You are correct Hadit. The Hebrew word for truth is ' e'meth'. Again,
Sanskrit and Hebrew are 2 very distinct and different languages. All the
websites that claim to tie these languages together are bunk. Philology
happens to be a hobby of mine, as well as etymology.
Whilst the Sanskrit word Satan (even though there is no such word) does mean Truth, there is no connection to Hebrew- it is not abuut the being Satan!
Secondly another example, the word hell in German means light, it does not mean they took the word hell from biblical scripture.....two words which may be the same, yet completely unrelated, do you see my point?
I wouldn't even buy into before Roman Christianity, as prior to that Hell, Satan, etc. were all temporary things. Hell was a place one was interred until one was spiritually ready for heaven. Satan, as I said before, was an adversary chosen by God to test the faithful. That is the Hebrew version of Satan.
Again, Satan is not sanskrit. You are misunderstanding the root of "sata." The root "sata" exists in Sanskrit and the word "satan" exists in Hebrew. This does not mean that the languages somehow combine for your purposes to provide you with an English translation that means "truth."
And then all of this begs the question: Where in all of this does the idea that Satanism began in ancient Sumeria even fit in?
It doesn't. A bunch of random, false, information is flung around to try to make the whole ideology have more merit. The only real ties we have been offered between Sumeria and Satanism are that frequently Satan is on the same list of demons as many of the old dieties and spirits of that ancient land's lore.
Turns out though that many deities and lesser spirits of varied lore are on that list. The bulk of them stem from the Eastern regions of the Eastern Roman Empire, ranging from Greece to Persia. In the lists of demons and the like, we see the influence of Zoroastrian faith from Persia organizing and categorizing spirits into good and bad entities, depending on how they saw them fitting into their own monotheistic pantheon - one of the firsts of its kind. In this faith we quite literally start seeing spirits demonized.
The very word "daemon," from Greek, is taken and transformed from something that means, more or less, "spirit" into a word that means "evil spirit" due to the Persian views and influences. One can imagine that once Persia conquers the Jews and enslaves them, their interpretation of Satan, or an adversary, could only be that it was an evil spirit's influence, or a demon.
Now we get the spread of Christianity as the Roman empire. Constantine makes it official, sees the potential of uniting his people under one god (as do many subsequent rulers who convert before going on a binge of warfare and expansion), hoping to provide some stability to an empire that is in chaos. The religion has its good guy, Jesus. Now it just needs a bad guy - ah... Satan. The adversary. A real demon. And now we can use that to demonize anything that stands in the way of Christianity, and Rome.
Ta Da. Now we have the modern image of Satan.
Granted, much of what I've said here is conjecture based on what I do know of history. Some of the influence/appearance of the concept of Satan may have happened before or after what I describe.
But even in the idea of Satan being a temptation to Jesus he was only ever that temporary temptation. That test for the faithful. He was not a demon, or even a single figure, until Christianity needed a full time adversary.
So where in this history is there room for the concept of spiritual satanism to have been as ancient as Sumeria? Sumeria doesn't even fit in to the picture.
Re: Satanism What is it??! By: WhiteRav3n / Knowledgeable
Post # 35 May 04, 2014
Nice Awake. I never thought of the Persians conquering the Jews being the pivotal point in religious view changes. That makes perfect sense though. I always wondered why there was so much contrast between Kabbalism and Judaism.
No .org, or gov sites? Those would be more reliable. Don't know what this whole talk is going towards, but so far as far as I can see there is not anything backing up those sites like historians, religious leaders, that kind of stuff.
As far as I can see it could all be bogus posting sites where people speak from their behinds. Where the heck does all this talk origin from your all arguing. The better question is where are references that are creditable resources? None of the above are backing such up.
I saw that someone posted that an inverted cross represented the body's chakras. While that could be true, I'm also going to say that I heard that it is also a symbol representing when this one guy was to be crucified but requested he be upside down because Jesus was right side up and he felt he would be disrespecting him if he were crucified the same way. So it can also be a respectful sign. This is just something I heard, though, and have yet to do research on it. I don't know much about satanism other than some groups have "the satanic bible" and it talks constantly about angels. I did read somewhere that sayanism has it's roots in the Middle East and was based off of a cult who worshiped the Sumerian god enki. I can't remember what he was the god of, but he represented quite a few things and was pretty powerful. You always hear about satanists being bad especially cuz of people like Charles Manson )I don't even know if he was satanist that's just what they say) but you're religion doesn't necessarily define you. Not all sayanists are and just as not all Christians are good. But keep in mind that every religion has it's crazies
The church of Satan watched a video about Charles Manson at which they applauded for his crimes, their own members have stated this openly on TV shows when they have been invited as guests; as far as I know Charles Manson was not a satanist.
You are correct about the inverted cross. It is believed St Peter requested to be crucified upside down as he felt inferior to Jesus and did not deserve to die the same way. It is a christian symbol, yet is used by Satanists because they think it is 'anti-christian'.
The whole Enki thing was dealt with earlier in this thread. Satanism is a judeo-christian concept, sure people will have worshipped Enki, but he is Enki, not Satan. Sumerian practices for worshiping and working with Enki would not resemble what Satanists practice today.
I prefer LaVay over the Joyofsatan any day. He was much more sane and I could sympathize with his beliefs a lot. There were parts in his Satanic bible which I did not agree with, nor was his information 100% accurate e.g. his translations of the enochian calls.