Origins of Satan

heres some links:

this one is an essay about the origin of satan, which swayed some of my ideas ...
www.storyhouse.org...

Heres a sumerian text archive:
www.ancienttexts.org...

heres another with some extra info:
www.piney.com...

I had trouble finding online sumerian texts actually .

I believe that satan was just like others in the preexistance, life before here,
At a certain point in the council, the Father asked, "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ, known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed to follow the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind that would not respect their agency (human choice to decifer right from wrong). The substitute proposal was also designed to exalt Lucifer above the throne of God. The Father's response was, "I will send the first" (meaning Jehovah). Lucifer rebelled and became Satan, or "the devil." A division developed among the spirits, and no spirits were neutral (DS 1:65-66). There was war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-8), and the third of the hosts who followed Lucifer were cast out (Rev. 12:4; D&C 29:36). These rebellious spirits, along with Lucifer, were thrust down to the earth without physical bodies (Rev. 12:9; cf. Isa. 14:12-17).
"The contention in heaven was�Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him" (TPJS, p. 357). Heavenly Father and the faithful spirits in heaven wept over them (D&C 76:25-29). Satan and his followers are still at war with those spirits who have been born into mortality (Rev. 12:9; cf. "War in Heaven," p. 788).

Originally posted by Lilith
the idea that satan was cast out of heaven also has it roots in a sumerian tale.... (thats if you believe sumerian accounts to be older than biblical ones) as enki is banished from heaven and earth ....

Actually, Enki isn't the source for Satan. The source is Zoroasterian, instead, with the dual gods (one of goodness and one of darkness.) Enki leaves to be with Ereshkegal (Satan didn't follow anyone) and fathers some of the gods and creates humans.

This is not like Satan.

I see some confusion of gnostic texts (Christian or pseudo-Christian, but generally not accepted by mainstream Christianity) as well. It looks as though there needs to be a reconstructionist movement in the Satanists (as there is in many of the modern Pagan religions) that strips away some of the material that was outright invented in the past 30 years and does a better and more scholarly job of examining the roots.)



REFERENCES:
The Sumerian Gods FAQ from Usenet. This one is correct (speaking from an archaeological, scholarly, linguistic, and cultural and mythological standpoint):
members.bellatlantic.net...

Religoustolerance.org gives a good overview or Zoroastrianism (note that it predates the earliest books of the Bible):
www.religioustolerance.org...


Note also the close parallel to Judaeo-Christian religions here:

An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being worshipped, and
An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, who opposes Ahura Mazda.

The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity who is required to choose which to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.

intersting - thanks for the info, i'll look into that. I'm just posting on theories that i've heard so far - i'm always interested to find out more.


Thanks

Probably the most definitive scholarly work to date (a book that I happen to own) is The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels. It's well researched and she doesn't make up theories and then run around trying to prove them and she does highlight the tendency of this philosophy to divide the world into "us and them" camps.

Here's a very nice review of it:
www.richmondreview.co.uk...

Check to see if you can borrow it from your local library.