The truth about The Lesser Key of Solomon 72 Demons

a reply to: wisvol
The OP is about the significance of the number 72. I am just saying it's oldest known significance. I said it was not the same 72 beings but lesser demons that appear in the Lesser Keys. You conveniently left that part out. You might be confused, I don't see anybody else complaining.

a reply to: Mazzini

complaining? confused? no, thanks
Confusing to those who think what ever is called kabala is kabala, when in fact this isn't the case.


carry on

a reply to: amaguq

Yeah so what am I wrong about? Like I am not aware that the El and Asherah legends are from ancient Canaan and the Israelites ripped it off? I have been saying that for years.

But 72 was the number of El Asherah and their offspring. That's the oldest significant use of the number 72.

Again, what am I "wrong" about. I am just adding what you missed so don't get mad at me for your lack of research into the number that never led you to its source.

a reply to: wisvol

All Kabbalah is comes from mostly the Persians, the Zoroastrians or Magi or whatever you want to call them. It's been Judaized, but it's source is mostly Persian. The Zohar is a book of Tanakh interpretations that is actually pretty good. Sepher ha Yezirah explains the Hebrew alphabet but that one I haven't read. It's a decent tradition.

Gnosticism also is based off the same.

a reply to: amaguq

And you didn't even provide a link to the book your OP is about so I did it for you. Your welcome.

a reply to: Mazzini

Your source on kabala isn't kabalistic if you mean that.

However, you're being self consistent in that the Ashera bit does seem Farsi

a reply to: wisvol

Asherah is Canaanite. There are no female deities in Parsi/Zoroastrianism. If Asherah is in the Kabbalah it is not from the Persians.

The Persian aspects of Kabbalah are from the Zend Avesta.

a reply to: Mazzini

Asherah is Canaanite.

Fair enough
There are no deities in kabala besides god, and Canaan's pantheon isn't part of kabala, it is the cause of the destruction of the temple Solomon had built

a reply to: wisvol

I only said it was the source of the number 72 not that the pantheon was Kabbalah, I have been clear about that.

Kabbalah has deities that doesn't mean God's. But you really need to look into it on your own to figure it out. But Kabbalah has many emanations of the Ancient of Days who are the Elohim or Gods of Kabbalah but they are all individual aspects of the Creator and thought of as emanations rather than gods. Aspects of the one Creator. Which is sufficient to explain the use of the plural Elohim being used to refer to the Creator.

a reply to: Mazzini

I only said it was the source of the number 72 not that the pantheon was Kabbalah, I have been clear about that.

You wrote

El and Asherah had 70 Sons which corresponds to the 72 chief spirits of the Kabbalah.

which is false

then you wrote

Kabbalah has deities that doesn't mean God's. But you really need to look into it on your own to figure it out. But Kabbalah has many emanations of the Ancient of Days who are the Elohim or Gods of Kabbala

thing is deity already has a meaning, you don't get to make a new one, because that's.. I'd use "confusing" again but then you think I'm confused, so, wrong.

a reply to: wisvol


Deity can mean anything from God to an angel. Any Elohim is a deity.

The 72 chief spirits do correspond to the 72 deities of Canaan in that it is the reason for the use of the number 72.

You require the clarification of the smallest detail too many times. You took what I said out of context like you have some sick need to prove me wrong before you go to bed.

Clearly you don't understand what I am talking about. Deity doesn't have one strict definition that applies to one being.

The 72 chief spirits are minor deities. They have god like powers. They fit the definition of deity.

Obsesse over someone else, your creepy.

a reply to: Mazzini

You require the clarification of the smallest detail too many times.

Doing a half-decent job may be all right in some occupations, theology excluded.

I'm insisting on what you call details because the smallest misconception in these matters is sadly the seed of a moronic massacre or decades of people worshipping rocks or explosions.
This is important grounds, deal with it.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

I wish that I was born a thousand years ago
I wish that I'd sailed the darkened seas
On a great big clipper ship
Going from this land here to that
I put on a sailor's suit and cap

Away from the big city
Where a man cannot be free
Of all the evils in this town
And of himself and those around
Oh, and I guess I just don't know
Oh, and I guess I just don't know

Nice...One of my favorite Lou Reed songs!

originally posted by: bhornbuckle75

originally posted by: visitedbythem

I wish that I was born a thousand years ago
I wish that I'd sailed the darkened seas
On a great big clipper ship
Going from this land here to that
I put on a sailor's suit and cap

Away from the big city
Where a man cannot be free
Of all the evils in this town
And of himself and those around
Oh, and I guess I just don't know
Oh, and I guess I just don't know

Nice...One of my favorite Lou Reed songs!

Me too Bro!

This op is misleading and does nothing to explain the lesser Key of Solomon.

What a hack job op.

Where's the part where we find out the truth about the lesser key of Solomon?

a reply to: sazanon

beginning of the thread

or do you have a specific question you'd care to share?

also, it was called "lesser" only after heavy editing, of an older text called since "veritable" or simply "clavicula solomonis" although the sheath has no marking

"key" is a misleading translation

hence clergy insisted until eliphas l that it be kept in the latin, which is less misleading