The concept of Satan is perceived as biblical Satan isn’t biblical! The Bible acts like the Bible was here during creation it wasn’t. Satan and his demons are spiritual and the things they say in the Bible isn’t true about Satan! I’m actually just gonna have to summon or invoke Satan one day to ask him myself who he is.
You are a bit overreacting, arent you?
1 Like
Satan in a way is his own being so you aren’t necessarily wrong. However, Satan is mostly viewed as a title for other demons and that shouldn’t be ignored.
No I’m not why would you assume I’m overreacting? According to both Jewish and Christian Dogma, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (the first five books of the Bible and the entirety of the Torah) were all written by Moses in about 1,300 B.C. There are a few issues with this, however, such as the lack of evidence that Moses ever existed …
Creation didn’t happen in 1,300 B.C.
13.8 billion years
Our universe is 13.8 billion years old, a timescale much longer than the more relatable spans of hundreds or thousands of years that impact our lived experiences. So how do astronomers arrive at such an enormous number?Jan 10, 2018
You can’t make an excuse and ignore the fact that the universe is much older than the Bible. Like I said the Bible wasnt here during creation. It would be delusional to think creation was in 1,300 B.C.
You’re about to summon a whole thoughtform. I don’t understand the concept of denying information that is given by the bible. Yes, this is a website for dark magickians, but it’s not exluded to dark magickians only. We have many types of people of various beliefs and practices in here, INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY.
If you truly 100% don’t support the bible as you insist, then you shouldn’t even be believing in a Satan of any form- thoughtform, title, or being; since all it says is a lie, and the idea of Satan has its foundations based within the Abrahamic religions.
5 Likes
Thanks. I actually work with demonic energy demonic energy really gives me the ability to think deeply. Angelic energy causes me to be distracted and it doesn’t feel good to receive angelic energy it’s uncomfortable to receive angelic energy.
Okay, thats the nitpicking part of things.That one, I do not agree with either.Are you assuming Satan is one and true dark savior because bible is lying? Even Sumerian mythologies dont go as back as 20 thousand years ago.
And your evidence of Satan existing? Fragile argument.
1 Like
I literally said nowhere that Bible tells the absolute truth.I am not excusing, you are overreacting.
So far everyone said Satan really wasnt a thing before Christanity. 
3 Likes
Look at it this way the universe is 13.8 billions years old. Creation happened and Satan was here then eventually the mythologies happened which would only mean that the mythologies found out about the things they know down the road
I have some information that I need to find I’ll get back to you ounce I find it.
Alright here it is read the whole thing and get back to me
http://www.theforbiddenreligion.com/the-plans-of-the-creator-god.htm
I will try to read it soon, but gimme some time.
I will
Lmao 
1 Like
Some Zoroastrians might say Ahura Mazda (sometimes though to be the same as the highest God of the bible) created him and hence why has the real/dominant power over, and that the older identity of Satan would be Angra Mainyu, or otherwise known as Ahriman.
Do you mean Zurvan? Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) are considered to be siblings.
There is also the alternative where it is insinuated that Angra Mainyu is a manifestation of Ahura Mazda’s negative thoughts (essentially, they are both two sides of the same coin).
3 Likes
It doesn’t matter what you support and don’t support, you can’t reject information because of bias personal feelings. No matter what information does not adhere to personal taste. No matter how you slice it “Satan” is man made and LHP people are basically piggybacking a christian view.
3 Likes
I Did yes if in that context and if you meant me, that’d seem much more correctly synonymous with what I meant (Zurvan as a synonym of the highest most sourcing God as the bible for one example, refers to).
That’d be equivalent to positive and negative powers in some places (or the twin powers/sides of manifestation/power going into the world, and ascension/power carrying one from the world), and then the original/neutral source of both/from outside duality.
Thank you
2 Likes
@Galazio
The Zoroastrians that say Ahura Mazda created Angra Mainyu are cultists ignoring the actual scripture. They went back and tried to make Angra Mainyu subservient and a creation of Ahura Mazda.
http://avesta.org/mp/bundahis.html
If you read that first chapter you will notice the contradictions. It is based on the original scripture. This Bundahishn in its own words is “based” on something else.
From verse 5, you note that Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu live in two completely different realms, separated by a vast abyss called the void. Angra Mainyu isn’t aware of mankind or Ahura Mazda. This is because he wasn’t created by Ahura Mazda.
@Harith
Zurva, “Father Time”, came later as an explanation to clear up the cosmology. And like you said, also this idea that Ahriman is a manifestation of Ahura Mazda’s negative thoughts. But looking even at that version of the scripture I linked, you can see they are not siblings, but exist in entirely different realms, independently of each other. Only in creation do they interact.
Many of those passages you linked are as you pointed out, named beings. In practice, I know Lucifer and Satan to be different beings. Beelzebub is also a separate being. Samael, etc. Just because some people who have a cursory knowledge of scripture identify it all under the blanket name “Satan”, I think even in the scripture there is no equivocation.
If for example the adversay “ha-satan” were the same “shining one, son of the dawn” of Isaiah, it would have been simply “the adversary”. Instead, in context (Isaiah 14), this “shining one” is a human king of Babylon who dares to equate himself to the Most High. He is a man that thought highly of himself (Isaiah 14:16). This is similar to the Prince of Tyre of Ezekiel 28:2. Both are men clearly in scripture. However, Christians and others decided to call them different things and associate them with each other as well.
My only point is that if we stick to the source material, there is only one “the adversary”, ha-satan, which became Satan. And he later in the Greek writings became the tempter of Jesus. There is no reason to follow the philosophy of later religious types when we have the source material to work with.
The original Hebrew never identified the adversary by name, only a title. Christians and early Jews used that title as a name “Satan”. This is because in the Greek, they dropped “ha-”, the Hebrew definite article and made it a name. So it is a very real being with a name referring to that specific being.
In context, there is no reason to equate Satan who tempted Jesus with Abaddon or Beelzebebul, etc.
3 Likes
I don’t reject information if I rejected information I wouldn’t be talking about any of this! Religion is just a informational source to find out the real truth. One can say I use Jesus for my own personl benefit. Meaning advancement an upgrade to my own knowledge eliminating the falsehoods that I didn’t understand and always had a doubt in my mind of his goodness. Go ahead and read that link I added and don’t dismiss information that I have given you access too. A person can’t say Jesus is good they just can’t! That would only prove how they are denying the rest of the evil things he did and let happen in scripture! People look and believe what they wanna believe! If I don’t understand something and it don’t add up, contradictions just doesn’t add up. I’m always gonna have that doubt of its truth until I find out the truth. But I won’t dismiss that the Bible is a tool to find out the truth! The Bible isn’t truth it’s a tool to find its deception!!