Viker
Häxan
According to the 80s D&D opened a direct portal to hell. Glad to see people still get bent out of shape over it today.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Sigil of Baphomet - Old Canaan Gods Casted Down
- Thread starter BlackMirrorBlueFlame1911
- Start date
74x12
Well-Known Member
Because they worship satan and he's not called baal zebub without a reason. The fallen angels desire human worship and have impersonated gods since the beginning.
Of course they'll tell you they're atheist and no doubt the average church of satan member is just an atheist with a grudge against Christian parents or whatever. But the people behind all these movements are true satan worshipers. People shouldn't make a mistake about it. If you honor satan even just as an idea you're worshiping satan and it won't go unnoticed in spiritual realms.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I mean... If you [REDACTED] the wrong DM...
And that reason is Medieval Christian mistranslation. Ha-Satan is a Hebrew angel. Ba'al Zebub is the Canaanite god of death and rebirth. The two have nothing to do with one another.
74x12
Well-Known Member
The word used in Matthew translated as "Beelzeboul" is of Aramaic origin and is considered parody of Baalzebub the dung god or Lord of flys. The connection was apparently made by the Jews.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Pretty sure BLM and Antifa are the current bogeymen.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
The deity in question is Ba'al Zebub, yes the "Lord of Flies". In Canaanite polytheism, flies were seen as the soul leaving the body, and is the physical show of Ba'al Zebub taking souls to the afterlife. This association was perverted by the cult of Yahweh, associating flies more with dung and slandering the name of Zebub. His name was further perverted by poor translation to "Beelzebub", and associated with "The Devil" in the Medieval period.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Though the satanic church is a new movement, they as any one else would associate with the beginning of time. In the satanic bible, baphomet is mentioned as an infernal name and is described as "worshipped by the Templars as symbolic of Satan" and that's among Dracula and many other names people all over the place have used to refer to Satan as they perceive. I do know that they use the sigil of baphomet a lot in all kinds of occasions including the sword, and rituals.
This accusation of the templars worshiping the idol baphomet is quite famous. If they use other images people won't recognise it and it will take time to groom it in. My personal belief is that this is the reason its used.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Why does a "kilted" heathen care about Canaanite gods? I would think with that name you would worship Celtic gods.
But, that's your business; I still have to tell you that I believe it's at the very least a name that has been usurped by the so called prince of devils. The fact is that fallen angels would not have been named "lord of flies" originally. But they do adopt names for their own ends.
I don't believe we who worship Yah have perverted it; but we see these beings for who they really are. So of course we call them out on it. You need spiritual understanding and discernment to see these things for what they really are. The association with flies is a dead give away(pun intended) because they gravitate to what is rotten or putrid.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I don't think you're quite understanding the theological historical fact: there is no "Prince of Devils", he is a construct of the Medieval Catholic Church. Many names taken from several cultures and negatively spun to a theological "Super Villain". Your beliefs notwithstanding, this is what happened. In similar manner, you can believe that the cult of Yahweh was a pure as the driven snow, but archeological history shows a very different story; their primacy was gained through no small use of propaganda against neighboring gods, Ba'al Zebub included.
Hook, line, and sinker. Maggots have also been used to cleanse and sanitize mortified flesh and grievous wounds. Flies aid in the decomposition process, which is essential to bring new life to bear. There is much good to be seen in a humble fly, when you put ego and bias aside.
74x12
Well-Known Member
The gospels which mention the "prince of devils" predate Medieval times so that would be a problem. The medieval church simply built on the gospels ... Apocryphal works also speak of various demons long before the medieval era. Actually even non-Judaic sources speak of various demons since Sumerian times.
It's not a new idea. It's just that the Bible and Christians explain where they come from and what they are.
They did use rhetoric as best they could but it seems they were always the underdogs. If you look at Israel in ancient times it was surrounded by more powerful dominant culture groups. Syrians, Egyptians, Mesopotamia and mixed in with Canaanites.
What you call a fight for supremacy is more correctly characterized as a fight for survival against overwhelming odds. That's how the Bible itself portrays it and history/archeology bear it out.
There is wisdom in every creature. But in a spiritual sense that is different. You can be so open minded that you fall for anything. Basically every creature does it's share of good in the cycle of life. But we're talking about spirits. Good and evil do exist.
It is not ego to recognize in the spiritual realm things for what they really are based on the symbolism they use or the kind of fruit they bear. It's wrong to be too open to everything in the spiritual.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
That certainly would be. Especially considering the word "Prince" wasn't used until 1200. The Late Latin word diabolos, from which the modern English word "devil" is derived, was used as a very loose translation of the Hebrew word "satan", therein used to mean "slanderer, accuser" and not in reference to Ha-Satan (proper noun), the angelic being.
In verses that I can find where "Beelzebub" (Hebrew slander of Ba'al Zebub) is referred to as a lord of something, the word used is dæmon, a Greek word meaning spirit, deity, demi-god, supernatural force, etc. That's a very different thing than "Prince of Devils" and "Ruler of Hell".
You are partially correct in that dæmon aren't a "new idea". But what the Church crafted these words into - namely with the King James Version of the Bible - is relatively new, and quite different from the original message of the words as used.
No, actually it doesn't. History and Archeology show that the Israelites were no worse off (and just as bloodthirsty, if not more) than their neighbors. It does not support massive and perpetual suffering and "underdogism" (e.g. the Exodus myth never happened, and has no supporting evidence). The bible crying "poor pitiful us" doesn't make for fact, and frankly a god that puts his people through that much suffering is highly questionable.
No, but it is ego to negatively associate something because you find it personally annoying, stinky or foul, or just plain different than you. You do understand that without excrement we would die, and would not be able to fertilize our crops to sustain ourselves? That without decay and rot, new life would not grow and thrive? Oh, but it's smelly and gross; clearly Ba'al Zebub is evil because of that...
74x12
Well-Known Member
The exodus did happen and there is plenty of supporting evidence. However it's explained away because of "reasons". People find it easy to explain things away.
As for the idea they were just as bloodthirsty as their neighbors ... that has nothing to do with it. They were outnumbered and that was my point. It was not easy to maintain their religion with so much pressure from surrounding cultures.
You say it's highly questionable of a God that puts people through that much suffering. Then what gods didn't put their people through suffering? Let's look around at the history of any country and see who didn't suffer. Every nation has suffered and been conquered or faced natural disasters. So you as a pagan or whatever you are ... must have trouble explaining how your gods didn't protect the people that worshiped them.
The fact is everyone on earth will face suffering at some point. Some more, some less. It's up to us what we do with it. And serving the true God is the most important part of doing the right thing in all this suffering. You're going to suffer anyway.
The name satan means adversary as in a legal sense. So accuser or prosecutor is a good idea of it. I think Job is the first time we see the word used. Or at least the earliest source of it in Hebrew. And that is when he stands before the most high God and accuses Job of various things. Job is basically on trial. This "satan" is portrayed as wondering around the earth looking for people to attack but thanks to a "hedge" (God's protection) he can't attack Job. The imagery harkens back to ideas of pastures for flocks being protected from predators by hedges. Not being able to get to him; satan accuses Job instead.
Prince just means potentate or ruler. It's not necessarily the son of a king. In fact a prince can be any ruler or potentate as the word was used in the medieval or KJV (1611 AD) sense. It's a proper translation of the Greek actually but the meaning of the word has evolved in modern English. Now we mostly think of the son of a king if we say "prince". So a modern translation would probably be better as ruler. But prince is still correct.
Although you have a point about the word "devil" that's already well known. Yes it can just be translated demon which is more accurate. So prince of demons. Jesus considered it blasphemy of the holy Spirit for them to say he was casting out demons by beelzebuol for a reason. It's because beelzebuol the prince of demons was opposed to everything the holy Spirit was for.
That's your perspective. From my perspective there is no baal zebub at all. The only baal zebub is a demon who is pretending to be baal zebub. (1 Corinthians 10:20) So in that case the fact he makes people honor foul disgusting things is just a mockery.
Because yes of course excrement has it's uses in the cycle of life as I said. But this is thanks to God not some deity name baal zebub.
Secondly, since it's all about decay and excrement it's a deity of the temporal world. Whereas the true God is a God of eternal things. Because all this temporal world will come to an end. The eternal has no need for the cycle of life because there is no death in the kingdom of God.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
There is only one account, and that's in the Bible. We have zero evidence of 40 years of wandering in the desert, we know who built the pyramids (spoiler: it wasn't the Hebrew people), and we have zero evidence of the ten plagues. There is no evidence.
It has everything to do with it. You're trying to paint them as the victims. They weren't.
Yes, I am a Pagan. A Heathen, specifically. That's Norse Paganism for normies. And no, I don't have trouble "explaining how my gods didn't protect" blah blah blah. That's not the gods' job. This is, also, grossly irrelevant, as your bible explicitly states (per the myth) that your god kept the Hebrew people in bondage for longer, your god drew out the 10 plagues rather than allowing it to end after frogs, your god made them wander the desert for vanity, etc, etc. But this little back-and-forth is best brought to the myriad threads on the Problem of Evil. Not really pertinent to the construct of "The Devil".
No, the earliest appearance of Ha-Satan is the testing of Abraham. That is Ha-Satan's job, to test the piety of great men. If you read Job closely, you'll notice this; Ha-Satan presents Job as a case to Yahweh, asking permission to test his resolve. He cannot act until Yahweh gives the word, which he does. Job's piety is then tested, proving him a holy man. Ha-Satan tested Abraham, Job, Yeshua, and likely many others.
Medieval Christianity, as you perpetuate, twist this function into him being some moustache-twirling villain prowling around looking for people to attack. As you even say. You lack understanding of the theological function of the figure Ha-Satan. But take heart that it's not your fault; it's the story that's been fed for centuries following excessively poor translation and no small dose of political manipulation.
Dæmon. Not "demon". If you're thinking some nonsense like The Exorcist, you're absolutely wrong. Dæmon are nothing more than a class of spirits between men and gods. Angels are dæmon. Saying that a deity or entity is "lord of dæmon" means nothing without more context - actual context, not you or the Church making [REDACTED] up.
And that reason is because Yeshua upheld the Laws as given by Moses. First Commandment: Thou Shall Not Have Gods Before Me. For Yeshua to be accused to have been commanding spirits in the name of another deity - Ba'al Zebub - was a blasphemy against those laws that he upheld.
One cannot pretend to be something that does not exist. If you believe Ba'al Zebub to be a "demon", then you believe him to exist. Albeit in a poor, twisted manner that does not represent him in any sense of his being. But I've said enough on that, and I'm loathe to repeat myself ad infinitum.
74x12
Well-Known Member
There is a lot of evidence from archeology which I won't get into here. The pyramids have nothing to do with it.
They were people of their time. They certainly weren't pacifists. They wouldn't have survived if they had been. It was a fight for survival.
"That's not the gods' job."
Well maybe it's not God's job either.
Perhaps you refer to the midrash of Jasher; because Satan does test Abraham in that. But I meant as pertains to the scriptural canon. The word Satan doesn't appear in Genesis as far as I know. Although I do believe the serpent in the garden is Satan.
Now you could say that Satan was there testing Abraham and I wouldn't disagree; but we just don't see it in the Bible which is what I'm talking about.
You are right from God's perspective that is satan's job because God does allow him to do that. But that doesn't mean this is the only thing satan does.
When Yah askes satan where he has been he replies he has been going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it. (Job 1:7) Then, satan complains that God has put a hedge of protection around Job and everything he owns. (Job 1:10) So, this is key because it shows how satan would like to attack Job but was not able to until then. This means he was walking through the earth just looking for people to attack. It bothered him that he wasn't able to go after Job also.
This is why Peter says that satan goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8) Again harkening back to the same imagery used in Job. That of flocks/herds being protected by hedges from predators such as lions.
You're acting as if all constructs of Christianity are from the Medieval period. That's just not the case. If you read the apocrypha and the writings of the so called church fathers etc. All these ideas predate the medieval period. I think you're confusing the RC church with Christianity as a whole. Trying to paint Christianity as a Medieval construct doesn't hold up. In fact many ideas of Christianity are expressed in so called apocryphal works which predate the time of Christ.
The word demon is the clear choice for translation because it's literally descended from the same word. I do realize that ancient Greeks didn't necessarily use the word the way we do now. In fact it could be used in various ways. However, in the epistles and the gospels it's pretty clear how the word is being used by the Jewish writers. It was used for various harmful spirits.
So no, I'm not making things up.
Let's keep this in context here. The demons that Jesus was casting out were very harmful to people. They made them mentally ill, sick or handicapped in some way. These weren't "nice" dæmons even if you do believe in nice dæmons.
No, sorry but Pharisees of those days would not have acknowledged a Canaanite gods power or ability to cast out demons. According to various scriptures idols are nothing but statues and can't do anything. For them to acknowledge that would have been heresy for a Pharisee.
They were accusing him of sorcery and witchcraft. These things were forbidden in ancient Judaism and even Romans didn't like harmful witchcraft although they were okay with what they considered benign charms and spells. They would also have been against anyone in league with the prince of demons.
Well I do think we should differentiate between the supposed deity "baal zebub" and the demon who is actually impersonating it.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Norse gods in my opinion evolved from ancestor worship. Odin, Thor probably were real people at some point and the early kings of the Saxons and Angles traced their lineage to Woden and Thor. But if that's the gods you want to worship then ...
I really think if I have to explain why God doesn't protect people then so should you. Why aren't your gods protecting people? Is it because they need more cannon fodder in Valhalla for Ragnarok? More the merry to fight the battle right?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Which translates to you have nothing. The pyramids have everything to do with it, as Exodus claimed it was the labor of Hebrew slaves. We know this to be false.
You see Triple Eight; that's your dig. A poor attempt at a "one up" by trying to jab at my gods. Only the issue which brought this about is that your god - per the Exodus myth - caused inordinate suffering of his people. Directly. Intentionally. Not quite the same thing.
Yes, it does. Cutting through the muck and mire of mistranslation and poor translation, Satan does not moonlight as a supervillain. That is patently ridiculous, especially for an angel with his particular job.
Your bias is showing. No, taken as a whole that stands as key to Satan challenging the piety of Job, stating that he only praises Yahweh because Yahweh has provided everything to him, and he is secure in his protection. That if everything were stripped from him, he would not be so pious. It is largely narrative, but valid; those who think themselves "blessed" often turn to cursing the gods when misfortune falls upon them.
The word there used is "adversary". Given the context of Christian persecutions in Rome, this can be clearly seen as colorful phrasing for Emperor Domitian.
No, I've really only stated that "the Devil" was largely formulated from various pre-existing cultures and notions, spun into some theological supervillain that constantly foils the works of your god, and seeks to damn the souls of mankind. Spooky. Frigg's sake, even what you think of "Hell" is the product of what was essentially a self-insert fanfiction from the 17th Century.
Evidently you don't realize what the word dæmon means, because you're still viewing use of "demon" in a starkly negative manner, taking them to be inherently evil denizens of "Hell", rather than gods and spirits of whom worship was "blasphemous" to Early Christians.
Sure they would have, if the purpose was to slander Jesus as working for or with that god, rather than doing miracles in the name of Yahweh. You know, "sorcery".
You'd also do best to keep my faith out of you mouth. No threat here, but it's clear you are very ignorant on what we believe and why, and you're just liable to show your arse there. No, I don't think I will "enlighten" you in that regard. It's enough of a task presenting Christian theological history that you refuse to acknowledge.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Well Kilted Heathen, apparently you read a different Exodus than me. According to Exodus that I read; they built the cities of Ramses and Pithom; not the pyramids.
The Historian Josephus does say that the Egyptians "set them to build pyramids" but that doesn't necessarily mean the great pyramids. This could actually mean any pyramid. Perhaps much smaller copies of the ancient versions that are now lost to us. However, Josephus might just be wrong. In any case there is nothing in the Bible about Israelites building pyramids at all.
At least he didn't accidently do it.
I think you're going with more of a modern Orthodox Jewish view of it. Not that they all agree; but some would. But that ignores a lot of extrabiblical texts which do indicate the existence of fallen angels from before the time of Christ. Not to even mention the new Testament itself which further affirms the existence of such beliefs in Judea of the time. Then we could consult the church fathers, Ignatius etc. The Medieval period doesn't need to come into it at all.
It's not that I'm denying what you're saying about Satan being there to test Job. I'm just saying there is more to Satan than just that. The evidence bears me out.
Picking and choosing. You say one verse is about an angel who is just doing his job(pun not intended) and another verse is about Emperor Domitian.
Somehow I don't think Jesus was talking about Domitian when he said to Peter "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:" (Luke 22:31)
Conclusion: this is a real spirit being.
I haven't even gotten into the topic of hell. So I don't think you know what I believe about it.
Isn't Hel one of your goddesses anyway?
So what is this fanfiction from the 17th c?
Look, even though the gospels are Greek now; because we literally have them from the Byzantine Bible and other sources. They were not written by Greeks. They are largely Jewish in thought. They took Greek words and used them for Jewish concepts. So we aren't really talking about how the word dæmon was originally intended to be used anyway. But how the Jewish writers used it. That's an important distinction. Now if you want to compare with the Septuagint then that's cool. Like in the book of Tobit chapter 6 verse 8 the word dæmon is used for an "evil spirit".
Tobit 6:8
And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil(dæmon) or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.
A god that they don't even believe is real? These were scribes they knew the Tanach. They couldn't be expected to know much about any other religions really. If you were a scribe back then that would pretty much be your whole life.
In fact the worship of Baal Zebub was ancient history already. Baal cults were largely replaced with Greco-Roman gods. Converted to Zeus or whatever depending on the Baal. There were some Baal cults still in practice around the area but not necessarily in Ekron anymore. So the most likely way the Pharisees even knew about Baal Zebub was by reading about him in the Tanach.
Besides, they knew various verses (Psalm 115 for example) that make the point pretty clearly that idols are nothing but statues. They aren't real deities in Jewish belief.
In fact according to Deuteronomy 32:17 when the children of Israel thought they were sacrificing to idols they were really sacrificing to demons. The Hebrew word used is literally shade and is a spirit it literally means "death shadow" in Hebrew. It's bad. It's where we get the word shade from in modern English.
"They sacrificed unto devils(shades), not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not."
This is what Jews believed.
Respect my faith and I'll respect yours.
I don't see it that way. I think you're missing a lot of vital information.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Exodus 5:10-14 states the use of clay bricks absent of straw, which is the material used for the pyramids. Not their buildings. Additionally, Ramesses was built and the capital of Egypt in the 10th Century BCE, well before the Hebrew people would have immigrated to Egypt - if they even did, beyond garrisoned soldiers.
You do understand that makes it worse, right?
Like what? Examples are helpful.
No, it doesn't. Because, as covered, the New Testament was written in Greek, decades after the event, and then horrendously mistranslated from Greek to Latin to English, etc. The words used as you read them are not the words as first written, and the meanings as intended have all but been lost.
No, the evidence doesn’t. Your interpretation verifies the conclusion that you already have in mind, what you’ve been taught; that Satan is this great evil entity that seeks to destroy mankind.
One verse is in the Old Testament, a mangled version of the Torah, and the other is in the New Testament, and a Letter from Peter at that. The two are not the same even as they are, and the later was factually written around the time of Emperor Domitian and the timeframe when coded messages were common for the Early Church.
The common error here is that you are taking the entirety of the bible as one single narrative, rather than recognizing the divisions between cultural myths and legends, songs of praise, laws and histories, (approved) gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry, and purported letters and accounts of the apostles and disciples in the decades following Jesus' death.
I shouldn't think so, considering Domitian didn't begin his reign until 83 CE, Christianity wasn't a thing during Jesus' ministry, and when Jesus told Simon that, he was warning him of his faith being tested. The KJV changed a lot of language away from the intended message; most translations of that verse say "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail." Which falls in line with the original Hebrew view of Satan, as a being who tests people's faith. Not some predatory spirit seeking to claim souls for some nefarious purpose. Especially in that Satan asked to test people (sift them as wheat), and someone - Yahweh - had to allow it.
That’s okay, I breached the topic anyways. Spoiler Alert: if it’s anything but a state of gracelessness, separated from Yahweh, it’s not biblical and is a construct of the Medieval Period and later.
The Gospels were written in Greek. And yes, they attempted to use words in Greek to convey Jewish thoughts, which didn’t always work out. This is entirely relevant to how dæmon was used and intended, as it’s used to mean “spirits”. Not evil beings in league with “Hell” pestering mankind at Satan’s behest, leading them from god or whatever, but simply “spirits” other than Yahweh and thus not to be worshiped above Yahweh as per the law.
Did you follow that verse that you linked? Because it says “As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath whiteness in his eyes, and he shall be healed.” In a passage describing health codes for fish, and how to cure sickness from bad fish.
Your error here is assuming they didn’t believe those gods to exist. A view that is relatively modern, and replaced Henotheism as more and more Polytheistic cultures were pushed out and defeated. In Jesus’ time they would have recognized those gods existed, but Mosaic Law forbade worship of them above Yahweh. If they did not recognize the existence of other gods, then Exodus becomes a contest against nothing, and the First Commandment becomes an unnecessary redundancy: one can’t sensibly command to not worship what doesn’t exist.
The original word used is “false gods”, or gods and deities of lesser authority than Yahweh. Again I really suggest not reading the KJV, as the introduction of modern language as used in 1600 England has led to many persisting errors, and is far from representative of the beliefs of Jesus’ time.
No, I don’t think you will; experience tells me that’s a false olive branch, but the issue here isn’t respect. It’s that you clearly know nothing about it - less that what you would accuse me of knowing of your beliefs - and are likely quick-referencing either Google or Marvel’s comic renditions. But hey, look all the more foolish if you wish, it’s no skin off my back.[/quote][/QUOTE]
74x12
Well-Known Member
Well it looks like the Hebrews weren't the only ones grasping for straws and not finding any ...
First of all the scriptures explain why the Israelites weren't using straw. Not because they were building pyramids but because they ran out of straw and the Egyptians wouldn't give them more.
Secondly we know the great pyramids were built out of limestone blocks not mud bricks. The earliest pyramids were made with mud bricks but that would put the time period even further back which is an even worse fit for the time period of the slavery of the Israelites.
No, this way we know God is in control of all things and so everything will work out according to his will. If you follow his will it will do you good in the end.
The book of Enoch for starters. There are other examples.
No major modern translation relies solely on the Latin. Except maybe some Catholic Bibles that I don't know of. But every other major translation including the KJV will use the Greek as a primary source. Even though the KJV did use Wycliff's translation from the Latin; it compared every verse meticulously with the Greek to make sure it was correct. Not that I'm here to defend the KJV. The KJV does have some issues as do they all.
When it comes to debating scriptures it's good to check the Greek and Hebrew rather relying on any one translation. Which I am not doing by the way.
I've encountered various demonic entities and they are evil. I've even met Satan myself in a dream and he's a murderer. People who truly oppose Satan without the protection of God are likely to be killed by Satan directly or at his command.
I'm aware they sometimes used code but you're exaggerating the predominance of it's use as pertains to the epistles.
I am not taking the entire Bible as a single narrative. But I'm not ignoring the obvious connection between similar themes. You assume it's all cultural myths and legends. I know it's all true as the writers did also. In fact if we can show a literal satan was believed in at the time then that should be enough evidence to take these writings at face value without explaining it all away with claims of "code".
Basically you don't have a shred of evidence whereas I have a lot of it.
Of course Satan had to ask God because Peter was under God's protection the whole time. Just like Job was.
As far as I know there are 3 known locations which many would call "hell". That is Shoal/Hades which is the grave. Tartoros/Abaddon which is the bottomless pit and finally the lake of fire which is a lake of burning sulfur and is apparently located in a region of heaven itself of all places.
The idea that Satan and his minions rule in hell is not really in the Bible ... although when Jesus said the "gates of hell" will not prevail against the church he may have indicated as such. But that remains to be seen. But even if so they'll get theirs in the lake of fire.
As for gracelessness; that's one way to put it.
You're ignoring how the word is used in connection with the term "evil spirits" throughout the scriptures. That is harmful spirits. They were harmful. They caused people illness, blindness or mental illness etc. They weren't nice.
The idea they were according to the scriptures actual sentient beings is seen in various scriptures. In Matthew 8:9 they ask if Jesus is there to "torment them before the time" and in Acts 19:15 they talk to the supposed exorcists and then attack them.
- Jesus makes it clear that eternal fire(the lake of fire) was originally prepared for Satan and his angels. (Matthew 25:41)
- According to Matthew 13:39 Satan sowed the wicked seed in the earth and is the enemy of God.
- Revelation 12:9 Satan deceived the whole world.
Never tried it. This book is not considered canon for a reason. However it's still good to study for historical context.
I've shown you proof of what they would have thought of Baal Zebub. It seems like you want to just insist against the evidence. To be clear we're talking about the 1st century AD here not previous periods of Jewish history. Yes there were times when some Jews believed in the existence of other gods but chose to only worship Yah. But in the 1st century among the Pharisee and Sadducee class that was unlikely to be the case.
I'm well aware of the changing language since 1600 AD. But the KJV itself says "gods".
I apologize. I said "idols" because of historical context. In those days in that time period basically all gods were worshiped as idols. This was standard. That's why the Hebrews tried to make an idol of Yah with the golden calf. That's how used to idols they were.
In any case it doesn't matter. Whether it said idols or gods that doesn't change my point.
I admit I don't know that much about your religion. But you won't admit the same about my beliefs.
Last edited: