The Christian God

[Bix]

I know throughout many pantheons and various mythologies that gods and goddesses had various attributes assigned to them. Hermes has communication, Athena has wisdom, Ares has war, etc.

So what attributes are assigned to the Christian God? Also, how does the Christian God fit into the all gods are aspects of one god phenomena?

[Mab]

Um........well..........in Christianity, God IS the All. The Alpha & Omega. Everything.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

The Christian god was originally a thunder god, to be simplistic. He later assumed all the responsibilities of his pantheon.

[Bix]

Hmm....I guess what I'm asking for is more of a Christian witche's perspective on him. A Thunder god? Never heard of that before, hehe.

[Mab]

Hmm....I guess what I'm asking for is more of a Christian witche's perspective on him. A Thunder god? Never heard of that before, hehe.
I've never heard that, either. Ever. Thunder god that assumed the responsibilities of his pantheon? He didn't HAVE a pantheon. God is God is God--the One, the All.

I'm a Christian witch, and I don't really think I've ever thought of God as having characteristics like gods in other pantheons.

[whisper54]

Bix, I'm curious about the title 'Christian Witch' isnt that a contradiction in terms, sort of an oxymoron, a conflict of intrests??? How does your minister feel about this? Witches are traditionaly Pagan how do reconcile this? Is this like haveing your cake and eating it too? No disrespect intended like I said, just curious. If it's alright I'd like to ask Mab the same thing. You don't have to get defensive or anything, just looking for info.

By the way, if its alright, how old are you? This might help us in finding information you can use. It's OK to be young, we all were at one time. It's not alright to be young and a know it all, so it's a good thing you did when you asked a real question.

As for thunder gods, I think just about every ancient pagan religion had a storm God. You might try Frazer's 'Golden Bough, a study in magic and religion' It's a classic, a bit dry at times, but a real store house of Pagan lore from all around the world, ancient and modern.

In the Sumerian religion, Enki, lord of this planet, was considered the predecessor to the Christian God.

I have a feeling that you're going to run into trouble when you try to define your practices as a witch and a Christian at the same time. Eventually you are going to have to drop one or the other. but that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Bix]

Whipser54, I'm not a Christian witch...never said I was. I haven't been to church in at least three years. I'm just asking I'd like a more pagan perspective on the Christian god. I've been Wiccan for a couple of years now, so I appreciate your request to give me more information but I really don't need that. This question was just an idea that popped into my mind. My age is in my profile, if you care to know.

I was just thinking about how in the Bible it said God is a loving and merciful god yet you should also fear him. That just kinda got me in a train of thought about what attributes were put on him. Thank you Mab for giving your opinion. I guess since he is the alpha and omega, -everything- is attributed to him, hehe.

[Mab]

Actually, Whisper, I would say you are very wrong. There are a number of Christian witches here. It's not a matter of fitting into a box, or someone's definition of what a "good Christian" is. I am a Christian. I don't have a minister. I don't give a hang what any preacher says about me. I was born with certain abilities. They have become stronger since I have begun my practice & study. Actually, if you study ancient Christianity, you'll find there are a lot of Christian mystics & Christian mystical sects.

Frankly, I don't see how it's so hard to reconcile practicing witchcraft (not Wicca) and believing in Jesus as Messiah. Especially if one considers the idea of God as neither male nor female, but both--and perfect justice, perfect love, perfect compassion, perfect knowledge, perfect honesty......God as the balance of all things.

I understand that it is the way I was raised, and not all Christians believe as I do, but I've found that "Alpha & Omega" verse quoted a number of times in a number of different denominations. I don't know that it's going to be very easy to get a Pagan perspective or description of the Christian God, since a lot of Pagans (the one's I've met, anyways) simply don't believe in him.

[Bix]

I agree. I'm more prone to accept Christian witchcraft and mysticism than Christian Wicca.

[Sara]

Sorry, I mean no disrespect at all, I'm new. But in the studying I've been doing, I was under the impression that Christians thought withcraft was evil.
Please don't be hard on me, I'm still learning.

[Mab]

Depends on which Christians you talk to, Sara. The word "witch" in Scripture is a mistranslation. Also, there is a book on Ancient Christian Magic that even gives spells taken from ancient texts. If you take the view that the Bible has been through a number of translations & versions, and the fact that it is subject to the influences of the socio-economic & geo-political conditions at the times of writing, and the fact that even though it's divinely inspired, the men that wrote it were---well---yes, human.....then it's very possible to combine the two seemingly contradictory ideas & practices.

[Sara]

Right, it's possible for us the combine the two, but Christian views have changes so much over time in reguards to withcraft that it's no longer acceptable by Christians

[Mab]

Not necessarily. I'm a Christian, and I accept witchcraft. I accept, too, that the fact that I can watch tv, cook dinner in 5 minutes, and chat with ppl all over the world via a box on my couch would be considered witchcraft by some.....

It's all in how you define it. To me, magic is more science & physics than anything else.

[Jenne]

Well, the Bible, which has two main sections--The Old Testament and The New Testament--shows really two different versions of God. And yes, there's a verse in the Bible that describes God as The Beginning and The End (Alpha/Omega--all things to all people), but he's also in 3 parts, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (which some have found to really be the feminine in the 3-part deity).

The OT God is the God of the Jews, Yahweh, and he's powerful, somewhat dictatorial, and pretty angry a lot of the time. He's very involved in getting the Jews and their 12 tribes from one place to another, teaching them lessons, harsh ones at that, and preparing the way through various prophets for his son to visit Earth.

In The NT God sort of fades a bit into the woodwork as Jesus the Son of God takes center stage, and then the disciples come in, who're Jesus's followers, who tell of his teachings and explain them afterward, even long after his death, and even after not really having known him (Paul) but instead were inspired by Jesus and God to do so.

So, I guess you could say there's a 3-part pantheon: God the Father, who's a self-described "jealous" God (he wants no other gods before him--he's the one and only), and God's Son, Jesus, who came to Earth to fulfill his father's mission, and then the Holy Spirit, who "ministers" to Jesus while on Earth, and fills his followers with a "holy" sense of God, inspiring them to write about him in the Bible.

So...yeah, that's about what I could come up with on that one...interesting Q.

[Bix]

Well, the Bible, which has two main sections--The Old Testament and The New Testament--shows really two different versions of God. And yes, there's a verse in the Bible that describes God as The Beginning and The End (Alpha/Omega--all things to all people), but he's also in 3 parts, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (which some have found to really be the feminine in the 3-part deity).

The OT God is the God of the Jews, Yahweh, and he's powerful, somewhat dictatorial, and pretty angry a lot of the time. He's very involved in getting the Jews and their 12 tribes from one place to another, teaching them lessons, harsh ones at that, and preparing the way through various prophets for his son to visit Earth.

In The NT God sort of fades a bit into the woodwork as Jesus the Son of God takes center stage, and then the disciples come in, who're Jesus's followers, who tell of his teachings and explain them afterward, even long after his death, and even after not really having known him (Paul) but instead were inspired by Jesus and God to do so.

So, I guess you could say there's a 3-part pantheon: God the Father, who's a self-described "jealous" God (he wants no other gods before him--he's the one and only), and God's Son, Jesus, who came to Earth to fulfill his father's mission, and then the Holy Spirit, who "ministers" to Jesus while on Earth, and fills his followers with a "holy" sense of God, inspiring them to write about him in the Bible.

So...yeah, that's about what I could come up with on that one...interesting Q.

Thanks for the input. The New Testament and Old Testament versions of God seem wildly different. That's kinda what got me thinking on this whole idea.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

I've never hear that, either. Ever. Thunder god that assumed the responsibilities of his pantheon? He didn't HAVE a pantheon.

To clarify, I wasn't speaking from a Christian mythology standpoint, but a real-world one. The Hebrews were polytheistic, then henotheistic, and only monotheistic later.

[Mab]

To clarify, I wasn't speaking from a Christian mythology standpoint, but a real-world one. The Hebrews were polytheistic, then henotheistic, and only monotheistic later.
I understand, but I have still never heard this.

And, I'm not sure I agree with your wording that there's a "Christian mythology standpoint" versus a "real-world one." It just seems very patronizing to me....as if I were to say "I'm not speaking from a Pagan mythology standpoint b/c that's not real, you silly thing. That's just stories."

[Mab]

Thanks for the input. The New Testament and Old Testament versions of God seem wildly different. That's kinda what got me thinking on this whole idea.
Personally, I have always understood it that gods in general are not stuck in one mold---that is that they cannot change the methods in which they deal with humans. As I understand it, God dealt with His ppl as necessary, in terms they understood, in the Old Testament. Also, as I understand it, "testament" in the original languages translates as "contract". With the New Testament, God didn't have to deal quite so directly with His ppl b/c He sent his Son to be his personification on Earth to teach.

I guess......what I'm trying to say is that as ppl evolved & changed & became more sophisticated, so God was able to deal with them in more sophisticated manners that they could understand. Kinda like raising a kid. At first you just say "NO!" But later, when they can understand more complicated concepts, you can explain "No, you shouldn't do that because...."

[DraoinanDuanaire]

I'm just being objective. I understand my own beliefs are mythology to those who do not share them. No offense meant. :)

Most people raised in Christian societies haven't heard that their god (the YHWH part) used to be considered a thunder god by the tribes we would later call Israelites because they're taught in a Christian worldview. That's simply not the kind of information that's included. Echoes of the earlier polytheism are still found in some Jewish practices or beliefs (Shekhina, etc.), but it mostly lost popularity when the Hebrews became henotheistic (and the body of tradition that would make up the Torah started to gel together). This attitude of henotheism (i.e., we worship this god, but other gods are real) permeates that work; note that the first "biggie" commandment reinforces the idea that now, only YHWH is to be worshipped. Not that YHWH is the all or only, but that other gods are forbidden to loyal worshippers of YHWH.

But anyway. Sorry to range away from the topic. :bouncybob

[Bix]

Personally, I have always understood it that gods in general are not stuck in one mold---that is that they cannot change the methods in which they deal with humans. As I understand it, God dealt with His ppl as necessary, in terms they understood, in the Old Testament. Also, as I understand it, "testament" in the original languages translates as "contract". With the New Testament, God didn't have to deal quite so directly with His ppl b/c He sent his Son to be his personification on Earth to teach.

I guess......what I'm trying to say is that as ppl evolved & changed & became more sophisticated, so God was able to deal with them in more sophisticated manners that they could understand. Kinda like raising a kid. At first you just say "NO!" But later, when they can understand more complicated concepts, you can explain "No, you shouldn't do that because...."
Could God have changed as well, and not just the human perspective on him?

[Sundragon]

I've never hear that, either. Ever. Thunder god that assumed the responsibilities of his pantheon? He didn't HAVE a pantheon. God is God is God--the One, the All.

I'm a Christian witch, and I don't really think I've ever thought of God as having characteristics like gots in other pantheons.

You are responding in faith though archeology indicates that YHWH was indeed one god in a pantheon of gods:

"Yahweh appears to have been originally a sky god - a god of thunder and lightning. He was associated with mountains and was called by the enemies of Israel 'a god of the hills'. His manifestation was often as fire, as at Mount Sinai and in the burning bush."
"A shorter form, 'Yah', was also used (Exodus 15:2) and some scholars believe that this is the older form, originating in an exclamation to God - 'Yah!' - which came to be accepted as the divine name. Others claim that it is from the root 'hayah', 'to be' or 'to become', and that it meant 'I am that I am' or I will be that I will be'. According to one tradition of the call of Moses, the divine name Yahweh was revealed to him in Egypt:"

- Great Events of Bible Times

Actually there is a wealth of information available here: http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html

It is comman scholarly understanding that YHWH was at first part of a pantheon and eventually his cult achieved dominance in Israel becoming the only God worshipped by the ancient Hebrews.


Blessed Be,

Chris

[Mab]

Could God have changed as well, and not just the human perspective on him?
Isn't that what I said? Maybe I said it wrong.

And just for the record, I have done lots of study outside of a Christian worldview, and I still hadn't heard of any pantheon. Not saying it doesn't exist or that it's wrong, just saying I've never heard it.

[AlAskendir]

I know throughout many pantheons and various mythologies that gods and goddesses had various attributes assigned to them. Hermes has communication, Athena has wisdom, Ares has war, etc.

So what attributes are assigned to the Christian God? Also, how does the Christian God fit into the all gods are aspects of one god phenomena?


Do you mean in general, in my own belief system or what?

In general, I find the Christian God to be so affected by the thought-forms of those that seem to think that they are worshipping Him, that 'he' is completely unclear and almost absolutely insane. These are the people who don't seem to realize that 'God' is not a name, but a title, who think that saying 'G*d damn it!' is somehow taking God's name in vain, so the 'God'-thought-form they construct to worship doesn't match up very well with anything....in my experience.

In my own belief system the One is perpetually seperated/ interpenetrating Goddess (whom I call Shekinah) and God (whom I call JHVH), and while the Goddess invented the concept of seperating a being's body, mind, and soul as a means of faster learning of the mind based on the body's senses, 'refreshed' occasionally by bodily death and rebirth, leading to faster evolution of the soul (faster meaning faster than is so for immortals), and became alarmed by some of the inventions of the mortals before Tiamat was seperated into the asteroid belt and Gaea; the God became very enamored of Her idea and applied it retroactively to Himself back to the beginning of time, becoming a Deific mortal Body-person, Deific mortal Mind-person, and Deific mortal Spirit-person, each with their own names, ways of doing things, etc. The God Body-person was Jesus, but was also Osiris, Balder, and many, many others, and for that matter is the living-dying-resurrecting symbol of all mortals, everywhere and everywhen.

So, for me, God the Body is about living, loving, doing, being, reacting, learning, teaching, dying, and being born (in no particular order).

For me, God the Mind is about conceiving, designing, speaking, directing, connecting, commanding parts of the universe to be or to change, determining, and even judging.

For me, God the Spirit is about understanding, communicating, transcending, discovering, and being, all at once, every God, every Goddess, every spirit, every deva, every genii, every faerie, every plant, every animal, and every mortal,, and being the inexplicable, indefinable, unmanifest, sentient beyondness, and the mystery.

And yet, like being different dimensions for Deity catagorization, I see all Gods and all Goddesses being part of Deity in yet a different way, less easily explainable or imaginable, similar to the way that all mortals are parts of the One...I don't like the word 'aspect' because it imples 'just an aspect', like Ares is the One when He's angry or something. I feel that the Goddesses and Gods are parts of the One the way that we mortals are parts of the One - - - that each of them has chosen 'I am a part of the One who does ___, who feels ___, who believes ___.'

[AlAskendir]

Bix, I'm curious about the title 'Christian Witch' isnt that a contradiction in terms, sort of an oxymoron, a conflict of intrests???



I don't know how he responded, but not in the least!
Christian covers an amazingly wide spectrum. There are Christians who believe that every word in the bible is the literal truth, and thus do not put their faith in medicines (pharmakia); other Christians believe that the entire bible is a huge pun-metaphor (see Christian Gnostic Gematria); most Christian groups and individuals fall somewhere between these two extremes. So it depends on whether the Christian in particular believes that magick is sinful, on whether it is possible for a human to avoid sinning, and on whether all sin has already been forgiven. Not being an active Christian anymore, I could not possibly say which of these is 'right', if any; but if " magick is not sinful", then there's no conflict;; if humans cannot avoid sinning, then it doesn't matter whether magick is sinful or not;;; if all sins have already been forgiven, it also doesn't matter.

So, it's only a conflict if you believe you can't be a witch without being Wiccan, and as a ChaosWitch, I have problems with that stance as well.

[AlAskendir]

I understand, but I have still never heard this.

And, I'm not sure I agree with your wording that there's a "Christian mythology standpoint" versus a "real-world one." It just seems very patronizing to me....as if I were to say "I'm not speaking from a Pagan mythology standpoint b/c that's not real, you silly thing. That's just stories."

'Mythology' does not mean 'just stories'. I'm not sure exactly what she meant, but there are doctrines not supported by scripture, which is one version of what a religion's mythology might be. 'Mytrhology' implies a level of inspiration and transcendant mystery that 'just stories' or 'fables' don't have.

To nut-shell it, The Lord of the Rings is 'just stories', The Silmarillion is 'mythology', The Second World War is reality.

[Avlyn]

Sorry, I mean no disrespect at all, I'm new. But in the studying I've been doing, I was under the impression that Christians thought withcraft was evil.
Please don't be hard on me, I'm still learning.

Sara you're right the 'ordinairy' christians do believe it is wrong. Or to be exact they call it evil. There's a lot of paradox and I must say I don't know how to combine this: christian witch. Somehow I feel connected.

Am I allowed to ask links about the early christian resources, resources christian witches use? I'd like to check them out. :weirdsmil

[Darth Brooks]

I know throughout many pantheons and various mythologies that gods and goddesses had various attributes assigned to them. Hermes has communication, Athena has wisdom, Ares has war, etc.

So what attributes are assigned to the Christian God? Also, how does the Christian God fit into the all gods are aspects of one god phenomena?

The absolute best place for information on attributes of the Christian God is the Christian Bible. But this website does a pretty okay job of summing up some of the more important biblical attributes:

http://www.truthandgrace.com/Triunity.htm

If you've never read the Christian Bible, I think you should give it a whirl. And before anybody jumps on me for trying to proselytize anyone, allow me to point out that I am not a Christian, but a Setian. However, I believe there is just as much to be gained from studying the Bible as there is from studying any other mythology.


The Christian god was originally a thunder god, to be simplistic. He later assumed all the responsibilities of his pantheon.

I have heard this theory before, although I am doubtful of its accuracy. I do know that one of the Hebrew names for the Jewish god is "Elohim," which is actually plural and may once have been used to refer to a Hebrew pantheon. However, this is not an undisputed fact so far as I know, but only a theory. I also remember that Merlin Stone suggested in her book, When God Was A Woman, that Yahweh was originally a volcano god. I'm not so sure I agree with that either.

However, it is clear to me from my studies of Greco-Roman Typhonianism that the Jewish god was identified by Typhonian hermeticists with the Egyptian god Set. (Specifically, Hebrew god names like "Iah" and "Sabaoth" were used to invoke Set in Typhonian ritual.) This is an association which seems uncomfortable for most Jews and Kemeticists, but which makes perfect sense to me. For more information, I refer you to Don Webb's The Seven Faces Of Darkness: Practical Typhonian Magic.


Bix, I'm curious about the title 'Christian Witch' isnt that a contradiction in terms, sort of an oxymoron, a conflict of intrests??? How does your minister feel about this? Witches are traditionaly Pagan how do reconcile this? Is this like haveing your cake and eating it too? No disrespect intended like I said, just curious. If it's alright I'd like to ask Mab the same thing. You don't have to get defensive or anything, just looking for info.

I don't mean to come across as defensive, but who exactly makes up all these rules? Who made it a rule that witches have to be Pagan, or that Christians can't be witches? This is the twenty-first century. A person can believe whatever the heck they want to believe. And if they want to mix and match different things from different belief systems, that is their prerogative. And nobody - absolutely nobody - has any business telling them that they "can't" do it.

There once was a man who believed in Jesus, Buddha, Allah, and the Hindu gods at the very same time. Yeah, it sounds like a crazy combination, and it's definitely not my cup of tea. And people were quite confused by his beliefs. But those beliefs worked for him, and being Christian, Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu at the same time was what made him most comfortable. Not only that, but the man went on to win India's independence without resorting to any form of violence whatsoever. That man's name was Mohandas K. Gandhi.


In the Sumerian religion, Enki, lord of this planet, was considered the predecessor to the Christian God. I've seen it written by Samuel Noah Kramer that the Sumerian deity Anu was Yahweh's predecessor, not Enki. But my knowledge of Mesopotamian paganism is somewhat rusty.


I have a feeling that you're going to run into trouble when you try to define your practices as a witch and a Christian at the same time. Eventually you are going to have to drop one or the other. but that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.Every person of every religion runs into some kind of trouble no matter what they do. Nobody has to drop anything they don't want to drop. Again, who makes these rules? Who is holding a gun to our heads, telling us that we can't be Christians and witches at the same time?


Whipser54, I'm not a Christian witch...never said I was. I haven't been to church in at least three years. I'm just asking I'd like a more pagan perspective on the Christian god.

Check the Don Webb book I mentioned earlier, if you can locate a copy. You might also wish to scope out Lynn Picknett's The Secret History Of Lucifer, in which she offers some theories about Yahweh's pagan origins. However, I should point out that some of Picknett's conclusions are highly questionable, and that her attitude toward Yahweh is somewhat prejudiced.


I was just thinking about how in the Bible it said God is a loving and merciful god yet you should also fear him.It seems to me that most deities have fearsome aspects; many of them can be loving, but the same ones can also be quite disconcerting at times. I don't think they'd really be deities otherwise.


Sorry, I mean no disrespect at all, I'm new. But in the studying I've been doing, I was under the impression that Christians thought withcraft was evil.
Please don't be hard on me, I'm still learning.

It's certainly true that many Christians consider witchcraft to be evil, but not all Christians do. Some Christians actually practice what Jesus preached, which was that we should love our neighbors and judge not, lest we be judged.

[Infinite Grey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llCm3gLU6tM&feature=PlayList&p=1CBBD64F47028971&index=6

[MariThorn]

This is a really interesting post. (When you get past the normal witches cannot be Christians part.)

As a Catholic my pantheon consists of God. Keeping mind that God is three beings in one, but it is still God. The Church teaches in the Catechism that God is omnipotent and omnitient [sic] ergo it is a Mystery and in essence is Truth. You may hear different Christians praying to "God" or "Jesus", but in their mind it is One being. They don't have three deities, they don't see Mary as a Goddess, and they don't see the Saints as God/desses either. (I'm talking about mainstream Christians, irregardless of their sect.) That is their pantheon.

Now a Christian witch may see things differently, given their own personal belief system. Some will worship God, Mary, and Jesus. Some will worship God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I would advise checking out the Christian Witch section as I'm rather certain we have all contributed our own pov's about this there in a posting.

As for Christian myths or mythology . . . They believe the Holy Bible. (Some quite literally, and others see many parts as allegories.) Creation myth is in Genesis, myth about languages is in the same book. They don't really have myths to explain the Seasons, why volcanoes erupt, or other things that are commonly explained in other religions or cultures through myths. Their eschatology is in Revelations. But if you want to know what they base their lives upon, for the most part, your looking at 66 (I believe) books bound into one. (Note that us Catholics have extras :) ) In truth, Christianity has as many opinions about things as Witches do . . . and each Christian will give your their ideas. If your asking about a Christian witch, then we will see things a bit differently at times. Christian Wiccans are an entirely different breed, too.

[Lady White Tree]

First of all God is not a "he". This masculine tint comes from a more sexist period AFTER the time of Jesus Christ. As far the Christian God is typified, most fundamentalist Christian religions take much of the Bible literally except the phrase "God is Love." But that is the literal truth. God is love and needs to be nothing more.

This God is not Christian alone.

This God is the Source of all light and love.

This God is not masculine or feminine, but both.

This God is Union.

This God has been devolved into partial aspects to suit particular religious requirements. But the whole, being inclusive and not exclusive, is too frightening for many to contemplate.

To imagine that you could be both Christian and Witch, to be both Buddhist and Spiritualist, Jewish and Mystic is too confronting. But there are many paths to the God Source Eternal, and none are exclusive.

Christianity, is in essence, a belief in eternal life through the Christ. The worship of nature is the worship of creation, the worship of life. Why do we seek to divulge the differences between our religious beliefs, when there are far more similarities?

[Aldrick]

Well, the Bible, which has two main sections--The Old Testament and The New Testament--shows really two different versions of God. And yes, there's a verse in the Bible that describes God as The Beginning and The End (Alpha/Omega--all things to all people), but he's also in 3 parts, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (which some have found to really be the feminine in the 3-part deity).

The OT God is the God of the Jews, Yahweh, and he's powerful, somewhat dictatorial, and pretty angry a lot of the time. He's very involved in getting the Jews and their 12 tribes from one place to another, teaching them lessons, harsh ones at that, and preparing the way through various prophets for his son to visit Earth.

In The NT God sort of fades a bit into the woodwork as Jesus the Son of God takes center stage, and then the disciples come in, who're Jesus's followers, who tell of his teachings and explain them afterward, even long after his death, and even after not really having known him (Paul) but instead were inspired by Jesus and God to do so.

So, I guess you could say there's a 3-part pantheon: God the Father, who's a self-described "jealous" God (he wants no other gods before him--he's the one and only), and God's Son, Jesus, who came to Earth to fulfill his father's mission, and then the Holy Spirit, who "ministers" to Jesus while on Earth, and fills his followers with a "holy" sense of God, inspiring them to write about him in the Bible.

So...yeah, that's about what I could come up with on that one...interesting Q.

If it's alright with you - I'd like to throw something into the middle of that.
Taken from three Theological Philosophies/Religious Scriptures.

The Quar'an, Bible and Buddhism.

All three state that there have been many prophets and all three state that there will be false prophets. The Quar'an takes it a step further and actually explains why Muhammad was sent and why the Quar'an exists - Muslims believe that the Quar'an was sent to the prophet Muhammad because we (mankind) got a lot of the messages in the bible wrong.

Whether due to mistranslations, alterations, or man's own dictating hand (like the Council of Nicaea) and as Jesus had done previously, Muhammad was here to refresh the message and teachings of God/Allah. Now you stated that the Old and New Testament show two very different Gods - yet then state that in the New Testament the God is more in the background and Jesus takes central stage... well that doesn't seem fair to say that God has done a 180 since it isn't him we're focused on anymore. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad... all prophets of God and the core msg remains the same between them al - only the stories and supposed interactions change; but also keep in mind that the Bible is all written through third perspective. Even the Gospels of the NT, they discuss Jesus talking to his desciples but all still written through the eyes of a third party.

We constantly give God/Allah human characteristics because it's all we can comprehend - it's like drawing a figure on paper. All that figure would know is Up, Down, Left and Right. Draw a box around the figure and it's stuck. But if someone who were capable of doing so were to lift that figure out of the box it'd experience something it couldn't fathom - could it explain this? No, so instead it would attempt by using the limitations that it knows, very possibly getting things 100% wrong.

Maybe God never changed, we just started comprehending God differently - and the later prophets were sent to refresh and correct what mistakes we made because of our limited and fallible comprehension abilities.

[Moonlight's Daughter]

I agree. I'm more prone to accept Christian witchcraft and mysticism than Christian Wicca.

I agree. Wicca is a religion, and Witchcraft is usually a Craft (but can be a religion depending on the person) I dont see Wicca compatible with Christianity but I can see how you can blend Christianity and Witchcraft (depending on the branch of Christianity)

Just my opinion-no disrespect intended.

[Louisvillian]

No, that's actually quite true. Wicca and Christianity are incompatible because Wicca is by its own definitions, a polytheistic and pagan religion, while Christianity is by its own definitions, a monotheistic and ecclesiastic religion. They are two completely different things.

Christian Witchcraft is easily possible, and has been done literally for over a thousand years; only, they thought of it as folk magic, never using the term witchcraft. Esoteric Christianity during the Renaissance and Baroque ages brought folk practices to even greater heights as a ritual act, and even mixed it with Jewish mysticism and Hermeticism. The Rosicrucian Order is a prime example of Esoteric Christianity in practice.

[Death the Kid]

The Quar'an, Bible and Buddhism.

All three state that there have been many prophets and all three state that there will be false prophets.
Buddhism doesn't talk about prophets, although perhaps you meant that in the loosest sense of the term. I'm not sure what that loose term would be, though. Could you clarify, perhaps?

Buddhism talks about a "future" Buddha who will arrive after current Buddhist thought dies out completely, is that what you're referring to? I know that there have been some unsavory characters who have claimed to be this future Buddha (Maitreya) and who have all been denounced and laughed out of publicity for their transparency.

[Aldrick]

Buddhism doesn't talk about prophets, although perhaps you meant that in the loosest sense of the term. I'm not sure what that loose term would be, though. Could you clarify, perhaps?

Buddhism talks about a "future" Buddha who will arrive after current Buddhist thought dies out completely, is that what you're referring to? I know that there have been some unsavory characters who have claimed to be this future Buddha (Maitreya) and who have all been denounced and laughed out of publicity for their transparency.

Buddhism was mentioned as more towards warning of false 'prophets'. The term prophet itself was only used to maintain context of the rest of the post - I was more-so reffering to the warning against false people claiming enlightenment (or being prophets) for, as you mentioned, personal gain (publicity, etc).

The old parable: What should you do if you met the Buddha walking along the street? Kill him, for it isn't the real Buddha - but more likely a manifestation of your own longings and desires.

I probably should have included that in the first post as to quell any confusion and add more context to why Buddhism was added. I found it fitting with the rest of the post and Muhammad claiming he was sent because Christianity corrupted Jesus' teachings. Just as Jesus stating he was sent because the Jewish priests corrupted Moses' teachings...


No, that's actually quite true. Wicca and Christianity are incompatible because Wicca is by its own definitions, a polytheistic and pagan religion, while Christianity is by its own definitions, a monotheistic and ecclesiastic religion. They are two completely different things

Christianity is considered by many to be Polytheistic, simply because of the Holy Trinity. That's not even getting into the Catholics who also worship Mary...

[Louisvillian]

Christianity is considered by many to be Polytheistic, simply because of the Holy Trinity. That's not even getting into the Catholics who also worship Mary...
:bangyourh
Who? No one with a rational mind thinks Christianity is polytheistic. That's an utterly ridiculous notion. Christianity is, by definition, a monotheistic religion.
The Trinity in Christianity is not at all polytheistic; they might be three manifestations of the Christian god, but it is still one single deity.
Furthermore, Catholics don't worship Mary or any of the Saints. If you tell any Catholic that they do, they'll slap you for displaying an insane degree of ignorance, and rightfully so. There is a clear difference between worshipping and venerating something.

PS) Yes, I know this might sound insulting; get the **** over it. I do not tolerate stupid statements, especially not at 8 a.m.

[Aldrick]

:bangyourh
Who? No one with a rational mind thinks Christianity is polytheistic. That's an utterly ridiculous notion. Christianity is, by definition, a monotheistic religion.
The Trinity in Christianity is not at all polytheistic; they might be three manifestations of the Christian god, but it is still one single deity.
Furthermore, Catholics don't worship Mary or any of the Saints. If you tell any Catholic that they do, they'll slap you for displaying an insane degree of ignorance, and rightfully so. There is a clear difference between worshipping and venerating something.

PS) Yes, I know this might sound insulting; get the **** over it. I do not tolerate stupid statements, especially not at 8 a.m.

No one?
The Muslim religion considers the concept of the Trinity to be Polytheistic.
Did I say that I was such a person? No - I didn't, but there are people who do consider it as such and it's a viable oppinion. I don't know your beliefs so I can't make an accurate metaphor in retort but that's pretty bold of you as to say something like "No person with a rational mind thinks..."

Especially knowing, on this board alone, how many open minded thinkers are here and how many different beliefs and such are present. It's like saying that no person with a rational mind thinks that they can affect the elements.. or (if you want to get more personal and make a statement that you could actually direct towards me) "No person with a rational mind thinks dragons exist" ...

As for Mary and the Saints - Many people have very different oppinions on this, Catholics obviously don't consider the adoration as Idol Worship, even with all the statues and figures and many non Catholic Christians see it otherwise. The degree of Idolization that Mary and the Saints recieve from Catholocism could very well go 'over the line' - who is to say what is the acceptable amount of admiration? I didn't mean to make it sound as though I were doing anything other then expressing that some people could feel this way.

Also, wouldn't it depend on the Catholic... are you going to also state that no Catholic in the world could be guilty of 'Worshiping' Mary or another Saint? To state so adamently about something, which isn't a Black and White issue, as though your oppinion were, excuse the pun, the word of God; Is pretty audacious. I however, have no doubt that you were not attempting to portray yourself as such - as you said, the posts were made very early in the morning. And don't worry your post was no-where near insulting so there is nothing for me to "Get the **** over"

BTW, don't retort in a way that assumes my oppinion on anything I've posted considering that this post and the portion of the post you previously responded to were simply me expressing the beliefs and oppinions that others have and share instead of expressing my own.

[MariThorn]

No one?
The Muslim religion considers the concept of the Trinity to be Polytheistic.
Did I say that I was such a person? No - I didn't, but there are people who do consider it as such and it's a viable oppinion. I don't know your beliefs so I can't make an accurate metaphor in retort but that's pretty bold of you as to say something like "No person with a rational mind thinks..."

Especially knowing, on this board alone, how many open minded thinkers are here and how many different beliefs and such are present. It's like saying that no person with a rational mind thinks that they can affect the elements.. or (if you want to get more personal and make a statement that you could actually direct towards me) "No person with a rational mind thinks dragons exist" ...

As for Mary and the Saints - Many people have very different oppinions on this, Catholics obviously don't consider the adoration as Idol Worship, even with all the statues and figures and many non Catholic Christians see it otherwise. The degree of Idolization that Mary and the Saints recieve from Catholocism could very well go 'over the line' - who is to say what is the acceptable amount of admiration? I didn't mean to make it sound as though I were doing anything other then expressing that some people could feel this way.

Also, wouldn't it depend on the Catholic... are you going to also state that no Catholic in the world could be guilty of 'Worshiping' Mary or another Saint? To state so adamently about something, which isn't a Black and White issue, as though your oppinion were, excuse the pun, the word of God; Is pretty audacious. I however, have no doubt that you were not attempting to portray yourself as such - as you said, the posts were made very early in the morning. And don't worry your post was no-where near insulting so there is nothing for me to "Get the **** over"

BTW, don't retort in a way that assumes my oppinion on anything I've posted considering that this post and the portion of the post you previously responded to were simply me expressing the beliefs and oppinions that others have and share instead of expressing my own.

If what you intended to say is that, " It is rumored by non Catholics that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary and the Saints." Then please by all means say so. What you have said is something called heresy . . . and while there are those who think that looking up to someone as an example to live your life (ie veneration) can become idol worship, I do not know of one Catholic personally who thinks that Mary is a Goddess or equal to God the Father. What you ascertained in your other post is that ALL Catholics commit this HERESY, and that is wrong. She was a human being, and she is a saint now. The only thing Catholics believe she can do is intercede on our behalf with her Son, which is why we pray to her and the saints. (This is Biblical by the way.) We have statues of the saints like you have a picture of someone you look up to or want to remember after they are dead. The only miracles they perform are those that God allows them to, and for his glory.

Furthermore, the question was about Christianity not Islam or Buddhism. Christians do not believe in more than one God. The trinity is not viewed as three seperate Gods. It is three in one, a mystery. What a Christian witch or Wiccan might perceive regarding the Trinity or God is not the same as what a straight Christian would feel. And as a Catholic witch, yes I was offended by your smear . . . you want to talk about an open minded forum? Well, I never thought I would read rhetoric and lies pumped about by conservative Protestants to enter a scholarly debate on Mystic Wicks. What next? Wiccans worship the devil and all a circle is an orgy? Next time someone wants to make a statement about a religious group, please state a fact, not your or someone else's opinion.

[David19]

The absolute best place for information on attributes of the Christian God is the Christian Bible. But this website does a pretty okay job of summing up some of the more important biblical attributes:

http://www.truthandgrace.com/Triunity.htm

If you've never read the Christian Bible, I think you should give it a whirl. And before anybody jumps on me for trying to proselytize anyone, allow me to point out that I am not a Christian, but a Setian. However, I believe there is just as much to be gained from studying the Bible as there is from studying any other mythology.



I have heard this theory before, although I am doubtful of its accuracy. I do know that one of the Hebrew names for the Jewish god is "Elohim," which is actually plural and may once have been used to refer to a Hebrew pantheon. However, this is not an undisputed fact so far as I know, but only a theory. I also remember that Merlin Stone suggested in her book, When God Was A Woman, that Yahweh was originally a volcano god. I'm not so sure I agree with that either.

However, it is clear to me from my studies of Greco-Roman Typhonianism that the Jewish god was identified by Typhonian hermeticists with the Egyptian god Set. (Specifically, Hebrew god names like "Iah" and "Sabaoth" were used to invoke Set in Typhonian ritual.) This is an association which seems uncomfortable for most Jews and Kemeticists, but which makes perfect sense to me. For more information, I refer you to Don Webb's The Seven Faces Of Darkness: Practical Typhonian Magic.



I don't mean to come across as defensive, but who exactly makes up all these rules? Who made it a rule that witches have to be Pagan, or that Christians can't be witches? This is the twenty-first century. A person can believe whatever the heck they want to believe. And if they want to mix and match different things from different belief systems, that is their prerogative. And nobody - absolutely nobody - has any business telling them that they "can't" do it.

There once was a man who believed in Jesus, Buddha, Allah, and the Hindu gods at the very same time. Yeah, it sounds like a crazy combination, and it's definitely not my cup of tea. And people were quite confused by his beliefs. But those beliefs worked for him, and being Christian, Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu at the same time was what made him most comfortable. Not only that, but the man went on to win India's independence without resorting to any form of violence whatsoever. That man's name was Mohandas K. Gandhi.

I've seen it written by Samuel Noah Kramer that the Sumerian deity Anu was Yahweh's predecessor, not Enki. But my knowledge of Mesopotamian paganism is somewhat rusty.

Every person of every religion runs into some kind of trouble no matter what they do. Nobody has to drop anything they don't want to drop. Again, who makes these rules? Who is holding a gun to our heads, telling us that we can't be Christians and witches at the same time?



Check the Don Webb book I mentioned earlier, if you can locate a copy. You might also wish to scope out Lynn Picknett's The Secret History Of Lucifer, in which she offers some theories about Yahweh's pagan origins. However, I should point out that some of Picknett's conclusions are highly questionable, and that her attitude toward Yahweh is somewhat prejudiced.

It seems to me that most deities have fearsome aspects; many of them can be loving, but the same ones can also be quite disconcerting at times. I don't think they'd really be deities otherwise.



It's certainly true that many Christians consider witchcraft to be evil, but not all Christians do. Some Christians actually practice what Jesus preached, which was that we should love our neighbors and judge not, lest we be judged.

Againl, interesting info, I've also seen some people say YHWH was originally a "thunder" God, but, I'm not sure if I buy that theory, personally, I don't think any deity can be put into any category, whether it's "thunder", "love", etc, they might specalise in something, but, they aren't just limited to that.

Like I've told you before, I really find the links between YHWH and Seth-Typhoon quite interesting.

Also, thanks for that link :).

[David19]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llCm3gLU6tM&feature=PlayList&p=1CBBD64F47028971&index=6

Thanks for that video.

[Aldrick]

I do not know of one Catholic personally who thinks that Mary is a Goddess or equal to God the Father. What you ascertained in your other post is that ALL Catholics commit this HERESY, and that is wrong.

Firstly - I expressed through my second post that it was not my intention to come accross as such. I appologize for not articulating myself better but, as was pointed out, it was a very early morning post - so sorry I didn't write out all of my thoughts and explinations. Although just because you don't know one doesn't mean there isn't one.
There could be one though, in all the world, it is a possibility...


Furthermore, the question was about Christianity not Islam
I'm sorry I see no difference between God/Allah - if you do then perhaps you should re-read both scriptures.


Christians do not believe in more than one God.
Once again, I never stated that they did - I stated that people can view Christianity/Catholocism as a Polytheistic Religion. I used Muslims as an example, do not put words in my mouth and do not put intentions that aren't there behind the words I stated.


What a Christian witch or Wiccan might perceive regarding the Trinity or God is not the same as what a straight Christian would feel.
Wow - you actually got one part of my post right, considering I stated that very thing except I used Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians.


And as a Catholic witch, yes I was offended by your smear . . . you want to talk about an open minded forum? Well, I never thought I would read rhetoric and lies pumped about by conservative Protestants to enter a scholarly debate on Mystic Wicks.

... Wow - Firstly, I didn't smear anyone, unless you're once again referring to the first post for which I already stated that wasn't my intention and I appologize as to how it was taken. Sincerely. Secondly, did you just call me a Conservative Protestant? You may not have intended it but for some reason I found that comment very offensive - especially considering you know nothing of my faith/belief system. And I am in no way Conservative...


Next time someone wants to make a statement about a religious group, please state a fact, not your or someone else's opinion.

Yeah, lets not state oppinions or beliefs in a discussion about Religion, lets stick to 100% Facts. That would certainly negate a lot of conversation...

--- Once again, I appologize for the first post and how it apparently was taken, it was not my intent; I only meant to express that there are people who take the concept of the Trinity as a Polytheistic concept.

1. I did not ever once say I was one of those people - Fact.
2. I DID say that the issue is seen differently by different people - Fact.
3. I did not ever once state that the Trinity MAKES Catholics/Christians Polytheistic. - Fact
4. I never said the same of Mary or the Saints - Fact

I have not once expressed or explained my personal Faith/Belief structure in these few posts so do NOT assume please. So as for stating my oppinion - it didn't happen. Why dont you re-read the post, especially the parts you bolded.

Once again - I simply expressed that Muslims do look at Christianity as Polytheistic - that is fact. Read the Quar'an. Just because you don't like that viewpoint doesn't mean it isn't there - I'm sorry you are offended by me enlightening you to the oppinion of someone else...

And I'm called the conservative.

[Kaliel]

I'm just gonna throw one thing in here on the witchcraft is wrong side of the thread.

If you really want to get down to it, Christians never had a problem with Pagans, not even in ancient times. If you happen to remember, it was the Romans having problems with controlling Pagans that caused the whole follow our religion or we'll kill you sort of attitude that swept across Europe.

So really, when you think about it, it wasn't ever the Christians saying Witchcraft was evil, it was the government, which then created churches like uh, the Roman Catholic church for instance, that said Witchcraft was wrong. As a government it was easier to rule people who were submissive to a set of beliefs and Christianity was that set of beliefs they chose. It was no different than submitting a group of people to a cult so they would all think, act, and do the same as everyone else.

Now at the same time, if you look at our government now, both in the US and Canada, what is their general stance on Witchcraft? They either turn to the athiest remark and say it's non existent, or they turn to the high and mighty role and say it's non relevant to running a country (which is ISN'T by the way, hello people! Witchcraft used to be exactly what made the villages and people survive!) and or they will say that it's not their belief. The point is, if you try to go any further than asking an opinion they toss it out like it doesn't matter.

So in all honesty, Christianity was never the culprit for saying Witchcraft was evil, it was government, and now our society is ruled by its government, and boom, that's where you get all these misconceptions that it's evil. Hell, if our very own government were pagan oriented they would friggin put OUR holidays on a calendar!! When's the last time they ever recognized DECEMBER 21ST or NOVEMBER 1st as a STATUTORY HOLIDAY!? It's because they don't believe in Pagan Ways, and it's NOT the Christian Church making the calendars, deciding when we get free paid days off work, and when it's okay to celebrate and eat Turkey . . . . . . no, they do it the Christian way but they rule the Christian church, the government isn't ruled by the Christian church they use it to keep order.

*steps off the soap box hoping not to have tomatoes thrown at her*

[MariThorn]

What I said was that the concept of Catholics worshipping Mary and the saints is something that is pumped out by Conservative Protestants, and that I found its inclusion here amazing. I never said you were a Protestant or a Conservative, or a Christian. (As a matter of fact I never bothered to read that your a Draconic Druid, and you are right I know nothing about your path and would never make any assertions one way or another about something I knew nothing about.)

I am a conservative in many ways it is true and I'll admit to it. I apologize if what I wrote upset you, as you have privately written me and apologized. What you may not be aware of is that Catholics are highly persecuted by other sects of Christianity, they haven't gotten over the past much and have problems working with forgiveness. They spread a lot of lies about what we believe and how we worship . . . and it is was really saddening to me to see them showing up in this forum. You are right, I cannot answer for each individual Catholic out there, but I can tell you that Church teaching is absolutely against what you hint at. And that is a fact.

[Darth Brooks]

I'm just gonna throw one thing in here on the witchcraft is wrong side of the thread.

If you really want to get down to it, Christians never had a problem with Pagans, not even in ancient times. If you happen to remember, it was the Romans having problems with controlling Pagans that caused the whole follow our religion or we'll kill you sort of attitude that swept across Europe.

So really, when you think about it, it wasn't ever the Christians saying Witchcraft was evil, it was the government, which then created churches like uh, the Roman Catholic church for instance, that said Witchcraft was wrong. As a government it was easier to rule people who were submissive to a set of beliefs and Christianity was that set of beliefs they chose. It was no different than submitting a group of people to a cult so they would all think, act, and do the same as everyone else.

Now at the same time, if you look at our government now, both in the US and Canada, what is their general stance on Witchcraft? They either turn to the athiest remark and say it's non existent, or they turn to the high and mighty role and say it's non relevant to running a country (which is ISN'T by the way, hello people! Witchcraft used to be exactly what made the villages and people survive!) and or they will say that it's not their belief. The point is, if you try to go any further than asking an opinion they toss it out like it doesn't matter.

So in all honesty, Christianity was never the culprit for saying Witchcraft was evil, it was government, and now our society is ruled by its government, and boom, that's where you get all these misconceptions that it's evil. Hell, if our very own government were pagan oriented they would friggin put OUR holidays on a calendar!! When's the last time they ever recognized DECEMBER 21ST or NOVEMBER 1st as a STATUTORY HOLIDAY!? It's because they don't believe in Pagan Ways, and it's NOT the Christian Church making the calendars, deciding when we get free paid days off work, and when it's okay to celebrate and eat Turkey . . . . . . no, they do it the Christian way but they rule the Christian church, the government isn't ruled by the Christian church they use it to keep order.

*steps off the soap box hoping not to have tomatoes thrown at her*

LOL, I hope nobody throws tomatoes at you. If they want to get rid of them that bad, they can just give them to me and I'll use them for a salad. :)

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. The opposition toward paganism in Christianity - which includes witchcraft - is actually based on scripture. If you'll recall in the Old Testament the several passages and stories where the Canaanites are severely criticized for their religious practices - the whole thing about "worshiping golden calfs" and such - I think it's safe to assume that Abrahamic monotheism already had an oppositional attitude toward pagan religion and culture long before Christianity came into being. This is possibly because the Hebrews were often enslaved by pagan cultures like the Egyptians and the Babylonians, in which case it is somewhat understandable that they would have some sort of reaction against their beliefs. Remember, there was a time when monotheism wasn't so popular and it was even persecuted.

These attitudes were carried down into Christianity through Judaism. Now it's certainly true that in some cases, Christians learned to get along just fine with pagan people. But again, when Christianity was new, it was persecuted by the dominant pagan regime, which would have reinforced their negative sentiments against paganism. I don't think politics is entirely to blame, though you are definitely right that it's part of it. But I think it has much more to do with the fact that human beings have always seemed to have a primal impulse to persecute and destroy each other for even the most superficial differences. Fear of the unknown is what it comes down to, I think.

Remember, pagans were killing Christians before Christians were killing pagans.

EDITED TO ADD: Although, it is also true that governments had been making laws against witchcraft long before Christianity, as well. Even in Hammurabi's code there are certain laws against committing crimes through the use of magic, and it's well known that many Roman politicians were concerned about people using witchcraft against them before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion. So I agree with you on that part; but it's also true that considering witchcraft "evil" was already an established tradition in the Abrahamic worldviews.

[raistlin]

From my understanding, the Christian God is actually taken from Sumeria, 8000 years ago. He was, I'm pretty sure, the god of thunder. And Satan was the serpent god.

[Louisvillian]

No, the Jewish god was adapted from the Canaanite/Levantine divinity named El. Who was a sun god, but also a god of kingship, air, and was thought to permeate all existence, and everything else was believed to emanate from El. Somewhat like Amun, actually, but still very different.
But El was not a Sumerian thunder god. And the character of Satan was never considered a deity figure by any ancient tribe as far as we can ascertain; Judaism has always mentioned that figure as being in the role of an angel that tests people's faith in El.

The Christian concept of deity developed long after Judaism had become solidly monotheistic, and actually clarified the monotheism part with the New Testament during the first hundred years or so of the Early Church. So, saying that the Christian God is the same as or "taken from" any polytheistic deity in the near east, or anywhere, is a tenuous claim at best. At worst, it displays ignorance with the basic fundamental ideas behind Christianity as a whole.

[Aldrick]

The Christian concept of deity developed long after Judaism had become solidly monotheistic, and actually clarified the monotheism part with the New Testament during the first hundred years or so of the Early Church. So, saying that the Christian God is the same as or "taken from" any polytheistic deity in the near east, or anywhere, is a tenuous claim at best. At worst, it displays ignorance with the basic fundamental ideas behind Christianity as a whole.

You really like to throw accusations of Ignorance around don't you?
I might agree with you as far as saying "same as" but not "taken from" considering the two imply different things - Same As implies identical while 'Taken From' simply implies influenced.

El, yes, was the first Hebrew name for God - El was also apart of the Levantine pantheon, in which the Elohim are the sons of El.

Psalm 82.1 says:
’elōhîm ('God') stands in the council of ’ēl
he judges among the gods (elohim).

I believe he was reffering to Enlil - A Chief Diety written about in Sumerian and other Mesopotamian tablets. Among his titles are "king of lands", "king of heaven and earth", and "father of the gods" - he was believed to have been banished from Dilmun: home of the gods, to the underworld for raping a girl (who followed him and bore his child and yadda yadda yadda he was let back into Dilmun.). He was also seen as the head of an extensive Pantheon, was the God of weather, Enlil helped create the humans (but then got tired of their noise and tried to kill them by sending a flood which; a mortal known as Utanapistim survived.)

Oh, I should also mention that he was usually portrayed in human form but (and this is very interesting) also appears as a snake to the humans eyes.

No... none of that sounds familiar at all.
You're right, to say "that the Christian God is 'taken from' any polytheistic deity in the near east, or anywhere...." What was he thinking, how dare he be so ignorant as to state something as rediculous as the Christian/Islamic/Hebrew God be influenced by a Pantheonic Diety that was before him...

Edited to add: It should also be noted that Enlil is associated with the ancient city of Nippur and the Sumerian language, both of which pre-date the ancient city of Ebla and Akkadian language. Also note that Enlil was rendered in Akkadian translations as Ellil and most probably El.

[Anteros]

Well, I don't subscribe to the whole "all gods are one god" idea, and there is far more to the gods than just Ares=War, Athena=wisdom, etc., as I personally see them as complex individual beings, but anywho...

I kind of see the Christian God as a Zeus-wannabe loner, who wants to be seen the most powerful God or the only god (and seems to have succeeded...) and gets jealous of the other gods. I don't think he's the omnipotent being his followers claim him to be, since I don't believe such a being exists.

[Caitlin.ann]

Well, I don't subscribe to the whole "all gods are one god" idea, and there is far more to the gods than just Ares=War, Athena=wisdom, etc., as I personally see them as complex individual beings, but anywho...

I kind of see the Christian God as a Zeus-wannabe loner, who wants to be seen the most powerful God or the only god (and seems to have succeeded...) and gets jealous of the other gods. I don't think he's the omnipotent being his followers claim him to be, since I don't believe such a being exists.

Hehe nice, I like that. :p

[~Elise~]

Well, I don't subscribe to the whole "all gods are one god" idea, and there is far more to the gods than just Ares=War, Athena=wisdom, etc., as I personally see them as complex individual beings, but anywho...

I kind of see the Christian God as a Zeus-wannabe loner, who wants to be seen the most powerful God or the only god (and seems to have succeeded...) and gets jealous of the other gods. I don't think he's the omnipotent being his followers claim him to be, since I don't believe such a being exists.

Remember that MW has a respect rule and that applies to our Christian members...just sayin'

I'm moving this thread to the Abrahamic forum, as well

[Anteros]

Oops, sorry if I was disrespectful, it's just my point of view.

[~Elise~]

Oops, sorry if I was disrespectful, it's just my point of view.

You weren't disrespectful...but was starting to walk that line. I wanted to nip it in the bud before others jumped on the bandwagon. :uhhuhuh:

[Anteros]

You weren't disrespectful...but was starting to walk that line. I wanted to nip it in the bud before others jumped on the bandwagon. :uhhuhuh:

Ah, understood.

[EponaCapaill]

That's not even getting into the Catholics who also worship Mary...

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary. Mary along with the other Saints are prayed to as intercedssors. This means that we ask them to intercede with God on our behalf, they are not worshiped.

edit:Oopps, MariThorn beat me to the punch and did a more thorough job than myself.

[Aldrick]

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary. Mary along with the other Saints are prayed to as intercedssors. This means that we ask them to intercede with God on our behalf, they are not worshiped.

edit:Oopps, MariThorn beat me to the punch and did a more thorough job than myself.

I can see you're still catching up to the rest of the thread - lol, no worries.
Just remember I didn't say that was my view, only the view that some have.

[Cunae]

Maybe we should define the meaning of "worship" at this point. What does it mean to pray to, consult, ask for... worship?

[Rudas Starblaze]

Maybe we should define the meaning of "worship" at this point. What does it mean to pray to, consult, ask for... worship?

if cleanliness is next to godliness, and people go to church to woRship god, than "waRsh" is the proper way to spell "wash" which makes rednecks right all along!! the english language is so mucked up, i swear! :lol:

[EponaCapaill]

Maybe we should define the meaning of "worship" at this point. What does it mean to pray to, consult, ask for... worship?

Do you or have you ever talked to someone that has died? That is essentially what a Catholic does when they "pray" to a Saint. Perhaps praying is the wrong term, but what else would you call it when the phrase has been used for so long?

[EponaCapaill]

Had to cut my thought short earlier, it was time to go.

So, to worship is to show devotion to a deity, in whatever way is appropriate. Rituals, prayers to that deity, etc.

For Catholics praying to God is different than praying to a Saint.

As I said before praying is probably the wrong term to use for asking for the intercession of a Saint, but what can you do, that is what it is called and people aren't going to change their vocabulary to suit others.

[thought_on_a_wind]

Actually, Whisper, I would say you are very wrong. There are a number of Christian witches here. It's not a matter of fitting into a box, or someone's definition of what a "good Christian" is. I am a Christian. I don't have a minister. I don't give a hang what any preacher says about me. I was born with certain abilities. They have become stronger since I have begun my practice & study. Actually, if you study ancient Christianity, you'll find there are a lot of Christian mystics & Christian mystical sects.

Frankly, I don't see how it's so hard to reconcile practicing witchcraft (not Wicca) and believing in Jesus as Messiah. Especially if one considers the idea of God as neither male nor female, but both--and perfect justice, perfect love, perfect compassion, perfect knowledge, perfect honesty......God as the balance of all things.

I understand that it is the way I was raised, and not all Christians believe as I do, but I've found that "Alpha & Omega" verse quoted a number of times in a number of different denominations. I don't know that it's going to be very easy to get a Pagan perspective or description of the Christian God, since a lot of Pagans (the one's I've met, anyways) simply don't believe in him.
Okay, here's me... I'm no Christian... and am far away from Christian ideals... and.. yes, I'm replying to the first page of a multi-page thread (I'm on dial up... I can't surf through everything unfortunately)... but I AM the Grand son, and Nephew of preachers... one so well known in his time that all through WV he was known... My namesake grandfather... And I'll say something on his behalf regardless of the extreme differences we posess... Christian isn't all about what you learn in a book, it's what you read and communicate with in your heart... My Grand-dad, marrying so many different people, and helping so many "non-christians" had a sole priciple that hasn't been inundated enough... Christian is something you feel from your gut... not something you feel from what an establishment tells you is christian... that is why I respect true christians... or the ones I've met, and the ones I'm proud to be related to. The Christian God, being the Alpha, and Omega tells you with your feel good in the heart actions what restrictions you have, not some rigid power hungry church... so much is considered by the masses of Christianity as "evil" that people have really forgotten exactly what is taboo according to Christian faiths. One thing is being judgement... that's covered in a speech Jesus gave and is in the Old testament as a commandment "Judge not lest ye be Judged..." I realize that the King James version translation is the epitomy of the Iquisition on the English front, but those words ring true to me as one of the ultimate proverbs for life... that being said... would Jesus accept people who didn't accept a feminine side of his dad... seeing as how god made children in both male and female form after his model... according to scripture.... thus defining a duality????

[cydira]

Well, I have read my way thru this whole thread. I believe the first thing I have to say is this thing has really toed the line on Christian-Pagan hostility. If it weren't for the fact that I am fairly sure that I could comment reasonably on this subject, I'd be highly reluctant venture into it. Y'all are tight rope walkers, seriously. My hat's off to you!

Now, because I tend to take an academic approach to Christianity, please forgive me if I sound boring. I'm not Christian and my research is not the best, so I may have some errors in it. Again, please forgive.

Aldrick put out an interesting concept that I've encountered even among some biblical scholars. While I was at college, I had the good fortune of taking a few religion classes under the instruction of one of the leading scholars in the Baltimore Diocese. (I'd *love* to hear her thoughts on this topic. If wishes were fishes and such...) This theory did come up in discussion as we were addressing the Old Testament of the Bible.

The cultural anthropology that's being applied to the Old Testament of the Bible and to the Torah (which is not entirely the same thing as the Old Testament, by the way) appears to suggest that there are vestiges of polytheism in the early portions of these texts. The language used to discuss the God of the Hebrews (and subsequently the Christians) and the language used to discuss the Sumerian deities appears to have quite a few parallels.

If I recall, the prevalent theory is that the cultural origins of the Sumerian deities and the God of the Hebrews is the same. Essentially, the Hebrew tribes left the area of their counterparts and the influences of geographic and social isolation from the original group lead to the development of the division between the belief systems. The development of the Egyptian belief system, again if I recall it correctly, is entirely independent from that of the early Sumerian and Hebrew ones. The influence of the Egyptian belief system is clearly present, as it can be argued that the figure of Satan (which is spelled so many ways that I am not going to attempt to find the proper one and use the modern bastardized version) had assumed many of the qualities of Set.

I don't think, however, that it can be argued that Satan is a concept that is based on the Egyptian deity of Set, as there is evidence of this figure prior to the period where the Hebrews were exposed consistently to Egyptian influence as a people. I think that this argument is just a comfortable fallacy that the evidence will simply not support. This, however, is strictly my opinion and is based in information that is now almost 10 years old. (I haven't had the opportunity to read much of the current research regarding this particular topic recently.)

Now, with that entire portion of the discussion addressed, I'm moving to the issue of the triune God of Christianity. Wiccans are more familiar with this concept then most are willing to admit. The triparte Goddess of Wicca is the same as the triparte God of Christianity, in so much as they are separate but unified in their divinity. While the Maiden, Mother, and Crone are each independent archetypes, they reflect different aspects and traits of a unified whole. This is also true for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of Christianity.

Just as, I've noticed, the Mother appears to be the most popular aspect of the Wiccan Goddess the Son aspect of the Christian God appears to be the most popular in Christianity. This is generally due to the fact that it is easier to relate to an aspect of God that is more 'human' then the others. (This is something that was mentioned to me by a Catholic Priest as I was in the midst of my serious study of Catholicism and Christianity when I was contemplating conversion.) No single aspect of the triparte deity is greater then the other because they are all a composite of the whole.

Jesus's references to his Father serves to remind his listeners of this aspect. One must remember that during Jesus's life, he did his best to direct attention away from his own divinity and to focus attention upon the godhead as a whole (which at that time was understood primarily as the Father aspect). It is with his death and resurrection that his divinity is fully revealed. At this time, Jesus is more inclined to allow his followers to discuss his divinity but he exhorts them to focus their attention upon the godhead with continued references to the Father.

For those who are not operating from a Wiccan standpoint or have a triparte deity within their belief system the above may have served only to confuse you. Here is my attempt to bridge that gap, I'll apologize in advance if I only aggravate your confusion. I'm going to step away from the discussion of the divine to look at theories regarding personality.

Jung and Freud argued that a person's sense of self is made of three parts. These parts are the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo. Let's set aside the discussion of these parts, because it's not relevant to this discussion. When we look at our personality, we can see that it is a complex composite of other traits. It is possible to see within this composite the elements that make up each of these respective parts of the personality (as per these two theories).

While we can separate the three parts of the personality and view them independently of each other, they remain as interwoven and interdependent elements of a single entity. This is true in the case of triparte deities. Indeed, upon investigating the trinity of aspects/persons for a given triparte deity, one can find that (like in the case of personality) there are traits that over lap between them. This serves to show the unity and cohesion of these three parts and remind one of the whole.

And, this brings me to the final point that is slightly off topic, but I've seen it come up a few times. Christianity and witchcraft are not entirely independent of each other. The question that you have is how do you define witchcraft. In some parts of the world, Christians are regarded as witches. Applying the simplistic definition of "All witches are Wiccan" or "All witches practice the same kinds of things as Wiccans" just will not work for this discussion. In truth, the simplistic definitions that I referenced above are patent falsehoods and should be flatly rejected by Wiccans and witches alike.

While Wiccans are witches, witches are not Wiccans. The differences are far larger then the differences between different denominations of Christianity, where there is unification that can be found between the different branches of this faith system. Witchcraft is defined more by a social context and the role of the practices within the community then by the inherent belief system and philosophical points. While I recognize that my position on this matter may offend some who read this, I can't in all honesty say any otherwise. The history of the word witch and that which is described by it in the context of anthropology, sociology, and inter-cultural relations thru out history can not support any different position.

[Dumunzi]

I'll be honest, I think Witchcraft, magic, sorcery, magicinary(I know thats not a word), and Christianity are not compatible. Looking beyond that, personally, I feel that polytheism and Christianity are even LESS compatible. I believe that scripture is open to interpretation, absolutely. I believe some people have a mainstream interpretation that is wrong. However, there's a point where your just picking and choosing things, mixing and matching what you like with no regard to what is really not open to movement, and there's a line to interpreting something differently. I think Christian Wicca, and Christian witchcraft crosses that line whole heartedly.

Gods bless you and your chosen paths, but I do think it is an oxymoron. A huge oxymoron.

[Bix]

Well, I have read my way thru this whole thread. I believe the first thing I have to say is this thing has really toed the line on Christian-Pagan hostility. If it weren't for the fact that I am fairly sure that I could comment reasonably on this subject, I'd be highly reluctant venture into it. Y'all are tight rope walkers, seriously. My hat's off to you!

Now, because I tend to take an academic approach to Christianity, please forgive me if I sound boring. I'm not Christian and my research is not the best, so I may have some errors in it. Again, please forgive.

Aldrick put out an interesting concept that I've encountered even among some biblical scholars. While I was at college, I had the good fortune of taking a few religion classes under the instruction of one of the leading scholars in the Baltimore Diocese. (I'd *love* to hear her thoughts on this topic. If wishes were fishes and such...) This theory did come up in discussion as we were addressing the Old Testament of the Bible.

The cultural anthropology that's being applied to the Old Testament of the Bible and to the Torah (which is not entirely the same thing as the Old Testament, by the way) appears to suggest that there are vestiges of polytheism in the early portions of these texts. The language used to discuss the God of the Hebrews (and subsequently the Christians) and the language used to discuss the Sumerian deities appears to have quite a few parallels.

If I recall, the prevalent theory is that the cultural origins of the Sumerian deities and the God of the Hebrews is the same. Essentially, the Hebrew tribes left the area of their counterparts and the influences of geographic and social isolation from the original group lead to the development of the division between the belief systems. The development of the Egyptian belief system, again if I recall it correctly, is entirely independent from that of the early Sumerian and Hebrew ones. The influence of the Egyptian belief system is clearly present, as it can be argued that the figure of Satan (which is spelled so many ways that I am not going to attempt to find the proper one and use the modern bastardized version) had assumed many of the qualities of Set.

I don't think, however, that it can be argued that Satan is a concept that is based on the Egyptian deity of Set, as there is evidence of this figure prior to the period where the Hebrews were exposed consistently to Egyptian influence as a people. I think that this argument is just a comfortable fallacy that the evidence will simply not support. This, however, is strictly my opinion and is based in information that is now almost 10 years old. (I haven't had the opportunity to read much of the current research regarding this particular topic recently.)

Now, with that entire portion of the discussion addressed, I'm moving to the issue of the triune God of Christianity. Wiccans are more familiar with this concept then most are willing to admit. The triparte Goddess of Wicca is the same as the triparte God of Christianity, in so much as they are separate but unified in their divinity. While the Maiden, Mother, and Crone are each independent archetypes, they reflect different aspects and traits of a unified whole. This is also true for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of Christianity.

Just as, I've noticed, the Mother appears to be the most popular aspect of the Wiccan Goddess the Son aspect of the Christian God appears to be the most popular in Christianity. This is generally due to the fact that it is easier to relate to an aspect of God that is more 'human' then the others. (This is something that was mentioned to me by a Catholic Priest as I was in the midst of my serious study of Catholicism and Christianity when I was contemplating conversion.) No single aspect of the triparte deity is greater then the other because they are all a composite of the whole.

Jesus's references to his Father serves to remind his listeners of this aspect. One must remember that during Jesus's life, he did his best to direct attention away from his own divinity and to focus attention upon the godhead as a whole (which at that time was understood primarily as the Father aspect). It is with his death and resurrection that his divinity is fully revealed. At this time, Jesus is more inclined to allow his followers to discuss his divinity but he exhorts them to focus their attention upon the godhead with continued references to the Father.

For those who are not operating from a Wiccan standpoint or have a triparte deity within their belief system the above may have served only to confuse you. Here is my attempt to bridge that gap, I'll apologize in advance if I only aggravate your confusion. I'm going to step away from the discussion of the divine to look at theories regarding personality.

Jung and Freud argued that a person's sense of self is made of three parts. These parts are the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo. Let's set aside the discussion of these parts, because it's not relevant to this discussion. When we look at our personality, we can see that it is a complex composite of other traits. It is possible to see within this composite the elements that make up each of these respective parts of the personality (as per these two theories).

While we can separate the three parts of the personality and view them independently of each other, they remain as interwoven and interdependent elements of a single entity. This is true in the case of triparte deities. Indeed, upon investigating the trinity of aspects/persons for a given triparte deity, one can find that (like in the case of personality) there are traits that over lap between them. This serves to show the unity and cohesion of these three parts and remind one of the whole.

And, this brings me to the final point that is slightly off topic, but I've seen it come up a few times. Christianity and witchcraft are not entirely independent of each other. The question that you have is how do you define witchcraft. In some parts of the world, Christians are regarded as witches. Applying the simplistic definition of "All witches are Wiccan" or "All witches practice the same kinds of things as Wiccans" just will not work for this discussion. In truth, the simplistic definitions that I referenced above are patent falsehoods and should be flatly rejected by Wiccans and witches alike.

While Wiccans are witches, witches are not Wiccans. The differences are far larger then the differences between different denominations of Christianity, where there is unification that can be found between the different branches of this faith system. Witchcraft is defined more by a social context and the role of the practices within the community then by the inherent belief system and philosophical points. While I recognize that my position on this matter may offend some who read this, I can't in all honesty say any otherwise. The history of the word witch and that which is described by it in the context of anthropology, sociology, and inter-cultural relations thru out history can not support any different position.

Awesome explanation. I'm still trying to get through wrapping my head around the trinity. This sheds some new light on the subject.

[Darth Brooks]

If I recall, the prevalent theory is that the cultural origins of the Sumerian deities and the God of the Hebrews is the same. Essentially, the Hebrew tribes left the area of their counterparts and the influences of geographic and social isolation from the original group lead to the development of the division between the belief systems. The development of the Egyptian belief system, again if I recall it correctly, is entirely independent from that of the early Sumerian and Hebrew ones.

No, it wasn't entirely independent. The Egyptians were just as impressionable as their surrounding cultures. Numerous deities of the Egyptian pantheon might not have even originated in Egypt. We know for sure that the cult of Set was originally imported to Egypt from the East (some sources claim Asia, and some won't go any farther than to suggest Mesopotamia). There is also some question as to whether or not deities like Isis and Osiris were originally Nubian. Set's slaying of Apep - which sometimes becames Ra slaying Apep - is generally regarded as another variation of the "combat myths," e.g. Marduk slaying Tiamat, Ahura Mazda slaying Ahriman, Yahweh slaying Leviathan, etc. Also, numerous foreign deities gained cult status in Egypt, such as Ashtoreth, Anath, Ba'al (who was identified with Set), Bes, etc. So the development of Egyptian religion was not anymore independent than that of any other culture, really, and the Egyptians had constant business with the Semitic peoples. The Hyskos invasion of the 1600's BCE is most likely what caused Egyptian xenophobia to get out of control, and it may also provide an explanation as to why they had become so tyrannical toward the Hebrews by the time of the Exodus - the Hebrews being Semites, and all Semites being identified with Set simply because they were foreigners.


The influence of the Egyptian belief system is clearly present, as it can be argued that the figure of Satan (which is spelled so many ways that I am not going to attempt to find the proper one and use the modern bastardized version) had assumed many of the qualities of Set.

I don't think, however, that it can be argued that Satan is a concept that is based on the Egyptian deity of Set, as there is evidence of this figure prior to the period where the Hebrews were exposed consistently to Egyptian influence as a people.It is very true that the Hebrew ideas of "satan" - or more specifically perhaps, "ha-satan" - were quite different prior to their exposure to Egyptian culture. However, in those days "Satan" meant something entirely different from what it does today - the most helpful books I can recommend on the subject are all by Elaine Pagels. Originally, "satan" could mean anybody or anything that took on some kind of adversarial role, like the angel in Job. But in Job, the "satan" is not enemies with Jehovah but on his side. It's only until much later, during the Second Temple Era of Judaism, that the idea of an "Archenemy of God" began to gain currency (and Judaism soon aborted it for the most part, though it was picked up again not too much later by early Christianity, which owes much to Second Temple Era Judaism).

The idea of "satan" who acts nasty to people because Yahweh tells him to pre-dates the Hebrew exposure to Egyptian culture, but the development of "Satan" (capital "S") as the Arch-Enemy of Yahweh does not. Actually it is quite clear that the Hebrews inherited this variety of theology from the Persians and the Babylonians, and I think there's a pretty good argument they got a significant part of it from the Egyptians as well. My earlier suggestion was not that the word "satan" itself is specifically derived from Set - this is a theory that is popular among many Setians but for which I have not yet found any solid proof - but that the (much) later idea of Satan as the Enemy of God who was "followers" (either witches or Jews) who congregate in "synagogues" and celebrate "sabbaths" is plainly derived from earlier theological precedents concerning the same mythological motif (and the same hostile, anti-Semitic associations), of which Set happens to be one of the best examples.


I think that this argument is just a comfortable fallacy that the evidence will simply not support. I disagree. My own research leads me to believe there are actually some pretty strong connections between Seth-Typhon and Satan - and also between Seth-Typhon and IHVH, of all things - that aren't very easy for me to ignore. It hardly seems "comfortable" either, because most of the people I discuss the issue with find it pretty disturbing - and nine times out of ten, they find the identification of Seth-Typhon with Yahweh more disturbing than the identication of Seth-Typhon with Satan. Regardless of how we might personally feel about such identifications, the Set-Yahweh identification was actually part of an established Typhonian orthopraxy in history (during Greek occupied Egypt - see Don Webb, Herman te Velde, Peter Schafer for more details if you're interested), and the identification of Set with Satan is of course part of many Satanist and Setian orthopraxies today. (Though if we were talking to an Old Testament Hebrew, Yahweh and Satan might as well have been the same thing anyway, especially if we happen to be talking with Job.)


This, however, is strictly my opinion and is based in information that is now almost 10 years old. (I haven't had the opportunity to read much of the current research regarding this particular topic recently.)Well my opinions are just my opinions as well, but I do enjoy your thought-provoking posts. :)

[David19]

No, it wasn't entirely independent. The Egyptians were just as impressionable as their surrounding cultures. Numerous deities of the Egyptian pantheon might not have even originated in Egypt. We know for sure that the cult of Set was originally imported to Egypt from the East (some sources claim Asia, and some won't go any farther than to suggest Mesopotamia). There is also some question as to whether or not deities like Isis and Osiris were originally Nubian. Set's slaying of Apep - which sometimes becames Ra slaying Apep - is generally regarded as another variation of the "combat myths," e.g. Marduk slaying Tiamat, Ahura Mazda slaying Ahriman, Yahweh slaying Leviathan, etc. Also, numerous foreign deities gained cult status in Egypt, such as Ashtoreth, Anath, Ba'al (who was identified with Set), Bes, etc. So the development of Egyptian religion was not anymore independent than that of any other culture, really, and the Egyptians had constant business with the Semitic peoples. The Hyskos invasion of the 1600's BCE is most likely what caused Egyptian xenophobia to get out of control, and it may also provide an explanation as to why they had become so tyrannical toward the Hebrews by the time of the Exodus - the Hebrews being Semites, and all Semites being identified with Set simply because they were foreigners.

It is very true that the Hebrew ideas of "satan" - or more specifically perhaps, "ha-satan" - were quite different prior to their exposure to Egyptian culture. However, in those days "Satan" meant something entirely different from what it does today - the most helpful books I can recommend on the subject are all by Elaine Pagels. Originally, "satan" could mean anybody or anything that took on some kind of adversarial role, like the angel in Job. But in Job, the "satan" is not enemies with Jehovah but on his side. It's only until much later, during the Second Temple Era of Judaism, that the idea of an "Archenemy of God" began to gain currency (and Judaism soon aborted it for the most part, though it was picked up again not too much later by early Christianity, which owes much to Second Temple Era Judaism).

The idea of "satan" who acts nasty to people because Yahweh tells him to pre-dates the Hebrew exposure to Egyptian culture, but the development of "Satan" (capital "S") as the Arch-Enemy of Yahweh does not. Actually it is quite clear that the Hebrews inherited this variety of theology from the Persians and the Babylonians, and I think there's a pretty good argument they got a significant part of it from the Egyptians as well. My earlier suggestion was not that the word "satan" itself is specifically derived from Set - this is a theory that is popular among many Setians but for which I have not yet found any solid proof - but that the (much) later idea of Satan as the Enemy of God who was "followers" (either witches or Jews) who congregate in "synagogues" and celebrate "sabbaths" is plainly derived from earlier theological precedents concerning the same mythological motif (and the same hostile, anti-Semitic associations), of which Set happens to be one of the best examples.

I disagree. My own research leads me to believe there are actually some pretty strong connections between Seth-Typhon and Satan - and also between Seth-Typhon and IHVH, of all things - that aren't very easy for me to ignore. It hardly seems "comfortable" either, because most of the people I discuss the issue with find it pretty disturbing - and nine times out of ten, they find the identification of Seth-Typhon with Yahweh more disturbing than the identication of Seth-Typhon with Satan. Regardless of how we might personally feel about such identifications, the Set-Yahweh identification was actually part of an established Typhonian orthopraxy in history (during Greek occupied Egypt - see Don Webb, Herman te Velde, Peter Schafer for more details if you're interested), and the identification of Set with Satan is of course part of many Satanist and Setian orthopraxies today. (Though if we were talking to an Old Testament Hebrew, Yahweh and Satan might as well have been the same thing anyway, especially if we happen to be talking with Job.)

Well my opinions are just my opinions as well, but I do enjoy your thought-provoking posts. :)

Good post, are there any good books on Set's origins, particularly any Mesopotamian connections he might have, I'd definitely be interested in learning more about that.