Final scene of Rooster

[ethsnafu]

Gosh,

Interesting stuff regarding Samael. I know it isn't directly related to 'Roosters' but Roo and Quee's thoughts had me thinking and I couldn't turn off the train of thought.

Whilst I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade and lets face it I'm not the last bastion of occult truths but Samael isn't an 'angel' or at least if you dispense with the gross misinterpretations of the masses it isn't. Samael, in every depiction in the relevant sources is a Demon sadly and whilst I don't desire to lecture to the cognoscenti nor am I positing 'copy and paste' truths from occult repositories feel free to pick me up on this: I am more than happy to hear your thoughts. Please note I present these thoughts as they appear in the original dictates of the relevant theologies and do not assert their truths or state their superiority.

Samael means, quite literally, poison of God and whilst it seems absurd to contend that anything acting with the orchestration of the Divine can be considered nefarious the philosophers who conceived of the apocryphal angels and demons did not believe that evil was anything but a construct of God or, as the Bible succinctly states, "Out of the most high precedes both evil and good." Sameal has been regarded as the true name of the 'dark' emanation of the divine, or grossly 'Satan' though Satan is simply a descriptive word meaning 'accuser' and was never intended to be a 'name' as such, as a Theologian you will appreciate that the Bible notes numerous Satans and uses the title as freely as it does 'Son's of God'.

In Gnostic theology Samael is presented as an abberation born from Sophia's desire to produce an emannation without Spirit and is considered one of the three evil Demiurges along with Jehovah who assumed prominence and demanded worship from an ignorant mankind. In all his Gnostic presentations he associated with death and considered malign and loftier and more powerful than the 'functionary' angels.

In Talmudic and in post-Talmudic literature Sameal is again given a nefarious appraisal as 'King Of The Demons' he is considered the demon king and consort of Lilith; together they are the evil counterparts of Adam and Eve. He is the tempting angel from whom the Evil Inclination emanates. In several rabbinic texts “Samael” is the name of the Angel of Death. At least once in the Zohar he is declared the “shadow of death,” a kind of consort to Death and not at all angelic. Interestingly the associations between Lillith and Samael could lead to associations within our own mythos and the Legion/Lucy Butler arc. Mmmm.....

Millennium used Sameal due to his associations with death, disease and demise and not because he was angelic, to denote him the 'Angel' of death is a flagrant misunderstanding of the theological intentions of the myths of Judaism and Gnosticism. Concepts like these do not fit easily into a Christian conceptual model nor should the Bible be used to validate or denounce them.

Whilst I concur that what I have written may not be palatable to your own religious convictions: Sameal such be afforded the truth and respect he was afforded within the religions that included him.

I hope this wasn't too long winded,

My very best wishes to all of you,

Eth

[Guest queequeg914]

<br /><b>Gosh,<br />Interesting stuff regarding Samael. I know it isn't directly related to 'Roosters' but Roo and Quee's thoughts had me thinking and I couldn't turn off the train of thought.<br />Whilst I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade and lets face it I'm not the last bastion of occult truths but Samael isn't an 'angel' or at least if you dispense with the gross misinterpretations of the masses it isn't. Samael, in every depiction in the relevant sources is a Demon sadly and whilst I don't desire to lecture to the cognoscenti nor am I positing 'copy and paste' truths from occult repositories feel free to pick me up on this: I am more than happy to hear your thoughts. Please note I present these thoughts as they appear in the original dictates of the relevant theologies and do not assert their truths or state their superiority.<br /><br />Samael means, quite literally, poison of God and whilst it seems absurd to contend that anything acting with the orchestration of the Divine can be considered nefarious the philosophers who conceived of the apocryphal angels and demons did not believe that evil was anything but a construct of God or, as the Bible succinctly states, &quot;Out of the most high precedes both evil and good.&quot; Sameal has been regarded as the true name of the 'dark' emanation of the divine, or grossly 'Satan' though Satan is simply a descriptive word meaning 'accuser' and was never intended to be a 'name' as such, as a Theologian you will appreciate that the Bible notes numerous Satans and uses the title as freely as it does 'Son's of God'.<br /><br />In Gnostic theology Samael is presented as an abberation born from Sophia's desire to produce an emannation without Spirit and is considered one of the three evil Demiurges along with Jehovah who assumed prominence and demanded worship from an ignorant mankind. In all his Gnostic presentations he associated with death and considered malign and loftier and more powerful than the 'functionary' angels.<br /><br />In Talmudic and in post-Talmudic literature Sameal is again given a nefarious appraisal as 'King Of The Demons' he is considered the demon king and consort of Lilith; together they are the evil counterparts of Adam and Eve. He is the tempting angel from whom the Evil Inclination emanates. In several rabbinic texts "Samael" is the name of the Angel of Death. At least once in the Zohar he is declared the "shadow of death," a kind of consort to Death and not at all angelic. Interestingly the associations between Lillith and Samael could lead to associations within our own mythos and the Legion/Lucy Butler arc. Mmmm.....<br /><br />Millennium used Sameal due to his associations with death, disease and demise and not because he was angelic, to denote him the 'Angel' of death is a flagrant misunderstanding of the theological intentions of the myths of Judaism and Gnosticism. Concepts like these do not fit easily into a Christian conceptual model nor should the Bible be used to validate or denounce them.<br /><br />Whilst I concur that what I have written may not be palatable to your own religious convictions: Sameal such be afforded the truth and respect he was afforded within the religions that included him.<br /><br />I hope this wasn't too long winded,<br />My very best wishes to all of you,<br />Eth</b><br />

<br /><br /><br />

This is very interesting. I have to admit, I only have a very perfunctory knowledge of the occult and Samael- Protestant theology isn't very accepting of the study! My assumption that the character in the episode was an angel- but not a dark one. This is because he was able to invoke the powers of Raziel and Uriel- if he were indeed the opposite of light, how could he wield such power? Darkness cannot stand with light. A demon may use the name of God to decieve, but he cannot use the power of God, nor can he have power over God's people. And why would demon kill demon? I'm really interested in this! This was excellent information, and I look forward to hearing more from you!

[Guest queequeg914]

And in the gnostic gospels, wasn't Samael also the creator of the world and of humans? He was kind of an outlaw or usurper of power from Sophia herself. And then he raped Eve and she had Cain and Abel, correct? I'm trying to find my texts!! I'm afraid to Wikipedia the subject, I'm not sure what I'd find.

[4th Horseman]

And in the gnostic gospels, wasn't Samael also the creator of the world and of humans? He was kind of an outlaw or usurper of power from Sophia herself. And then he raped Eve and she had Cain and Abel, correct? I'm trying to find my texts!! I'm afraid to Wikipedia the subject, I'm not sure what I'd find.

Q - as you have admitted to possessing a knowledge of Christian Theology, you must know that the gnostic gospels are NOT recognized by most mainstream religions, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc...I as well have spent many years studying the Bible, in particular, Revelations, Daniel, etc, the prophetic chapters, and i tend to not give them much credence, however that is my personal belief and that is all i intend to say on the issue....I must warn you, most importantly as a FRIENDLY reminder, since you are new here, that any exchange based on religious beliefs, theories, etc must be conducted in a neutral, non-confrontational environment and will be monitored very closely by the moderation team...We have maintained a wonderful sense of dignity here at TIWWA when it comes to the kalidescope of religious beliefs, from the literalists to the atheists, and have avoided, for the most part, the spiraling of such topics from winding up being nothing more than the spewing of venom and animosity. We have discussed the issue of Samiel in previous threads, but its always good to hear a fresh point of view...keep it coming...

4th Horseman...

[Guest queequeg914]

Wow, I'm not trying to be belligerent or confrontative in any way, I'm really sorry if that's how I'm coming across. I was just trying to see if the little I'd learned was actually true.

[4th Horseman]

Wow, I'm not trying to be belligerent or confrontative in any way, I'm really sorry if that's how I'm coming across. I was just trying to see if the little I'd learned was actually true.

Q - i never said you were being belligerent. In fact you have brought to the table many wonderful concepts concerning this issue. What i was trying to say is that from past experiences, as many here will attest to, that when issues of religion are discussed, no matter how seemingly benign they are, we have to be diligent in the area of not either allowing our emotions and beliefs to overshadow those of others, but also not to take differentiations from one's own personal beliefs personally. As i said before, we have many here, from the literalists to the atheists. I was not implying that you were being either confrontational, combative, or belligerent in ANY way, shape, or form. As i clearly stated, it was a FRIENDLY reminder that things can get out of hand very quickly, and believe me, i have witnessed it first hand as has Ethsnafu, The Old Man, Libby, Ravenwolf, Tobyxx and the many minions of this board.

Please accept my humblest apologies if your interpretation was in conflict with my intent...

humbly,

4th Horseman

[Guest queequeg914]

Gotcha- politics and religion are great ways to start a fire :)

[Guest SouthernCelt]

Here’s a brief treatise on the “True Cross” that I put together via cut ‘n paste of text from several websites, including those listed at the end of the text. There were others as well but I can’t now locate their exact URL addresses.

I would say that research into these legends/beliefs was the basis for the Owls & Roosters 2-part episode since a lot of what is said about the “True Cross” in that plotline parallels details here.

The Relic Of The True Cross

One of the outcomes of the Crusades was the production of many religious relics. Among these alleged instruments of Divinity the more common ones were the bones of Saints and soil from various places referred to in the Bible. Of a more important nature were several heads said to be that of John the Baptist and the Crown of Thorns which was actually sold by King Baldwin II of Jerusalem to King Louis IX of France who built a shrine to house it. Of all the relics, none caused more furor and deaths than that of the so-called "True Cross."

The True Cross is described as being part of the cross of Golgotha encased in gold and studded with priceless gems. The legend of the True Cross begins in the year 326 when it was allegedly discovered by the mother of Constantine I, the Empress Helena.

"In AD 326, Helena went on a journey to ancient Israel and selected with Macarius the sites of Christ's birth at Bethlehem and at Jerusalem, the adjoining places of his tomb burial and Crucifixion, where she happened to discover three ancient crosses in a cavern, one of which was called the true cross."

Now exactly how Helena determined which of the three discovered crosses was the one Jesus was crucified on is covered in Michael Grant's book on the Roman Emperor Constantine:

"Here Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem came to Helena's help, by undertaking, with a prayer for God's help, to place a sick woman on each of the three crosses in turn, so that it could then be seen what happened to her on each of the three occasions. When she was placed on the first two crosses, nothing happened. Next, however, she was made to lie on the third cross, whereupon she was healed. That, it was concluded, must have been the True Cross on which Jesus met his death."

Upon Helena's return, the True Cross was kept in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem until the year 614 when Chrosroes II of Persia moved it to his own land when he captured Jerusalem. Thirteen years later the Roman Emperor Heraclius defeated Chrosroes and retook the relic, which he at first placed in Constantinople and later, took back to its original Jerusalem. The True Cross is believed to have been hidden by the Christians in 1009 C.E. and remained hidden for ninety years only to be produced in 1099 during the First Crusade.

It remained in Christian hands until the Battle of Hattin in 1187, when the Moslem leader Saladin captured the relic. It is believed that Saladin after the Battle of Hattin and the capture of Jerusalem, would ride his horse through the streets with the Holy Relic dragging behind his mount's tail.

"After The Horns of Hattin, Saladin was master of the Moslem world, and rode through the streets of Damascus with the captured True Cross tied to his horse's tail and dragging in the dust."

Despite the valiant efforts of Richard I during the Third Crusade, the True Cross remained in Moslem hands. The beam itself disappeared, but fragments of the cross that came off were collected and brought back to Europe after the Crusades. Of course, If all the fragments were put back together then several hundred crosses could have been made, as many of the pieces were most certainly fakes.

Although the so named True Cross was an inspiration and death sentence to many brave men of the time, no trace of the relic is believed to exist today. Was this focal point of the Crusaders, the True Cross as it was called. Perhaps we will never know. The important thing remains that for those soldiers who took up the cause of the Crusades, it was real enough to die for.

Some details as covered above plus some other views of the matter can be found at the following:

True Cross on Wikipedia

Web Site of the “True Cross Church”

A Catholic encyclopedia on the “New Advent” web site

[Raven Wolf]

Hello, "quee".

I was going to type a long response, but I don't think that's necessary.

"Horseman" was simply looking out for the best interests of the group, as we've had a terrible time in the past with former members really hurting each other with the NEED to be RIGHT when it comes to their religious beliefs. In regards to moderating, this is NOT a black and white issue saying that no one can discuss anything involving religion or spiritual beliefs of any kind, since both are so firmly intertwined with the series. It's actually just as simple as what we were taught as children. "Play nice". I'm not directing this at you, "quee" (BTW, so glad someone's finally using that name, and has the courage to try to SPELL it! LOL)....Just stating this in general. No one has the "harry eyeball" on you, and we welcome the fresh new ideas and thoughts you bring to the board. There's no need to jump the gun when you have done nothing wrong. I'm sure that was not the intention of Horseman either, who is, as I said.... Just looking out for the best interests of all.

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Gotcha- politics and religion are great ways to start a fire :)

lets talk about Cardinal Baseball!