The Sigil of Baphomet - Old Canaan Gods Casted Down

[The Kilted Heathen]

Well it looks like the Hebrews weren't the only ones grasping for straws and not finding any ...

The evidence is there to strongly suggest the claim. Either way, the Hebrew people built nothing in Egypt.

Secondly we know the great pyramids were built out of limestone blocks not mud bricks. The earliest pyramids were made with mud bricks--

Negative, the pyramids began with limestone entirely in the 3rd through 5th Dynasties. Beginning in the Middle Kingdom (2040 BCE, covering the time claimed that the Hebrew people were held in captivity), and used from then on out, the pyramids were constructed of mud brick covered in polished limestone.

No, this way we know God is in control of all things--

So a control freak as well as intentionally malicious. Not a good hat.

Dead sea scroll fragments and the book of Enoch for starters. There are other examples.

Okay, and Satan is mentioned when, where, and in what context in these Hebrew texts? That's a very vague "example" given.

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--

"The KJV didn't use Latin! Except for this Latin, but pay no mind to the man behind the curtain!" Ignoring as well that the KJV infamously used the wrong kind of Greek, not the dialect that the Gospels were written in. But in any case, you're not really tracking what I'm saying. You are insistent that words like "Devil" and "Demon" in the modern take of them were the intended words and meanings all along, despite this being nothing more than your bias borne from centuries of a really poor game of Telephone, and the original meanings having meant nothing more than "spirit" or "lesser gods".

I've encountered various demonic entities and they are evil. I've even met Satan myself in a dream and he's a murderer.

Spooky! But there's literally no way you can verify this, and I remain wholly unconvinced. I know Christians who have leapt and wailed "Demon!" like a housewife to a mouse, and it turned out to be nothing more than a disgruntled land wight. Or, you know, their imagination.

I'm aware they sometimes used code but you're exaggerating the predominance of it's use as pertains to the epistles.

No, I'm really not. It just disagrees with your bias here, so you're hoping to hide behind a "sometimes it's a code, but not here." to, I can only assume, use that very same excuse for another verse that happens to be crystal clear. Especially since, again, the word used is "adversary", not "Satan, the Devil, the roving evil spirit that desires the blood of the innocent".

I am not taking the entire Bible as a single narrative.

Then don't accuse me of "picking and choosing" when you juxtapose a story from the 7th Century BCE to a letter written in 81 CE.

You assume it's all cultural myths and legends.

No, I was quite clear in what all the Bible contains. Myths and legends are a part of it, as are songs, poems, laws, and letters.

I know it's all true as the writers did also.

All of it, you say? Anyways you'll have a hell of a time proving that all of it is true, as Christians who take the Bible as 100% literal have had for centuries. It's a Fool's Errand.

In fact if we can show a literal satan was believed in at the time

A literal Satan, or your biased interpretation of Satan? The latter is a pretty big "If".

Basically you don't have a shred of evidence whereas I have a lot of it.

And yet you have yet to provide any of it. Still just don't have the time, in between writing about how much evidence you have?

Of course Satan had to ask God because Peter was under God's protection the whole time.

It's really funny that you're still getting the apostle wrong, even as it's written right there, and you're ignoring Jesus literally saying "Sure hope you're faith's strong, bud."

As far as I know there are 3 known locations which many would call "hell". That is Shoal/Hades which is the grave.

Sheol is Hebrew. Hades is Greek. Sheol is the grave, and Hades is the Underworld. Two different cultures, and two completely different beliefs.

Tartoros/Abaddon which is the bottomless pit

Again, Greek and Hebrew. Abbadon is absolute destruction, Tartarus is the prison of the Titans.

and finally the lake of fire

Egyptian. A lake fueled by the wicked dead that Ra passes through each morning (rising as the Sun) from the Duat. Adopted by Hippolytus of Rome in 230 CE and loosely connected to the burning pits of Gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnom. A physical location where the old Kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire, and which was afterwards believed to be cursed.

The idea that Satan and his minions rule in hell is not really in the Bible

Hey, you're close! Taking it a step further, Hell isn't in the Bible. You only get that when several cultural notions were mashed together (poorly) and then it was all translated into English and we got the name "Hell" tacked on to this mishmash "Hell/Hades" nightmare of theology.

You're ignoring how the word is used in connection with the term "evil spirits" throughout the scriptures.

No, I'm really not. However you are lumping the harmful in with the "other" or "non-Kosher" spirits, which is ironically where you get a lot of your beliefs on Satan, when the proper noun and the adverb forms were all taken as the same thing.

I think you should read the Bible before you debate it next time.

Not that you'll take it for what it's worth, but direct courses of Church Doctrine, Biblical History, and Christian Theology mean that I've read the bible quite enough. Well enough, anyways, to discern between Simon and Peter, at least.

This book is not considered canon for a reason.

Then why did you provide it as an example? Why point to "extra-biblical sources" to support your claim? It seems you very much just want things to work in your favor, and are more than comfortable with dismissing them for one reason or another when they don't suite you.

I've shown you proof of what they would have thought of Baal Zebub.

No, you haven't. You've provided guesses and assumptions based on what you think, fueled in no small part by propaganda. What's more, I do not deny that the Hebrew people wouldn't have approved of Ba'al Zebub, or given him worship. That's an entirely different thing than not believing he exists at all, of which you have provided exactly no evidence.

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.

No, actually that's not why they constructed the Golden Calf. They constructed the Calf in a symbolic call-back to two Calves of the same design that were built by King Jeroboam in the cities of Bethel and Dan, for the same purpose as a Seat of Authority for Yahweh in the temple. The Calf was built because the Hebrew people feared Moses dead, and he was the acting Seat of Authority for Yahweh, the intercessory between their god and themselves. The Calf was to replace Moses, not Yahweh.

But you won't admit the same about my beliefs.

If your beliefs are anything being discussed here, I do know quite a bit. Your refusal to accept what I say and the evidence that I put forward is another thing, but it doesn't change what is. If your beliefs are something else than what is being discussed, then your beliefs are as irrelevant to the topic as mine are.