAYL; sometimes spelled Bael, Baël (French), Baell) is in 17th century goetic occult writings one of the seven princes of Hell. The name is drawn from the Canaanite deity Baal mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the primary god of the Phoenicians.

In this unholy hierarchy, Baal (usually spelt "Bael" in this context; there is a possibility that the two figures aren't connected) was ranked as the first and principal king in Hell, ruling over the East. According to some authors Baal is a Duke, with sixty-six legions of demons under his command.

During the English Puritan period Baal was either compared to Satan or considered his main assistant. According to Francis Barrett he has the power to make those who invoke him invisible, and to some other demonologists his power is stronger in October. According to some sources,[citation needed] he can make people wise, and speaks hoarsely.

While his Semitic predecessor was depicted as a man or a bull,[1] the demon Baal was in grimoire tradition said to appear in the forms of a man, cat, toad, or combinations thereof. An illustration in Collin de Plancy's 1818 book Dictionnaire Infernal placed the heads of the three creatures onto a set of spider legs.[2][3]
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. For example, Parmenides states, "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed."[12]129 Matter is considered particular in itself. For Plato, forms, such as beauty, are more real than any object that imitate them. Though the forms are timeless and unchanging, physical things are in a constant change of existence. Where forms are unqualified perfection, physical things are qualified and conditioned.[13]

These Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.[14] Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.[15]

A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether.[16] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[17] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
Plato

Plato believed there to be a sharp distinction between the world of perceivable objects and the world of universals or forms: one can only have mere opinions about the former, but one can have knowledge about the latter. For Plato it was not possible to have knowledge of anything that could change or was particular, since knowledge had to be forever unfailing and general.[8] For that reason, the world of the forms is the real world, like sunlight, while the sensible world is only imperfectly or partially real, like shadows. This Platonic realism, however, in denying that the eternal Forms are mental artifacts, differs sharply with modern forms of idealism.

One of the first nominalist critiques of Plato's realism was that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said "I've seen Plato's cups and table, but not his cupness and tableness."[9]


Main article: Aristotle's theory of universals

Plato's student Aristotle disagreed with his tutor. Aristotle transformed Plato's forms into "formal causes", the blueprints or essences of individual things. Whereas Plato idealized geometry, Aristotle emphasized nature and related disciplines and therefore much of his thinking concerns living beings and their properties. The nature of universals in Aristotle's philosophy therefore hinges on his view of natural kinds.

Consider for example a particular oak tree. This is a member of a species and it has much in common with other oak trees, past, present and future. Its universal, its oakness, is a part of it. A biologist can study oak trees and learn about oakness and more generally the intelligible order within the sensible world. Accordingly, Aristotle was more confident than Plato about coming to know the sensible world; he was a prototypical empiricist and a founder of induction. Aristotle was a new, moderate sort of realist about universals.
Ancient thought

Plato
Plato believed there to be a sharp distinction between the world of perceivable objects and the world of universals or forms: one can only have mere opinions about the former, but one can have knowledge about the latter. For Plato it was not possible to have knowledge of anything that could change or was particular, since knowledge had to be forever unfailing and general.[8] For that reason, the world of the forms is the real world, like sunlight, while the sensible world is only imperfectly or partially real, like shadows. This Platonic realism, however, in denying that the eternal Forms are mental artifacts, differs sharply with modern forms of idealism.

One of the first nominalist critiques of Plato's realism was that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said "I've seen Plato's cups and table, but not his cupness and tableness."[9]

Aristotle
Main article: Aristotle's theory of universals

Plato's student Aristotle disagreed with his tutor. Aristotle transformed Plato's forms into "formal causes", the blueprints or essences of individual things. Whereas Plato idealized geometry, Aristotle emphasized nature and related disciplines and therefore much of his thinking concerns living beings and their properties. The nature of universals in Aristotle's philosophy therefore hinges on his view of natural kinds.

Consider for example a particular oak tree. This is a member of a species and it has much in common with other oak trees, past, present and future. Its universal, its oakness, is a part of it. A biologist can study oak trees and learn about oakness and more generally the intelligible order within the sensible world. Accordingly, Aristotle was more confident than Plato about coming to know the sensible world; he was a prototypical empiricist and a founder of induction. Aristotle was a new, moderate sort of realist about universals.

Medieval thought
Boethius
The problem was introduced to the medieval world by Boethius, by his translation of Porphyry's Isagoge. It begins:

"I shall omit to speak about genera and species, as to whether they subsist (in the nature of things) or in mere conceptions only; whether also if subsistent, they are bodies or incorporeal, and whether they are separate from, or in, sensibles, and subsist about these, for such a treatise is most profound, and requires another more extensive investigation".[10]

Duns Scotus
Duns Scotus argued strongly against both nominalism and conceptualism, arguing instead for Scotist realism, a medieval response to the conceptualism of Abelard.

Ockham
William of Ockham argued strongly that universals are a product of abstract human thought. According to Ockham, universals are just words/names that only exist in the mind and have no real place in the external world.[11]

Medieval realism
Main article: Medieval realism

Realism was argued for by both Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Aquinas argued that both the essence of a thing and its existence were clearly distinct;[12] in this regard he is close to the teaching of Aristotle. Scotist realism argues that in a thing there is no real distinction between the essence and the existence, instead there is only a Formal distinction.[13] Both of these opinions were denied by Scotus' pupil William of Ockham.

Medieval nominalism
Nominalism was first formulated as a philosophical theory in the Middle Ages. The French philosopher and theologian Roscellinus (c. 1050-c. 1125) was an early, prominent proponent of this view. It can be found in the work of Peter Abelard and reached its flowering in William of Ockham, who was the most influential and thorough nominalist. Abelard's and Ockham's version of nominalism is sometimes called conceptualism, which presents itself as a middle way between nominalism and realism, asserting that there is something in common among like individuals, but that it is a concept in the mind, rather than a real entity existing independently of the mind. Ockham argued that only individuals existed and that universals were only mental ways of referring to sets of individuals. "I maintain", he wrote, "that a universal is not something real that exists in a subject... but that it has a being only as a thought-object in the mind [objectivum in anima]". As a general rule, Ockham argued against assuming any entities that were not necessary for explanations. Accordingly, he wrote, there is no reason to believe that there is an entity called "humanity" that resides inside, say, Socrates, and nothing further is explained by making this claim. This is in accord with the analytical method that has since come to be called Ockham's razor, the principle that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

Critics argue that conceptualist approaches only answer the psychological question of universals. If the same concept is correctly and non-arbitrarily applied to two individuals, there must be some resemblance or shared property between the two individuals that justifies their falling under the same concept and that is just the metaphysical problem that universals were brought in to address, the starting-point of the whole problem (MacLeod & Rubenstein, 2006, §3d). If resemblances between individuals are asserted, conceptualism becomes moderate realism; if they are denied, it collapses into nominalism.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison; for they know no better life. The prisoners manage to break their bonds one day, and discover that their reality was not what they thought it was. They discovered the sun, which Plato uses as an analogy for the fire that man cannot see behind. Like the fire that cast light on the walls of the cave, the human condition is forever bound to the impressions that are received through the senses. Even if these interpretations (or, in Kantian terminology, intuitions) are an absurd misrepresentation of reality, we cannot somehow break free from the bonds of our human condition- we cannot free ourselves from phenomenal state just as the prisoners could not free themselves from their chains. If, however, we were to miraculously escape our bondage, we would find a world that we could not understand- the sun is incomprehensible for someone who has never seen it. In other words, we would encounter another 'realm' a place incomprehensible because, theoretically, it is the source of a higher reality than the one we have always known; it is the realm of pure Form, pure fact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_sun

Plato makes the claim that "sight and the visible realm are deficient."[1]:170 He argues that for the other senses to be used all that is needed is the sense itself and that which can be sensed by it (e.g., to taste sweetness, one needs the sense of taste and that which can be tasted as sweet), but "even if a person's eyes are capable of sight, and he's trying to use it, and what he's trying to look at is coloured, the sight will see nothing and the colours will remain unseen, surely, unless there is also present an extra third thing which is made specifically for this purpose."[1]:170 The third thing Plato is talking about is light. Through this analogy he equates that which gives us natural light, the sun, as the source of goodness in this world.

"As goodness stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we know, so in the visible realm the sun stands to sight and the things we see."[1]:171
In other words, Plato is saying that the true nature of reality cannot be comprehended by the ordinary senses. Thus, we should make use of the mind rather than the sensory organs to better understand the higher truths of the universe. The mind, much like sight, requires a "third thing" to function properly, and that third thing is Plato's idea of goodness. He likens a mind without goodness to sight without light; one cannot operate at peak efficiency without the other.

"Well, here's how you can think about the mind as well. When its object is something which is lit up by truth and reality, then it has—and obviously has—intelligent awareness and knowledge. However, when its object is permeated with darkness (that is, when its object is something which is subject to generation and decay), then it has beliefs and is less effective, because its beliefs chop and change, and under these circumstances it comes across as devoid of intelligence."[1]:171
Having made these claims, Socrates asks Glaucon, "...which of the gods in heaven can you put down as cause and master of this, whose light makes our sight see so beautifully and the things to be seen?" (508a) Glaucon responds that both he and all others would answer that this is the sun. Analogously, Socrates says, as the sun illuminates the visible with light so the idea of goodness illuminates the intelligible with truth, which in turn makes it possible for people to have knowledge. Also, as the eye's ability to see is made possible by the light of the sun so the soul's ability to know is made possible by the truth of goodness.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#11
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#12
Touche,



In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.


So we partake of the swine that killed Tammuz and/or they are the rot?

"Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.


Nimrod

In those ancient times, there was a man named Nimrod, who was the grandson of one of Noah´s son named Ham.

Ham had a son named Cush who married a woman named Semiramis. Cush and Semiramis then had a son named him "Nimrod."

After the death of his father, Nimrod married his own mother and became a powerful King.

The Bible tells of of this man, Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8-10 as follows: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad,and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."

Nimrod became a god-man to the people and Semiramis, his wife and mother, became the powerful Queen of ancient Babylon.
Nimrod had ascended to the sun and was now to be called "Baal", the sun god.

Queen Semiramis also proclaimed that Baal would be present on earth in the form of a flame, whether candle or lamp, when used in worship.
Ishtar




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




For other uses, see Ishtar (disambiguation).


Ishtar


Goddess of fertility, love, war, sex, & power

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


Ishtar holding her symbol. Statue is at Louvre Museum


Planet


Venus


Symbol


Gate guarded by lions, eight-pointed star, Symbolic staff


Consort


Tammuz
other consorts


Parents


Anu

Part of a series on


Ancient
Mesopotamian religion



upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.png


Primordial beings[show]

Seven gods who decree[show]

Other major deities[show]

Minor deities[show]

Demigods and heroes[show]

Spirits and monsters[show]

[show]


Related topics


upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


Old Babylonian period Queen of Night relief, which may represent Ishtar, Ereshkigal, or, possibly Lilith, a Mesopotamian demon

Ishtar (English pronunciation /ˈɪʃtɑːr/; transliteration: DIŠTAR; Akkadian:
upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.png
upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.png
; Sumerian) is the Mesopotamian East Semitic (Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian) goddess of fertility, love, war, sex, and power.[1] She is the counterpart to the earlier attested Sumerian Inanna, and the cognate for the later attested Northwest Semitic Aramean goddess Astarte, and the Armenian goddess Astghik. Ishtar was an important deity in Mesopotamian religion which was extant from c.3500 BCE, until its gradual decline between the 1st and 5th centuries CE with the spread of Christianity.[2]




Contents
Characteristics
Ishtar symbolizes love, including that between human and animals, its power, and its danger.

Ishtar was the daughter of Anu.[3] She was particularly worshipped in the Upper Mesopotamian kingdom of Assyria (modern northern Iraq, north east Syria and south east Turkey), particularly at the cities of Nineveh, Ashur and Arbela (modern Erbil), and also in the south Mesopotamian city of Uruk.[3]

Besides the lions on her gate, her symbol is an eight-pointed star.[4]

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


One type of depiction of Ishtar/Inanna

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


The lion was her symbol (detail of the Ishtar Gate)

pantheon, she "was the divine personification of the planet Venus".[3]

Ishtar had many lovers; however, as Guirand notes,

"Woe to him whom Ishtar had honoured! The fickle goddess treated her passing lovers cruelly, and the unhappy wretches usually paid dearly for the favours heaped on them. Animals, enslaved by love, lost their native vigour: they fell into traps laid by men or were domesticated by them. 'Thou has loved the lion, mighty in strength', says the hero Gilgamesh to Ishtar, 'and thou hast dug for him seven and seven pits! Thou hast loved the steed, proud in battle, and destined him for the halter, the goad and the whip.' Even for the gods Ishtar's love was fatal. In her youth the goddess had loved Tammuz, god of the harvest, and—if one is to believe Gilgamesh —this love caused the death of Tammuz.[3]
Her cult may have involved sacred prostitution,[5] though this is debatable. Guirand referred to her holy city Uruk as the "town of the sacred courtesans" and to her as the "courtesan of the gods".[3]

Descent into the underworld
[6] about Ishtar describes her descent to the underworld. In this myth, Ishtar approaches the gates of the underworld and demands that the gatekeeper open them:

If thou openest not the gate to let me enter,
I will break the door, I will wrench the lock,
I will smash the door-posts, I will force the doors.
I will bring up the dead to eat the living.
And the dead will outnumber the living.
The gatekeeper hurried to tell Ereshkigal, the Queen of the Underworld. Ereshkigal told the gatekeeper to let Ishtar enter, but "according to the ancient decree".

The gatekeeper let Ishtar into the underworld, opening one gate at a time. At each gate, Ishtar had to shed one article of clothing. When she finally passed the seventh gate, she was naked. In a rage, Ishtar threw herself at Ereshkigal, but Ereshkigal ordered her servant Namtar to imprison Ishtar and unleash sixty diseases against her.

After Ishtar descended to the underworld, all sexual activity ceased on earth. The god Papsukal reported the situation to Ea, the king of the gods. Ea created an intersex being called Asu-shu-namir and sent them to Ereshkigal, telling them to invoke "the name of the great gods" against her and to ask for the bag containing the waters of life. Ereshkigal was enraged when she heard Asu-shu-namir's demand, but she had to give them the water of life. Asu-shu-namir sprinkled Ishtar with this water, reviving her. Then, Ishtar passed back through the seven gates, getting one article of clothing back at each gate, and was fully clothed as she exited the last gate.


Pay attention to the Succubus. I have a few floating around me. a



Classification of demons




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Seven princes of Hell)

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.png



This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: needs secondary sources (July 2016)

This article possibly contains original research. (July 2016)

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (July 2016)

This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (July 2016)

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


The Temptation of St. Anthony by Martin Schongauer.

There have been various attempts throughout history by theologian scholars in the classification of demons for the purpose of understanding the biblical and mythological context of adversarial spirits. Theologians have written dissertations in Christian demonology, classical occultism, classical mythology and Renaissance magic to clarify the connections between these spirits and their influence in various cultures. The study of demonology was historically used to understand morality, behavioral tendencies, and has even been used as symbolism to relay anecdotal tales in folklore. Classification systems are based on the supposed nature of the demon, the alleged sin with which they lure people into temptation and may also include the angels or saints that were believed to have been their adversaries; an idea which derived from the Biblical battle between the Archangel Michael and Satan in The Book of Revelation (12:7-9) describing a war in heaven which resulted in Satan and his angels being expelled from Heaven. The classifications of these fallen angels are based on many other characteristics as well, such as behaviors that caused their fall from heaven, physical appearances or the methods that were used to torment people, cause maladies, or illicit dreams, emotions, etc. Most authors who wrote theological dissertations on the subject either truly believed in the existence of infernal spirits, or wrote as a philosophical guide to understanding an ancient perspective of behavior and morality in folklore and religious themes.




Contents
Classification by domain
In the study of demonology, infernal spirits are often classified by domain, meaning their attribution to a specified sphere of activity or knowledge. Often times this means a specific moral sin or questionable behavior to which some people are prone. They may even be attributed to the methods they cause trouble to humans by the use of certain misfortunes, maladies, or addictions. In general, the domain of a demon is reflected on whatever authority they hold in their interaction with mankind. This idea holds a similar connotation to the gods of classical mythology as each have their own tasks and abilities according to their authority and each interact with mankind in their own unique way. It can be noted that according to each author listed below, the domain of each demon is varied greatly on either preference or perspective. It can also be seen that each author chooses and classifies demons differently based on their own personal set of beliefs or politics.

The Testament of Solomon
Main article: Testament of Solomon

The Testament of Solomon is an Old Testament pseudepigraphical work, purportedly written by King Solomon, in which Solomon mostly describes particular demons whom he enslaved to help build the temple, the questions he put to them about their deeds and how they could be thwarted, and their answers, which provide a kind of self-help manual against demonic activity. The date is very dubious, though is considered the oldest work surviving particularly concerned with individual demons.[1][2]

Psellus' classification of demons
Michael Psellus prepared a classification of demons in the 11th century, which was an inspiration for the classification Francesco Maria Guazzo prepared later. Psellus divided demons into Empyreal (Fiery), Aerial, Subterranean, Lucifugous (Heliophobic), Aqueous, and Terrene (Terrestrial).[3]

The Lanterne of Light's classification of demons
In 1409-1410 The Lanterne of Light (an anonymous English Lollard tract often erroneously attributed to Wycliffe)[4] provided a classification system based on the Seven Deadly Sins, establishing that each one of the mentioned demons tempted people by means of one of those sins.[5][6] This list was later used in the works of John Taylor, the Water Poet.[7]

Spina's classification of demons
Alphonso de Spina, in 1467, prepared a classification of demons based on several criteria:

This classification is somewhat capricious and it is difficult to find a criterion for it. It seems that Spina was inspired by several legends and stories. The drudes belong to German folklore. Familiars, goblins, and other mischievous demons belong to the folklore of most European countries.

The belief in incubi and succubae (and their ability to procreate) seem to have inspired the seventh category, but it could also have been inspired in the Talmudic legend of demons having sexual intercourse with mortal women (see also Mastema).

The visions of tempting demons that some early (and not so early) saints had, perhaps inspired the ninth category (e.g. the visions of Anthony the Great).

The idea of old women attending Sabbaths was common during the European Middle Age and Renaissance, and Spina mentioned it before the Malleus Maleficarum.

Agrippa's classification of demons
In De occulta philosophia (1509-1510), Cornelius Agrippa proposed several classifications for demons. One is based in the number four and the cardinal points, with the ruling demons being Oriens (East), Paymon (west), Egyn (North) and Amaymon (South). The same four demons appear in the Semiphoras and Schemhamforas.[8][9] Another classification, based in the number nine, has the following orders of demons: False spirits, Spirits of lying, Vessels of iniquity, Avengers of wickedness, Jugglers, Airy powers, Furies sowing mischief, Sifters or triers, Tempters or ensnarers (See Barrett's classification below).

Binsfeld's classification of demons
Peter Binsfeld prepared a classification of demons in 1589. His demon classification was, like the earlier English Lanterne of Light, based on the seven deadly sins, though it differed slightly from the English text.

King James' classification of demons
Main article: Daemonologie

King James wrote a dissertation titled Daemonologie that was first sold in 1591, several years prior to the first publication of the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. Within 3 short books James wrote a dissertation in the form of a philosophical play, making arguments and comparisons between magic, sorcery and witchcraft but wrote also his classifications of demons into 4 sections. His classification were not based on separate demonic entities with their names, ranks, or titles but rather categorized them based on 4 methods used by any given devil to cause mischief or torment on a living individual or a deceased corpse. The purpose was to relay the belief that spirits caused maladies and that magic was possible only through demonic influence. He further quotes previous authors who state that each devil has the ability to appear in diverse shapes or forms for varying arrays of purposes as well. In his description of them, he relates that demons are under the direct supervision of God and are unable to act without permission, further illustrating how demonic forces are used as a "Rod of Correction" when men stray from the will of God and may be commissioned by witches, or magicians to conduct acts of ill will against others but will ultimately only conduct works that will end in the further glorification of God despite their attempts to do otherwise.[13]

  • Spectra: Used to describe spirits that trouble houses or solitary places

  • Obsession: Used to describe spirits that follow upon certain people to outwardly trouble them at various times of the day

  • Possession: Used to describe spirits that enter inwardly into a person to trouble them.

  • Fairies:Used to describe spirits that prophesy, consort, and transport.
Michaelis' classification of demons
In 1613 Sebastien Michaelis wrote a book, Marvelous History, which included a classification of demons as it was told to him by the demon Berith when he was exorcising a nun, according to the author. This classification is based on the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchies, according to the sins the devil tempts one to commit, and includes the demons' adversaries (who suffered that temptation without falling).

Note that many demons' names are exclusively French or unknown in other catalogs. St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist are the two St. Johns to whom Michaelis refers. The other saints are cited only by their name without making clear, i.e., which Francis is mentioned (of Assisi?).

First hierarchy
The first hierarchy includes angels that were Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones.

  • Beelzebub was a prince of the Seraphim, just below Lucifer. Beelzebub, along with Lucifer and Leviathan, were the first three angels to fall. He tempts men with pride and is opposed by St. Francis of Assisi.

  • Leviathan was also a prince of the Seraphim who tempts people to give into heresy, and is opposed by St. Peter.

  • Asmodeus was also a prince of the Seraphim, burning with desire to tempt men into wantonness. He is opposed by St. John the Baptist.

  • Berith was a prince of the Cherubim. He tempts men to commit homicide, and to be quarrelsome, contentious, and blasphemous. He is opposed by St. Barnabas.

  • Astaroth was a prince of Thrones, who tempts men to be lazy and is opposed by St. Bartholomew.

  • Verrine was also prince of Thrones, just below Astaroth. He tempts men with impatience and is opposed by St. Dominic.

  • Gressil was the third prince of Thrones, who tempts men with impurity and is opposed by St. Bernard.

  • Sonneillon was the fourth prince of Thrones, who tempts men to hate and is opposed by St. Stephen.[14]
Second hierarchy
The second hierarchy includes Powers, Dominions, and Virtues.

  • Carreau was a prince of Powers. He tempts men with hardness of heart and is opposed by St. Vincent and Vincent Ferrer

  • Carnivale was also a prince of Powers. He tempts men to obscenity and shamelessness, and is opposed by John the Evangelist.

  • Oeillet was a prince of Dominions. He tempts men to break the vow of poverty and is opposed by St. Martin.

  • Rosier was the second in the order of Dominions. He tempts men against sexual purity and is opposed by St. Basil.

  • Belias was the prince of Virtues. He tempts men with arrogance and women to be vain, raise their children as wantons, and gossip during mass. He is opposed by St. Francis de Paul.
Third hierarchy
The third hierarchy includes Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.

  • Olivier was the prince of the Archangels. He tempts men with cruelty and mercilessness toward the poor and is opposed by St. Lawrence.

  • Luvart was prince of Angels. At the time of Michaelis's writing, Luvart was believed to be in the body of a Sister Madeleine.[15]

  • Verrier was the prince of Principalities. He tempts men against the vow of obedience and is opposed by St. Bernard.
Many of the names and ranks of these demons appear in the Sabbath litanies of witches, according with Jules Garinet's Histoire de la magie en France, and Collin De Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal.

Barrett's classification of demons
Francis Barrett, in his book The magus (1801), offered this classification of demons, making them princes of some evil attitude, person or thing:

  • Beelzebub: False Gods - idolaters

  • Pythius: Spirits of Lying - liars

  • Belial: Vessels of Iniquity - inventors of evil things

  • Asmodeus: Revengers of Wickedness

  • Satan: Imitators of Miracles - evil witches and warlocks

  • Merihem: Aerial Powers - purveyors of pestilence

  • Abaddon: Furies - sowers of discord

  • Astaroth: Calumniators - inquisitors and fraudulent accusers

  • Mammon: Maligenii - tempters and ensnarers[16][17]
Classification by office
In the study of demonology, many spirits are classified by office, rank, or titles which theologians believe were once held in heaven before the fall, or which they currently hold in their infernal dwelling. These offices are usually elaborated in several grimoires which determines their authority in hell or abilities. Demons categorized by office are often depicted in a militant hierarchy, in which a general may hold command over some designated legion for a specialized function which they may trouble men. Other theologians have determined the classification of a spirit's office depending on the times or locations which they roam the Earth.

The Book of Abramelin
The Book of Abramelin, possibly written in the 14th or 15th century, lists four princes of the demons: Lucifer, Leviathan, Satan and Belial. There are also eight sub-princes: Astaroth, Maggot, Asmodee, Beelzebub, Oriens, Paimon, Ariton (gin) and Amaymon. Under the rule of these there are many lesser demons.

Le Livre des esperitz
Main article: Livre des Esperitz

Written in the 15th or 16th century, this grimoire was a likely source for Wierus hierarchy of demons, but while Wierus mentions 69 demons, Le Livre des esperitz has only 46. Wierus omitted, however, the four demons of the cardinal points: Orient, Poymon, Aymoymon and Equi (see Agrippa's classification) and the three great governors of all the other demons: Lucifer, Bezlebut and Satan.[18]

Le Dragon Rouge (or Grand Grimoire)
Main article: Grand Grimoire

Like many works of mystical nature, Le Dragon Rouge (or the Red Dragon) claims to come from Solomon and his priests and is said to be published in 1517 by Alibeck the Egyptian. However, it was most likely written in France in the 18th century.

The grimoire details the different hosts of hell and their powers, describing how to enter a pact with them to attain the magicians' goals. The demons of hell are classified by three different tiers from Generals to Officers.[19]

Pseudomonarchia Daemonum
Main article: Pseudomonarchia Daemonum

Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, by Johann Weyer, is a grimoire that contains a list of demons and the appropriate hours and rituals to conjure them in the name of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost (simpler than those cited by The Lesser Key of Solomon below).

This book was written around 1583, and lists sixty-eight demons. The demons Vassago, Seir, Dantalion and Andromalius are not listed in this book. Pseudomonarchia Daemonum does not attribute seals to the demons.[20]

The Lesser Key of Solomon
Main article: The Lesser Key of Solomon

The Lesser Key of Solomon or Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis is an anonymous 17th century grimoire, and one of the most popular books of demonology. The Lesser Key of Solomon contains detailed descriptions of spirits and the conjurations needed to invoke and oblige them to do the will of the conjurer (referred to as the "exorcist"). It details the protective signs and rituals to be performed, the actions necessary to prevent the spirits from gaining control, the preparations prior to the invocations, and instructions on how to make the necessary instruments for the execution of these rituals.

The author of The Lesser Key of Solomon copied Pseudomonarchia Daemonum almost completely, but added demons' descriptions, their seals and details.

The Ars Goetia
See also: List of demons in the Ars Goetia

Ars Goetia is the first section of The Lesser Key of Solomon, containing descriptions of the seventy-two demons that King Solomon is said to have evoked and confined in a bronze vessel sealed by magic symbols, and that he obliged to work for him.

The Ars Goetia assigns a rank and a title of nobility to each member of the infernal hierarchy, and gives the demons "signs they have to pay allegiance to", or seals.

Dictionnaire Infernal
Main article: Dictionnaire Infernal

The Dictionnaire Infernal (English: Infernal Dictionary) is a book on demonology, organised in hellish hierarchies. It was written by Jacques Auguste Simon Collin de Plancy and first published in 1818. There were several editions of the book, but perhaps the most famous is the edition of 1863, in which sixty-nine illustrations were added to the book. These illustrations are drawings which depict the descriptions of the appearance of a number of demons. Many of these images were later used in S. L. MacGregor Mathers's edition of The Lesser Key of Solomon though some of the images were removed.

The book was first published in 1818 and then divided into two volumes, with six reprints and many changes between 1818 and 1863. This book attempts to provide an account of all the knowledge concerning superstitions and demonology.

De Plancy presented a hierarchy of demons based in modern European courts:

  • Princes and dignitaries: Belzebuth, supreme chief of the empire of hell, founder of the order of the Fly. Satan, prince dethroned and chief of the opposition party. Eurynome,[21] prince of death, Grand Cross of the order of the Fly. Moloch, prince of the country of tears, Grand Cross of the order. Pluton, Prince of Fire, also Grand Cross of the order and governor of the regions in flames. Pan, prince of incubi and Lilith, princess of succubi. Leonardo, the great lord of the Sabbath, Knight of the Fly. Balberith, great pontiff, lord of alliances. Proserpina, archdiablesse, princess of evil spirits.

  • Ministers of the Office: Adramelech, Grand Chancellor and Grand Cross of the Order of the Fly. Ashtaroth, general treasurer, Knight of the Fly. Nergal, chief of the secret police. Baal, commander in chief of the armies of Hell, Grand Cross of the Order of the Fly. Leviathan, Grand Admiral, Knight of the Fly.

  • Ambassadors: Belfegor, Ambassador of France. Mammon, of England. Belial, of Italy. Rimmon, of Russia. Thamuz, of Spain. Hutgin, of Turkey. Martinet, of Switzerland.

  • Justice: Lucifer, chief of justice, Knight of the Fly. Alastor, executor of his sentences.

  • House of the princes: Verdelet, master of ceremonies. Succor Benoth, chief of the eunuchs of the seraglio. Chamos, Grand Chambelain, Knight of the Fly. Melchom, payer treasurer. Nisroth, chief of the kitchen. Behemoth, chief cupbearer. Dagon, grand pantler. Mullin, first valet.

  • Secret expenses: Robals, director of theaters. Asmodeus, superintendent of the gambling houses. Nybbas, grand buffoon. Antichrist, charlatan and necromancer.
Alexis-Vincent-Charles Berbiguier used some of these names and ranks for the demons who tormented him, in his autobiographical work Les farfadets ou Tous les démons ne sont pas de l'autre monde(1821).

The Satanic Bible
Main article: The infernal names

LaVey utilized the symbolism of the Four Crown Princes of Hell in The Satanic Bible, with each chapter of the book being named after each Prince. The Book of Satan: The Infernal Diatribe, The Book of Lucifer: The Enlightenment, The Book of Belial: Mastery of the Earth, and The Book of Leviathan: The Raging Sea.[22] This association was inspired by the demonic hierarchy from The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abra-Melin the Mage.

  • Satan (Hebrew) "Lord of the Inferno":
The adversary, representing opposition, the element of fire, the direction of the south, and the Sigil of Baphomet during ritual.

  • Lucifer (Roman) "The Morning Star":
The bringer of light, representing pride and enlightenment, the element of air, the direction of the east, and candles during ritual.

  • Belial (Hebrew) "Without a Master":
The baseness of the earth, independence and self-sufficiency, the element of earth, the direction of the north, and the sword during ritual.

The great dragon, representing primal secrecy, the element of water, the direction of the west, and the chalice during ritual.

See also
References
  • Conybeare, F.C. The Testament of Solomon, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, (October ,1898)
  • De operatione daemonum. Tr. Marcus Collisson. Sydney 1843. Full online text, p.42-43
  • Morton W. Bloomfield, The Seven Deadly Sins, Michigan State College Press, 1952, pp.214-215.
  • John Taylor, Works of John Taylor, the Water Poet, Volume 2, Spenser Society, 1873, p33
  • Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology, By Rosemary Guiley, p. 28-29, Facts on File, 2009.
  • Dictionary of Demons, by Fred Gettings, Guild Publishing, 1998, p.55-56
  • The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, by Rossell Robbins, Crown Publishers, 1959, p.127
  • King James. Daemonologie. A Critical Edition. In Modern English. 2016. pp. 59–90. ISBN 1-5329-6891-4.
  • " les demons estans interrogez respondirent qu'ils estoient trois au corps de Louyse, y estans par le moyen d'vn malefice, & que le premier d'eux se nommoit Verrine, l'autre Gresil, & le dernier Sonneillon, & que tous estoient du troisiesme ordre, sçauoir au rang des Throsnes. " (Histoire admirable de la possession et conversion d'vne penitente [] exorcisee [] soubs l'authorité du R.P. F. SEBASTIEN MICHAELIS [] Edition troisiesme & derniere. Paris, Chastellain, 1614, page 3. From Michaelis's work, available on BNF: online text from Gallica Histoire admirable
  • "The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology." Rossell Hope Robbins (1912). Bonanza Books. New York. ©1959. 1981 Edition.
  • Gettings, Fred. "Dictionary of Demons" Trafalgar Square Publishing, 1988. pgs. 182-183; "Orders", table 17.
  1. LaVey 2005, pp. 121–140.
Categories:



Succubus




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




For other uses, see Succubus (disambiguation).

Succubus

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


Lilith (1892) by John Collier in Southport Atkinson Art Gallery


Grouping


Legendary creature


Similar creatures


Incubus, Huldra, Siren, Harpy, Mermaid, Demon, Undine, Vampire


Region


Middle East, The Americas, Europe, Asia

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.jpeg


A 16th-century sculpture representing a succubus.

A succubus is a Lilin-demon in female form, or supernatural entity in folklore (traced back to medieval legend) that appears in dreams and takes the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity. The male counterpart is the incubus. Religious traditions hold that repeated sexual activity with a succubus may result in the deterioration of health, mental state, or even death.

In modern representations, a succubus may or may not appear in dreams and is often depicted as a highly attractive seductress or enchantress; whereas, in the past, succubi were generally depicted as frightening and demonic.




Contents
Etymology
The word is derived from Late Latin succuba "paramour"; from succub(āre) "to lie beneath" (sub- "under" + cubāre "to lie in bed"),[1] used to describe the supernatural being as well. The word "succubus" originates from the late 14th century.[2]

In folklore
According to Zohar and the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith was Adam's first wife, who later became a succubus.[3] She left Adam and refused to return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with archangel Samael.[4] In Zoharistic Kabbalah, there were four succubi who mated with the archangel Samael. There were four original queens of the demons: Lilith, Mahalath, Agrat Bat Mahlat, and Naamah.[5] A succubus may take a form of a beautiful young girl but closer inspection may reveal deformities of her body, such as bird-like claws or serpentine tails.[6] Folklore also describes the act of sexually penetrating a succubus as akin to entering a cavern of ice, and there are reports of succubi forcing men to perform cunnilingus on their vulvas that drip with urine and other fluids.[7] In later folklore, a succubus took the form of a siren.

Throughout history, priests and rabbis, including Hanina Ben Dosa and Abaye, tried to curb the power of succubi over humans.[8] However, not all succubi were malevolent. According to Walter Map in the satire De Nugis Curialium (Trifles of Courtiers), Pope Sylvester II (999–1003) was allegedly involved with a succubus named Meridiana, who helped him achieve his high rank in the Catholic Church. Before his death, he confessed of his sins and died repentant.[9]

Ability to reproduce
Kabbalah and the school of Rashba, the original three queens of the demons, Agrat Bat Mahlat, Naamah, Eisheth Zenunim, and all their cohorts give birth to children, except Lilith.[10] According to other legends, the children of Lilith are called Lilin.

According to the Malleus Maleficarum, or "Witches' Hammer", written by Heinrich Kramer (Institoris) in 1486, a succubus collects semen from the men she seduces. The incubi or male demons then use the semen to impregnate human females,[11] thus explaining how demons could apparently sire children despite the traditional belief that they were incapable of reproduction. Children so begotten – cambions – were supposed to be those that were born deformed, or more susceptible to supernatural influences.[12] The book does not address why a human female impregnated with the semen of a human male would not produce a regular human offspring, although after transferring the male semen to the Incubi it is believed the semen is altered to match the genetic material of the Succubus and the incubi before being transferred to a human female host. But in some lore the child is born deformed because the conception was unnatural.[citation needed]

King James in his dissertation titled Dæmonologie refutes the possibility for angelic entities to reproduce and instead offered a suggestion that a devil would carry out two methods of impregnating women: the first, to steal the sperm out of a dead man and deliver it into a woman. If a demon could extract the semen quickly, the transportation of the substance could not be instantly transported to a female host, causing it to go cold. This explains his view that Succubae and Incubi were the same demonic entity only to be described differently based on the tormented sexes being conversed with. The second method was the idea that a dead body could be possessed by a devil, causing it to rise and have sexual relations with others. However, there is no mention of a female corpse being possessed to elicit sex from men.[13]

Qarinah
In Arabian mythology, the qarînah (قرينة) is a spirit similar to the succubus, with origins possibly in ancient Egyptian religion or in the animistic beliefs of pre-Islamic Arabia.[14] A qarînah "sleeps with the person and has relations during sleep as is known by the dreams."[15] They are said to be invisible, but a person with "second sight" can see them, often in the form of a cat, dog, or other household pet.[14] "In Omdurman it is a spirit which possesses. ... Only certain people are possessed and such people cannot marry or the qarina will harm them."[16] To date, many African myths claim[citation needed] that men who have similar experience with such principality (succubus) in dreams (usually in form of a beautiful woman) find themselves exhausted as soon as they awaken; often claiming spiritual attack upon them. Local rituals/divination are often invoked in order to appeal the god for divine protection and intervention.

Yakshini
Main article: Yakshini

In India, the succubus is referred to as Yakshini and are mythical beings within Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain mythology. Yakshinis are the female counterpart of the male Yaksha, and they are attendees of Kubera, the Hindu god of wealth who rules in the mythical Himalayan kingdom of Alaka. They are the guardians of the treasure hidden in the earth and resemble fairies. Yakshinis are often depicted as beautiful and voluptuous, with wide hips, narrow waists, broad shoulders, and exaggerated, spherical breasts.


Lilin




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Mesopotamian demonology, Lilin were hostile night spirits that attacked men. They had less power than gods. This was also the Hebrew word for both the Succubus and Incubus spirits of other legends as a single concept. This word, however, only included the sons and daughters of Lilith or a Lilith-like creature. Older, more physically and mentally mature spirits were known as Lilitu in Hebrew mythology.[1]

In Jewish mythology, Lilin (Hebrew: לילין) is a term for night spirits. In Targum Sheni Esther 1:3 King Solomon had lilin dance before him.[2][3][4][5] Lilith and her children, the Lilim, are considered to be night spirits. Lilith is also considered by older Jewish tradition to be Cain's wife.[6]

Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, lilin come from the desert[7] and they are similar to shedim.[8]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisheth

Eisheth




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.png


This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (June 2015)

upload_2017-4-16_23-46-18.png


This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Kabbalah, Eisheth Zenunim (Heb. אֵשֶׁת זְנוּנִים, "Woman of Whoredom") is a princess of the Qliphoth who rules Sathariel, the order of the Qliphoth of Binah.[1] She is found in the Zohar 1:5a-b as "isheth zennanim" or "qodeshah." In Jewish mythology, she is said to eat the souls of the damned.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naamah_(demon)

Naamah (demon)




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




This article is about the angel. For other uses, see Naamah (disambiguation).

Naamah or Na'amah (Hebrew: נַעֲמָה‎‎; "pleasant") is a demon described in the Zohar, a foundational work of Jewish mysticism.




Contents
In the Zohar
Naamah appears in the Zohar as one of the mates of the archangel Samael. She, along with her cohort Lilith, causes epilepsy in children. After Cain kills Abel, Adam separates from Eve for 130 years. During this time, Lilith and Naamah visit him and bear his demonic children, who became the Plagues of Mankind. (Zohar 3:76b-77a)

In another story from the Zohar, Naamah corrupts Ouza and Azrael. (Zohar: Genesis: Chapter XXXII)[1]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrat_bat_Mahlat

Agrat bat Mahlat




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agrat Bat Mahlat)

Agrat bat Mahlat (אגרת בת מחלת) is a demon in Jewish mythology.

Etymology
Mahlat and Agrat are proper names and bat means "daughter of" (Hebrew). Therefore, Agrat bat Mahlat means "Agrat, daughter of Mahlat."

In ancient texts
Zoharistic Kabbalah, she is a queen of the demons and one of four angels of sacred prostitution, who mates with archangel Samael. Her fellow succubi are Lilith, Naamah, and Eisheth. In the Rabbinic literature of Yalḳuṭ Ḥadash, on the eves of Wednesday and Saturday, she is "the dancing roof-demon" who haunts the air with her chariot and her train of eighteen messengers/Angels of spiritual destruction. She dances while her mother, or possibly grand mother, Lilith howls.[1] She is also "the mistress of the sorceresses" who communicated magic secrets to Amemar, a Jewish sage.[2]

According to legend the spirits that Solomon communicated with and its leader Agrat where all placed inside of a Genie lamp like vessel and placed inside of a cave on the cliffs of the Dead Sea. Later after the spirits were cast into the lamp, Agrat bat Mahlat and her lamp was discovered by King David and after this he became very close to its leader spirit Agrat and so she mated with King David and bore him a cambion son Asmodeus, king of demons.[3]][unreliable source?]. Some scholars[who?] claim that Asmodeus was only the king of David's personal demons like greed, lust etc. but the other camp of scholars in the argument is that Asmodeus was king to even yet more unnamed demons.[citation needed]

About one-thousand years after the era of Solomon and David, another widely known intervention occurred known as "The spiritual intervention of Hanina ben Dosa and Rabbi Abaye" which ended up curbing her malevolent powers over humans.[4]

Some authors, such as Donald Tyson, refer to them as manifestations of Lilith. In additions to being manifestations of the first Lilitu known as Lilith, Agrat and her sisters are indeed Lilith's children she had while she was in Lilitu form and Agrat is humanoid/demonoid entity that came from Lilith when she was in her Lilitu form known as a Lilin.[citation needed]






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

Uses in The Republic

The first references that are seen in The Republic to the Form of the Good are within the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates (454 c–d). When trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition of justice, Plato identifies that we should not “introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature” instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves” which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508 a–c) Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”.

Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, “good is yet more prized”. He then proceeds to explain “although the good is not being” it is “superior to it in rank and power”, it is what “provides for knowledge and truth” (508e).[1]

Scholarly analysis
Plato writes that the Form (or Idea) of the Good is the ultimate object of knowledge, although it is not knowledge itself, and from the Good, things that are just, gain their usefulness and value. Humans are compelled to pursue the good, but no one can hope to do this successfully without philosophical reasoning. According to Plato, true knowledge is conversant, not about those material objects and imperfect intelligences which we meet within our daily interactions with all mankind, but rather it investigates the nature of those purer and more perfect patterns which are the models after which all created beings are formed. Plato supposes these perfect types to exist from all eternity and calls them the Forms or Ideas.[2] As these Forms cannot be perceived by human senses, whatever knowledge we attain of the Forms must be seen through the mind's eye (cf. Parmenides 132a), while ideas derived from the concrete world of flux are ultimately unsatisfactory and uncertain (see the Theaetetus). He maintains that degree of skepticism which denies all permanent authority to the evidence of sense. In essence, Plato suggests that justice, truth, equality, beauty, and many others ultimately derive from the Form of the Good.

Aristotle's criticism
Aristotle discusses the Forms of Good in critical terms several times in both of his major surviving ethical works, the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argues that Plato’s Form of the Good does not apply to the physical world, for Plato does not assign “goodness” to anything in the existing world. Because Plato’s Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world, humans have no reason to believe that the Form of the Good exists and the Form of the Good is thereby irrelevant to human ethics.[3]

Other criticisms
Plato’s Form of the Good is often criticized as too general.[4] Plato’s Form of the Good does not define things in the physical world that are good, and therefore lacks connectedness to reality.[5] Because Plato’s Form of the Good lacks instruction, or ways for the individual to be good, Plato’s Form of the Good is not applicable to human ethics since there is no defined method for which goodness can be pursued. Through Socrates in The Republic, Plato acknowledges the Form of the Good as an elusive concept and proposes that the Form of the Good be accepted as a hypothesis, rather than criticized for its weaknesses. According to Socrates in The Republic, the only alternative to accepting a hypothesis is to refute all the objections against it, which is counterproductive in the process of contemplation.[4]

Aristotle along with other scholars sees the Form of the Good as synonymous with the idea of One.[6] Plato claims that Good is the highest Form, and that all objects aspire to be good.[7] Since Plato does not define good things, interpreting Plato’s Form of the Good through the idea of One allows scholars to explain how Plato’s Form of the Good relates to the physical world. According to this philosophy, in order for an object to belong to the Form of the Good, it must be One and have the proper harmony, uniformity, and order to be in its proper form.[6]

Philosopher Rafael Ferber dismissed Aristotle’s view that the 'Good' is 'One' and wrote that the Form of the Good is self-contradictory. Ferber claimed that Plato’s Form of the Good could be simultaneously defined and unknown, and be in a state of both “being” and “not being”.[6]

Plato’s Forms are also critiqued for being treated as the reason for all things, as opposed to being an essence in itself. Some scholars also believe that Plato intended the Form to be the essence of which things come into existence. These different interpretations of Plato’s intention for the Form may be attributed to the idea that Plato did not have a systematic definition of the Form itself.[3]

Influence of the Form of the Good
Plato's writings on the meaning of virtue and justice permeate through the Western philosophical tradition.[8] Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, had principles that were heavily influenced by the Good. His concept of 'the One' is equivalent to 'the Good' because it describes an ultimate ontological truth. 'The One' is both ‘self-caused’ and the cause of being for everything else in the universe. Plotinus compared his principle of 'the One' to an illuminating light, as Plato did with the Form of the Good. As a result of Plotinus' school of Neoplatonism, the bulk of understanding of Platonic philosophy until the 19th Century came through Plotinus' interpretation of it. The early theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam looked to the ideas of Platonism through the lens of Plotinus.[9]

Amphis, a comic playwright of Athens, has one of his characters say: "And as for the good that you are likely to get on her account, I know no more about it, master, than I do of the good of Plato."[10] There is an ancient anecdotal tradition that Plato gave a public lecture entitled "On the Good" which so confused the audience that most walked out. At the end of the lecture Plato said to those hearers who remained : 'The Good is the One".[11]

See also
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
#13
So was googling. To see who Iblis was for fun. Noticed him in an English translation of the Quran a few years ago.
In Islam, the devil is called Shayṭān, (Arabic: شيطان‎‎, plural: شياطين shayāṭīn) and refers to all evil forces under leadership of the archdevil[1] known as Iblīs, who was cast out of heaven, after he refused to prostrate before Adam.

The primary characteristic of Iblis is hubris; not only did he deem himself a superior creation to Adam, he also demonstrated arrogance by challenging God's judgment in commanding him to prostrate.[2] His primary activity is to incite humans and jinn to commit evil through deception, which is referred to as "whispering into the hearts."[3] The Quran mentions that satans are the assistants of those who disbelieve in God: "We have made the evil ones friends to those without faith."[4]
Any way from th.e branching.

What is the devil exactly?


http://biblehub.com/greek/1228.htm
Strong's Concordance
diabolos: slanderous, accusing falsely
Original Word: διάβολος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: diabolos
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ab'-ol-os)
Short Definition: slanderous, the Slanderer, the Devil
Definition: (adj. used often as a noun), slanderous; with the article: the Slanderer (par excellence), the Devil.
HELPS Word-studies
1228 diábolos (from 1225 /diabállō, "to slander, accuse, defame") – properly, a slanderer; a false accuser; unjustly criticizing to hurt (malign) and condemn to sever a relationship.

[1228 (diábolos) is the root of the English word, "Devil" (see also Webster's Dictionary).

1228 (diabolos) in secular Greek means "backbiter," i.e. an accuser, calumniator (slanderer). 1228 (diábolos) is literally someone who "casts through," i.e. making charges that bring down (destroy). Satan is used by God in this plan – as a predictable wind-up toy, playing out his evil nature.]
Maybe the Jesuits know?
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#14

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#15
I have good news and bad news. First the bad news: Life contains a lie. What you believe is full of lies, secrecy, tricks and deception at every level -- religion, politics, science, our language, the media, entertainment sources such as movies and music, corporate logos, and advertising -- and the earth is an electromagnetic gravitational prison planet in which we are held as prisoners imprisoned by our body cells. The first thing you learn when you go to school is how to spell.

We spell words to create a sentence -- a jail term and it's a life sentence. We use curse words and write with cursive writing.

Why do we say when someone is out of luck that they are S.O.L.? Why do we have products like Sun Kist, Star Kist, and Gold Kist Farms? What is a Kist? Why do almost all major corporations use either the sun, moon or pyramids in their logos? Why were all major religions given to us by princes from elite royal families or wealthy members of nobility? Why are religious messiahs called the son of God and depicted with the sun as a halo? Why does the world's largest political celebration, the World Olympic Games, have a priestess light what they call a cauldron with the light of the sun and keep an eternal flame burning throughout the games? Why do world leaders gather each year at Bohemian Grove and participate in a druidic ceremony called the Cremation of Care which reenacts sacrificial rituals from ancient Canaan at the base of a forty foot owl? Why do so many musicians say they have sold their soul, use illuminati hand signs and use cryptic language in their songs? Why do musical artists such as Katy Perry seem to incorporate witchcraft into their videos? Why does Hollywood take its name from the holly wood that a magic wand is made from and why do they use terms such as casting and programming? Why does the organization that gives Emmys and Oscars, NATAS, use an acronym that is Satan spelled backwards and why does the statue they give out for awards, the Oscar, look like and is named after an egyptian god named Ausur or Osiris? Why do we have an egyptian pyramid on the back of our dollar bill? Why does the moon rotate at just the right speed so that the same side always faces toward Earth and why does it appear in our vision as exactly the same size as the sun during a total eclipse? What is the purpose of "evil" and Trickster Gods. And, finally, why are we told we go to the light at death? I answer these questions and many more on this website.

http://www.trickedbythelight.com/tbtl/index.html