Month: April 2017

Herein we begin considering Demons within texts generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here and Satan in apocryphal texts here.

Demons in Books of Giants, Book Of The Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle, Gospel of Phillip, Secret Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Marcion aka Gospel of the Lord.

Books of Giants – pre 100 BC
All ellipses found within the original translation by W. B. Henning:

(E. Sogdian) (First page) . . . [when] they saw the apostle, . . . before the apostle . . . those demons that were [timid], were very, very glad at seeing the apostle. All of them assembled before him. Also, of those that were tyrants and criminals, they were [worried] and much afraid. Then . . . (Second page) . . . not to . . . Thereupon those powerful demons spoke thus to the pious apostle: If . . . . by us any (further) sin [will] not [be committed ?], my lord, why ? . . . . you have . . . and weighty injunction . . .

(E. Sogdian) “The four Angels with the two hundred [demons . . . “. . . they took and imprisoned all the helpers that were in the heavens. And the Angels themselves descended from the heaven to the Earth. And (when) the two hundred demons saw those Angels, they were much afraid and worried. They assumed the shape of men and hid themselves. Thereupon the Angels forcibly removed the men from the demons, (10) laid them aside, and put watchers over them . . . . the giants . . . . were sons . . . with each other in bodily union . . . . with each other self- . . . . and the . . . . that had been born to them, they forcibly removed them from the demons. And they led one half of them (20) eastwards, and the other half westwards, on the skirts of four huge mountains, towards the foot of the Sumeru mountain, into thirty-two towns which the Living Spirit had prepared for them in the beginning. And one calls (that place) Aryān-waižan. And those men are (or: were) . . . . in the first arts and crafts. (30) . . . . they made . . . the Angels . . . and to the demons . . . they went to fight. And those two hundred demons fought a hard battle with the [four Angels], until [the Angels used] fire, naphtha, and brimstone . . . .

(H. Sogdian) And again a second son [was born] to him. He named him “Ahya”; its Sogdian (equivalent) is “Pat-Sahm”. As for the remaining giants, they were born to the other demons and Yakṣas. (Colophon) Completed: (the chapter on) “The Coming of the two hundred Demons”.

(J. Middle-Persian) T ii D ii 120, V ii 1-5: and in the coming of the two hundred demons there are two paths: the hurting speech, and the hard labour; these (belong, or: lead) to hell.

(K. Sogdian) (First page) . . . before . . . they were. And all the . . . fulfilled their tasks lawfully. Now, they became excited and irritated for the following reason: namely, the two hundred demons came down to the sphere from the high heaven, and the . . . .

(T. Parthian) (First page) . . . mirror . . . image. . . . distributed. The men . . . and Enoch was veiled ( = moved out of sight).1 They took . . . Afterwards, with donkey-goads . . . . slaves, and waterless trees (?). Then . . . and imprisoned the demons. And of them . . . . seven and twelve.

Book Of The Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle
Then Jesus rose and mounted into the chariot of the Cherubim. He wrought havoc in Hell, breaking the doors, binding the demons Beliar and Melkir (cf. Melkira in the Ascension of Isaiah), and delivered Adam and the holy souls.

Gospel of Phillip – 3rd century
Often some come and say We are faithful in order that they may be able to escape the unclean spirits and the demons.

Secret Gospel of Mark – 70-255 AD
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies.

Gospel of Marcion aka Gospel of the Lord – 2nd AD
I:4, 6-7, 23 And in the synagogue there was a man which had a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud…And when the demon had thrown him into the midst, he came out of him, having done no hurt…And demons also came out of many, crying out, saying, “Thou art Son of God.”

IV:33-34 For John the Baptist is come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say, He hath a demon.

V:2-3, 26-30, 32, 34-35, 37 Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joannah the wife of Chuza, Herod`s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their possessions…And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had demons long time, and wore no cloke, neither abode in a house, but among the tombs…(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was guarded and bound with chains and in fetters: and he brake the bands asunder, and was driven of the demon into the deserts)…”Legion” because many demons were entered into him…Then went the demons out of the man, and entered into the swine…Then they went out to see what was done ; and came to Jesus, and found the man, from whom the demons were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind : and they were afraid. They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the demons was saved…Now the man, from whom the demons had departed, besought him that he might be with him.

In the next segment, we will consider Tertullian Spectacles and Prayer and Epistle of Barnabas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Social networks:
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

As has been elucidated in various articles found with the Serpent Seed category: the Bible does speak the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Yet, it does not, in any way, relate seed of the serpent to Cain being the result of Eve having sex with Satan.

In fact, since the serpent seed of Satan theory is not biblical, promulgators, such as those listed below, have different ideas as to who the seedlines / bloodlines are.

With the US government, actually nine unelected officials, radically redefining “marriage,” the issue of gender is more relevant than ever.

The “sexual revolution” was, in reality, sexual devolution and “free sex” resulted in slavery to sex. The free sex revolution was merely an open door to homosexuality. In turn, homosexuality was merely an open door to transgenderism.

Finally, transgenderism was merely an open door to postgendersism.

Here is the latest of my guest post at the Illuminati Watcher website:

Continuing and concluding from part 1, let us go word by word through fruit, tree, eat, touch, seed in order to see if they have specific association with a sexual act (keeping in mind that this is contextually irrelevant). Additionally, I will add beguiled since Eve stated, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” which is supposed to mean that Satan sexually seduced her and they had sex.

FRUIT
Strong’s H6529 pĕriy from H6509; fruit (literally or figuratively):—bough, (first-)fruit(-ful), reward.

I. fruit A. fruit, produce (of the ground) B. fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb)

C. fruit (of actions) (fig.)

For an example of usage note that the KJV translates it as fruit (113x), fruitful (2x), boughs (1x), firstfruits (with H7225) (1x), reward (1x), fruit thereof (1x).

Thus, the serpent seedline of Satan theorists would appeal to “fruit (literally or figuratively)” and, of course, “B. fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb).”

TREE
Strong’s H6086 `ets from H6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence, wood (plural sticks):— carpenter, gallows, helve, pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.

I. tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows A. tree, trees

B. wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax

KJV translates as: tree (162x), wood (107x), timber (23x), stick (14x), gallows (8x), staff (4x), stock (4x), carpenter (with H2796) (2x), branches (1x), helve (1x), planks (1x), stalks (1x).

So, the theorists get no points here.

EAT
Strong’s H398 ‘akal a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):—× at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, × freely, × in…wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, × quite.

I. to eat, devour, burn up, feed A. (Qal) i. to eat (human subject) ii. to eat, devour (of beasts and birds) iii. to devour, consume (of fire) iv. to devour, slay (of sword) v. to devour, consume, destroy (inanimate subjects – ie, pestilence, drought) vi. to devour (of oppression) B. (Niphal) i. to be eaten (by men) ii. to be devoured, consumed (of fire) iii. to be wasted, destroyed (of flesh) C. (Pual) i. to cause to eat, feed with ii. to cause to devour D. (Hiphil) i. to feed ii. to cause to eat E. (Piel)

i. consume

KJV has: eat (604x), devour (111x), consume (32x), miscellaneous (55x).

So, all the theorists get is “eat (literally or figuratively).”

TOUCH
Strong’s H5060 naga` a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.):—beat, (× be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

I. to touch, reach, strike A. (Qal) i. to touch ii. to strike iii. to reach, extend to iv. to be stricken a. stricken (participle) B. (Niphal) to be stricken, be defeated C. (Piel) to strike D. (Pual) to be stricken (by disease) E. (Hiphil) to cause to touch, reach, approach, arrive i. to cause to touch, apply ii. to reach, extend, attain, arrive, come iii. to approach (of time)

iv. to befall (of fate)

KJV has: touch (92x), came (18x), reach (11x), bring (4x), near (4x), smite (4x), nigh (3x), plagued (3x), happeneth (2x), strike (2x), beaten (1x), cast (1x), reach up (1x), brought down (1x), join (1x), laid (1x), get up.

Well, the theorists go get “to lie with a woman” out of this which, of course, must mean that Eve had lesbian sex with another woman. In any case, out of the 155 times it appears it is only employed with regards to sex a grand total of twice.

SEED
Strong’s H2233 zera` from H2232; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity:—× carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing-time.

I. seed, sowing, offspring A. a sowing B. seed C. semen virile D. offspring, descendants, posterity, children E. of moral quality i. a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)

F. sowing time (by meton)

KJV seed (221x), child (2x), carnally (with H7902) (2x), carnally (1x), fruitful (1x), seedtime (1x), sowing time (1x).

This is really a non-issue since it is commonly understood that this word goes both ways and this will be the key, as we shall see after reviewing the next and last word.

BEGUILED
Strong’s H5377 nasha’ a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly.

I. to beguile, deceive A. (Niphal) to be beguiled B. (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive

C. (Qal) utterly (infinitive)

KJV: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).

Nothing to see here. However, the theorists are not done as of yet since they point us to 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 which reads:

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Serpent seed of Satan theorists claim that this Greek term for beguiled is the key.

Strong’s G1818 exapataō from G1537 and G538; to seduce wholly:—beguile, deceive.

I. to deceive

KJV: deceive (4x), beguile (1x).

In a way, this article is a more detailed consideration of issue covered in my Zen Garcia on symbolic Serpent Seed of Satan language in Genesis 3 and at the end of that one you can see how I consider each text that employs the term exapataō—and how it does not help the theorists one bit.

Recall that I noted that the term for seed going both ways would be the key. The theorists’ claim is that since Eve’s seed was physical, literal, etc. then so is Satan’s and this must be Cain, etc. What is most important is that ultimately, Eve’s seed is Jesus. So is Cain the anti-Christ? The subtext is the real key to understanding the two seedlines issue as biblically there indeed are two line but they are not genetic: they are not Cainite and Sethite, they are not Eve’s genetics and Satan’s genetics but are based on actions. Those who sin and are thus, of Satan and those who repent and are thus, of God.
I made this case in detail and yet most succinctly within Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics journal.

Genesis 3 is the first time that a term such as seed is used of action based or genetic progeny. You see, the issue is that literal fruit was referenced in Genesis 1 and the terminology was then applied to Adam and Eve:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good…

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl…great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth…

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Clearly, there is no confusion and the context determines the meaning: just as plants and trees produce fruit baring seeds and multiply animals and Adam and Eve were to do likewise. There is simply no reason to think that when it comes to Genesis 3 there is suddenly some sort of hidden meaning as the context is that tree is tree, fruit is fruit, eating is eating, etc.
In part, we know this from the fact that, as seen within the bracketed version above, the serpent seedline of Satan theorists’ preferred picking and choosing of minority definitions means that Adam and Eve had multiple sex partners (who or whatever that would have been), Adam had sex with Satan, Eve may have had a lesbian affair, etc. Moreover, and most importantly, the Bible’s greater context simply knows of no such thing as Eve having sex with Satan, Cain being Satan’s son, Cain’s seedline propagating Satanic genetics, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SerpentSeed, #Seedlines, #Bible
Facebook: #SerpentSeed, #Seedlines, #Bible

Social networks:
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Social networks:
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

We continue and conclude, from part 1, considering Clifton A. Emahiser’s two part article titled, “Two Seedline Taught In Dead Sea Scrolls” in which he never got around to evidencing just where the “Two Seedline” is “Taught In Dead Sea Scrolls”; at least not according to his serpent seed of Satan premise that Cain is literally the son of Satan with whom Eve had sex. Additionally, I previously posted Clifton A. Emahiser’s serpent seed of Satan theory.

What he was after is clear from his statement:

When new evidence was brought forth from the Aramiac Targums confirming an omission in Genesis 4:1…When the Targum evidence is added to Genesis 4:1 in italics it would read thusly:
“And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan], and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.”

The claim that the Aramiac Targums provide “new evidence” is certainly rather odd. But, pray tell, why not claim that when new evidence was brought forth from the Hebrew Bible it confirmed additions in Genesis 4:1 of the Targum?
Clifton A. Emahiser is referring to The Targum of Palestine, Commonly Entitled the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, on the Book of Genesis aka Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD (that is right AD, not BC) which dates it to 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). Emahiser had to appeal to something so be quoted the Targum while supposedly telling us about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Well, Genesis 4:1 was not found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and so he grasped at straws.

I dealt with the issue of Genesis 4 in the Targum in the article Zen Garcia on the Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Targum and English KJV and followed up with Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD.

Lastly, let us consider Emahiser’s reference to what he considers to be wayward (to say the least) Identity preachers. Identity referring to Aryan Whites being the true “Jews,” see my relevant articles here.

Clifton A. Emahiser wrote:

Sadly, many in the Identity Message today do just that, on a variety of subjects, especially the antichrist, anti-seedliners and those preaching universalism (that is, to attempt to bring the other races, termed “heathen” in the Bible, via the backdoor of the Kingdom under our Covenant).

Of course, he is writing from a racist perspective but the whole point of the whole Bible is to bring “heathen” into the Kingdom of God.

He continues thusly:

To all the apologists for the other races, I say this: It is high time to either get fully into Israel Identity or get entirely out. Should you decide on the latter, I suggest you return to the Jew-deo-unchristian churches, from where you came, to preach your anti-seedline and universalist doctrines. Astonishingly, there are so-called Identity “teachers” who erroneously call themselves “pastors” who are advocating that even the impostor “Jews” can be saved if only they will accept “Jesus Christ” as their personal Savior.
In Detroit, at a small Identity church, they have a “Jew” in the congregation. There could be nothing more out-of-place than a black, Mongolian or “Jew” at an Israel Identity meeting…Ted R. Weiland is one of them. I am fully persuaded that when Weiland stands before the Almighty in judgment, Yahshua will ask him, “Why did you give aid and comfort to My enemies?”

Well, yes, the whole point of the whole gospel is that “Jews” and Gentiles alike, “can be saved if only they will accept ‘Jesus Christ’ as their personal Savior.” Apparently, Ted R. Weiland’s sin, was to refer to a “Jews” who would “join himself to Yahweh” and asked, “why wouldn’t we want” that and “Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?…why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message?” Well, because that would rob personages such as Emahiser of their self-justifying racism.

Apparently referring to the fact that Romans were “white,” Weiland stated, “it wasn’t the Jews of today who crucified our Lord and Savior — it was us.” Of course, he may simply be referring to humanity in general.

Emahiser followed up with:

Then Weiland had the guts to ask Yahweh to bless his message! What ever happened to the passage, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you …”, 2 Corinthians 6:17. The other races are “unclean” to us, and Yahweh commands total “separation.”

Well, Emahiser needs to read the text for context so as to not make a pretext for a prooftext. He misinterprets the “them” in “come out from among them” to be the “Jews.”
The text states:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Note that the dichotomy is not false “Jews” vs. Aryan White true “Jews” but rather: Righteousness vs. unrighteousness. Light vs. darkness. Christ vs. Belial. Believeth vs. infidel. The temple of God vs. idols.

Therefore, be separate from “the unclean thing”: unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, infidel and idols.

As to the claim that “The other races are ‘unclean’ to us, and Yahweh commands total ‘separation’”: Biblically there is only one race and that is the human race. “The other races” may be “unclean” to “us” meaning racists such as Clifton A. Emahiser but what saith the Bible? After all, note that Emahiser stated the following of Weiland’s statements, “He surely doesn’t get it from Scripture, and noticeably he didn’t quote chapter and verse. Therefore, it’s not Christianity; it’s Weiland-ism!” Well, let us quote chapter and verse.

Acts 17:26-27

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.

Galatians 3:28-29

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Revelation 5:9-10

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 7:9-10

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

One last question by Emahiser, “Where in the Bible are we commissioned to take our Law to the non-Israelites?” Two questions for Emahiser: 1) what is “our Law” and 2) who are the “non-Israelites”? Let us assume that the answer to 1) is the gospel and 2) is anyone who is not an Aryan White.

Well, the New Testament contains commissions to take the gospel to Jews and Gentile: all people so this is more evidence that no matter how he defines and redefines terms Emahiser is simply wrong.

Matthew 15:24, “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Galatians 2:7, “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.”

Mark 16:15, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

So, there you have it, the gospel is preached to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” “the uncircumcision,” “the circumcision” and “every creature.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #CliftonEmahiser, #Serpentseed, #racism
Facebook: #CliftonEmahiser, #Serpentseed, #racism

Herein we begin considering “Serpent” and “Dragon” within the context of Satan in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.
The quotations within section pertain to references to serpent and dragons when the term is applied to evil entities and not merely to reptiles. For example, Bel and the Dragon obviously contains references to a dragon but it is a reptile.
See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Serpent & Dragon in Testament of Job, Lives of the Prophets aka Deaths of the Prophets, Bartholomew’s Book of the Resurrection of Christ, Gospel of Phillip and Gospel of Bartholomew aka Questions of Bartholomew.

Testament of Job – 1st century BC to 1st century AD
10:16-17 The doorkeepers of the place of darkness shall give him their glory and beauty as share; His Kingdom hath vanished, his throne hath moldered, and the honor of his stature is in (Sheol) Hades. For he has loved the beauty of the serpent and the scales (skins) of’ the dracon his gall and his venom belongs to the Northern One (Zphuni = Adder).

Lives of the Prophets aka Deaths of the Prophets – 1st century AD
Habakkuk section 12-14 Then, he said, the veil of the inner sanctuary will be torn to pieces, and the capitals of the two pillars will be taken away, and no one will know where they are; but they will be carried away by Angels into the wilderness where in the beginning the Tabernacle of Witness was pitched. By them in the end the presence of the Lord will be made known, for they will give light to those who are pursued by the Serpent in darkness as at the beginning.

Bartholomew’s Book Of The Resurrection of Christ
Death came into Amente (the underworld), asking who the new arrival was, for he detected a disturbance. He came to the tomb of Jesus with his six sons in the form of serpents.

Gospel of Phillip – 3rd century
If he was not created, but begotten, you would find that his seed was noble. But now he was created and he begot. What nobility is this? First, adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent.

Gospel of Bartholomew aka Questions of Bartholomew
IV:46 Bartholomew saith: Be still (be muzzled) thou dragon of the pit. 47 And Beliar said: Many things will I tell thee of the Angels. They that run together throughout the heavenly places and the Earthly are these: Mermeoth, Onomatath, Douth, Melioth, Charouth, Graphathas, Oethra, Nephonos, Chalkatoura. With them do fly (are administered?) the things that are in heaven and on Earth and under the Earth.

In the next segment, we will consider Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Epistle of Barnabas, Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour and Book of John the EvAngelist aka Interrogatio Iohannis.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Herein we begin considering Demons within texts generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.