This should stir things up. In five readings of the Bible, I have not found a mention of Satan or The Devil in connection with any occurrence of Sheol (66 times), Hades (10 times), or Gehenna (12 times). I did find, surprisingly enough, a mention of Jesus in connection with Hades, in Acts 2:27, referring to Psalm 16:10, where “sheol” is used. (The closest thing I found was in 2 Peter 2:4–but that verse refers to Tartarus, which certainly is not Hades or Gehenna.)
No, dougie! Don’t do it! Resist the temptation before it’s too late!!! 
“Ain’t I a stinker?” --Bugs Bunny.
Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.
You wascal wabbit, you.
The Devil, often known as Satan (the real deal, not the popular poster on this board), is a minor character in the Bible. He appears late, and has only as much power as humans and the Big Cheese allow. Now when evil happens they can blame it on the devil.
Actually it is theorized that the evil one made it into Jewish mythology after the Persians conqurered their homeland and enslaved many of the jews. The Zoroastrian faith, the dominant one at the time among Persians, states there are two equal Gods (my knowledge of Z’an faith is limited). ONe good and just, and one evil.
Does it happen to mention which is which?
I think it would be more fun if you had to guess.
\\| |/
=== '>
Fascinating. Utterly.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
The Decameron? Isn’t that interesting!!! I’ve wondered how many medieval writers (we know already about the artists of this era) who added their own two cents about Bible doctrine. In the case of Boccaccio, he and The Decameron were put on the Index of Forbidden Books (see the original Straight Dope book for a description of this Index) for obscenity as well as an attack on the clergy, according to The Book of Lists. When Boccaccio reissued the book changing all the sinning monks and nuns to gentlemen and ladies, the Council of Trent forgave him and removed his name and the book from the Index. (I like to think that the particular rarity of American works on the Index is due to the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, concerning freedom of the press and free exercise of religion.)
In any case, I might question the credentials of Boccaccio–or Dante, for that matter–to expound on any aspect of Biblical doctrine, the same as I might question the qualification of Bill Gates to do heart surgery or Rush Limbaugh to play Liszt’s works on the piano.
Hell, I would question Limbaugh’s ability to play Liszt’s works on a stereo!
So would I, now that I think of it. Thanks. 
While slythe’s question was for humor value, Cooldude probably has hit the nail on the head. A great deal of Jewish – well, not doctrine, but spiritual orientation – appears to have been drawn from Exilic experience. Ahura Mazda (AKA Ormuzd) was the good god under Zoroastrian doctrine; Angra Mainyu (AKA Ahriman) the bad one. They were distinct entities with a common origin, and Ahura Mazda outranked Ahriman only because good overcomes evil in the end. Interestingly, under one branch of Zoroastrian belief, and worth considering for its effect on Christian doctrine, Mithra, the son of Ahura Mazda, was to fight with and overcome Ahriman. So Gaudere’s .sig line is sooooooo appropriate for Christmas, over and above the Mithra=the sun=Sol Invictus syncretism.
Ahriman, like any decent god, had a realm over which he reigned, but I do not recall the details. It was of course where those who were evil in life were sent, and it coalesced with Sheol in Jewish thought to produce the early-Christian concept of Hell.
Mithraism had an effect on Christianity? Just because Mithra was the Son of God, born in a humble place with shepherds in attendance? Because he was known as “The Way,” “The Truth” and “The Good Shepherd”, and sometimes shown carrying a lamb? Because a divine meal with 12 disciples was a major symbol, and his followers ate bread and wine to symbolize body and blood, believing a blood sacrifice was necessary for eternal life (“He who will not eat of my body,
nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”)? Because he died and was put into a rock tomb, and rose again three days later? Because he was a mediator between God and man, and his followers were reborn by a baptism that washed away their earlier sins? Because his followers believed that they would be resurrected, and that the struggle between the principles of good and evil would end on a day of judgment, where the good were rewarded and the evil punished?
Poly, I think you’re reaching here. 
I feel kind of sorry for the all the True Gods who got their followers usurped by other True Gods. So I thought I would at least get his name bandied about a bit.
“…Mithras the Sun-God
Was a jolly happy soul,
And he slew a bull
On solstice day
So the world would not get cold…” Happy Mithrasmas, all!
If the Mithraists had not completely excluded women and slaves, they probably would have given Christianity some competition. Interesting to imagine what way Western Europe would have evolved under Mithrianity.
We’d all wear little bulls around our neck and priests would wear funny hats? Oh wait, they do already.
C’mon, Gaudere, wouldn’t it be fun if you posted that to the LBMB? We could sell tickets to the dust-up that would follow!
Durn these simulposts. I meant the one where you list just a few minor parallels between the stories of Mithra and Christ, of course.