It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


REV 22:16 " I am the offspring of LUCIFER?" jesus: checkmate in two moves

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 03:47 PM

Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ LEW-sif-ər) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlêl[1] or heylel,[2] occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible[1] and according to the KJV-influenced Strong's Concordance means "shining one, morning star".[2] The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[3] which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[Isa 14:12][4][5] meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".[6] The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος[7][8][9][10][11] (heōsphoros),[12][13][14] a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
- king james Version

"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
- new American standard

either way
that's Checkmate in two
sorry jesus
good game

I'm not on much these days but there it is: your argument is with the facts in black and white...
not with me!
Soon we will get to why angels are named after the summerian sky god and why yaw way means wrong way
and much more to come about the amazing working celtic cross discovered by C.Miller (see my siggy thread)

Time to stop killing in the name of (un)realigion don't you think?

oh, PS;
Venus is the light bringer and the morning star because it precedes the sun in the morning...
half the time
the other half the time I guess it follows the sun in the evening;
hence the devil having two faces to kiss...
and as the wishing star
first star I see to night....
its the horned god because of its crescents...go figure eh?

edit on Tuepm2b20152America/Chicago53 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 03:57 PM
I like Micheal Heiser's take on the shining one

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:05 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Hi Two
I have limited time, (I hour/ day) I'll watch it when I can get some net time.
a brief summery perhaps?

I find it curious that the likely illumatist, homo sexual, possibly luciferian, occultist king james would put out a bible with the numbers 1611 which add to 9 which in relation the WORKING cross is a supreme telltale secret society logo",
but there it is: jesus is the off spring of DAVID and LUCIFER a homo sexual tryst

the root word of david is Da btw, the same as Dad.

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:09 PM
a reply to: Danbones

I don't think he was calling himself Lucifer or the offspring of Lucifer. At least he added 'bright' to it. There's only one morning star, so anyone who calls themselves that one thing is actually claiming to be Lucifer, aka Satan? Is this the logic train that I'm on atm? ..

Jesus is the things that a true morning star comparison would embody such as the bringer of dawn, where as Lucifer clearly is not, and has been described as being physically beautiful only. Followers of Satan will disagree with me, I'm sure. (lol)

either way
that's Checkmate in two
sorry jesus
good game

If Jesus were alive right now in the flesh and blood, he just might whip you at a game of chess (lol). The sad truth to me is, none of the works of the Bible are literally literal, I mean to say.. no one had a transcriber there during the life of Jesus to get the word for word from him. Nothing comes even close, it's just stuff written after he died by people who claimed to have heard what he said and/or wrote it down. Even more likely, the first edition books of the New Testament were probably written by followers or students of them. None of it is the 100% definite word for word of Yahshua ben-Yosef as he said it the very first time.

edit on 2/17/2015 by r0xor because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:25 PM
According to one of the text commentaries in Strong's, morning star is simply a title and not a name. As such, it can be associated with more than one entity.

c. The Root and offspring of David: This is a precious Messianic title (Isaiah 11:1). It shows that Jesus is both the Creator of King David and His descendent. Jesus spoke to this same idea in Matthew 22:41-46.

d. Bright and Morning Star: This is another Messianic title from the Old Testament (Numbers 24:17) and the New Testament (Revelation 2:28). Just as the Morning Star (generally held to be the planet Venus) shines and welcomes the new day, so does Jesus.

i. "Christ, as the morning star, heralds the coming day in His role as the One who comes for he church in the rapture." (Walvoord)

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:26 PM
a reply to: Danbones

Jesus isn't a real descendant of David. Joseph is the descendant of David. Joseph isn't his biological father. Remember the whole virgan Mary thing. Jesus isn't of that bloodline.

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:28 PM
a reply to: Danbones

There are several different mentions of others being called the bright and morning star. John was called the bright star and in the verse you mention it is not really clear if jesus is the bright star or if david is the star. Star of david

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: Danbones

22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify." This is the first time that the words "I Jesus" appear in the bible. It establishes that this final invitation in Scripture is not a human invitation, but a divine call issued personally to sinners by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

This verse is Jesus' seal of approval on the whole book of Revelation. It marks the first use of the word "church" since chapter three. Why is there no reference of the Church during the time of tribulation on earth described in chapters 6 through 18? Because the church, having been raptured to heaven, will not be on earth.

How can Jesus be "the root and the offspring of David" both? In the Flesh this is impossible. David, in the flesh, was the ancestor of Jesus. In the Spirit, Jesus was David's ancestor. Jesus was David's God.

We read in II Peter 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:"

You see, it is not unusual in a symbolic way to speak of Jesus as a star. Here is our Bright Star. Until we receive this Star into our life, we are full of darkness

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:36 PM
a reply to: Danbones

I really cant give a brief summary of Heisers lesson .He as put it as compacted as may actually be possible in a vid .Anyone with the erge to run with it though could wright a book it has that much compacted into the lesson . A take away is that we are dealing with imagery from Genesis that is dealing with a member of the divine council that we need to keep in our minds eye later on in scripture when thinking about what is going on .

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: Danbones
Another old chestnut dragged out again.
"Morning star" is a title, not a name. As a title, it can be held by more than one person.
You may as well say that Jesus must be Nebuchadnezzar, because they are both called "king".
In fact you may as well say that Obama and Putin are one and the same person; for are they not both called "President"?

edit on 17-2-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: ZeussusZ

The Problem

God announced very early that His plan for redemption involved the Messiah being brought forth from the tribe of Judah (1), and specifically from the line of David 2. The succession of subsequent kings proved to be, with only a few exceptions, a dismal chain. As the succeeding kings of Judah went from bad to worse, we eventually encounter Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin), upon whom God pronounces a " blood curse" : "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."(Jeremiah 22:30)

This curse created a rather grim and perplexing paradox: the Messiah had to come from the royal line, yet now there was a "blood curse" on that very line of descent! (I always visualize a celebration in the councils of Satan on that day. But then I imagine God turning to His angels, saying, "Watch this one!")

The Solution

The answer emerges in the differing genealogies of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospels. Matthew, as a Levi, focuses his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Thus, Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon (the . royal. line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (3).

On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus (4).

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 06:02 PM
a reply to: Danbones
Kinda like Satan can appear as an angel of light, so all angels are from Satan,
or God destroyed all life on Earth in the flood, so God is the destroyer, or aka Satan.
Satan is an imitator. He becomes like the good ones to make you think he is a good one and to steer you away from the good ones. Classic examples: gins influencing Mohammed and Joseph Smith seeing angels of light.

Test the truth.

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:23 PM

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
a reply to: Danbones

Jesus isn't a real descendant of David. Joseph is the descendant of David. Joseph isn't his biological father. Remember the whole virgan Mary thing. Jesus isn't of that bloodline.

This is incorrect.
There are in fact TWO genealogies in the gospels - Mary's (from the book of Luke) and Joseph's (from the book of Matthew). You can even argue that John's gospel has a third genealogy (in the beginning was the Word....).

Jesus was a descendant of David from both Mary's side, and from Joseph's (so that no legal argument could be made, even though Jesus was not the son of Joseph).

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:37 PM
a reply to: Danbones

Thematically, it would make more sense but I wouldn't argue it.

Jesus was the antithesis of the brooding savage god of the old testament but he did advocate for many of the same things Satan did. For example, Jesus was meticulous to point out flaws in the accusers just as Satan pushed Jehovah to show his true colors with Job. Satan was also the first to bring enlightenment to Adam and Eve just as Jesus challenged the then-current religious leaders with new enlightenment.

Like I said, I wouldn't argue it but, objectively, Jesus has way more in common with Satan than Jehovah.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:45 AM
a reply to: Danbones

The king didn't put out the bible, the 50 odd scholars did.

So clearly a complete lie

TextThe Puritans were not frightened, helpless preachers who were scared into praising a wicked monarch When James's son, Charles I, became king, the Puritans thundered against his perceived immoralities like John the Baptist against Herod. Yet they had nothing but praise for King James's moral and spiritual character. Not all historians have blindly repeated the slander against King James. Issac Disracli (1863) wrote: "Perhaps no sovereign has suffered more by that art, which is described by an old Irish proverb of killing a man by lies, the surmises and the insinuations of one party, dissatisfied with the established government... the misconceptions of more modern writers... And the anonymous libels ... viliy the Stuarts. These cannot be treasured as authorities of history." Much can be substantiated in favor of the domestic affections and habits of this pacific monarch: and those who are more intimately acquainted with the secret history of the times will perceive how erroneously the personal character of this sovereign is exhibited in our popular historians, and often even among the few who, with better information, have re-echoed their preconceived opinions.

In July 1610 James was asked to pardon a number of people for crimes of the time. He pardoned some but refused to pardon those Convicted of sodomy.


posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:59 AM

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
Jesus isn't a real descendant of David. Joseph is the descendant of David. Joseph isn't his biological father. Remember the whole virgan Mary thing. Jesus isn't of that bloodline.

That means Mary was also a descendant of David.
Both Mary and Joseph would have been.
People of the same tribes and same ancestors could marry, no problem.

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: r0xor

sorry, but:
it isn't what you think it meant its about what he said directly
and "the morning star" is Lucifer
or can you PROVE it is something else and was so at that time this document revelations was collated?

the literal bible:
or it is until someone takes it literally

this is about the biggest con ever, and like the Nigerian princes bank account scam, ( just send me $ and I'll send you 10000x ) the big hurdle will be all the people who can not admit hey have been had


residential schools is where the Canadian government paid Christian churches to take children from their homes and put them in pedo/satanic cult genocidal circumstances - and paid for it in TAX dollars:
THIS HAS TO STOP don't you think?

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: FlyersFan

this is about what jesus says literally:
not conjecture

there are more reasons why Jesus is the son of LUCIFER venus here
and so this is the problem faced by Christians on this thread:
I have a mittfull of math and phonetic and astronomical proofs that are what they are.
they live in the dictionary and the math book and in the LITERAL bible itself

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:08 PM
I here to kick a$$ and chew bubble gum...
and I am all out of bubble gum

Revelation 13:16-18
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a MARK in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the MARK, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Rev. 13:16-18

10 tau (To) 6 is the relationship of venus' orbit to earth's orbit - every 8 years
8 into 72 (Degress of the 5 pointed star ) is 9
which is contained in 666
6/6/6 =
10/6/6/6 =
1.666666666666666667 is the golden ratio
.2777777777777777778 ids the constant that converts any other base to percent when divided into the 360 of the celtic if you multiply 18o degrees by .27 you get 50 as in percents
all the numberbases of the day could be magically converted this way

you couldn't buy or sell with out weights measures and conversion math

oh the megalithic yard is

A Megalithic Yard (MY) is a unit of measurement of about 2.72 feet (0.83 m),

the ankh is the Celtic cross with the T balance scale on it
it was the multi tool of RULER SHIP
that's what this is all about
" competition is a sin"
Sin is the "moon god" an figures into this just like "our lord AMEN", the first ruler of the united egypt does:
as historical fact
not as conjectured rebuttals

hours up! gotta run
more tomorrow

wait till you see the rest of the math and the phonetics!

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:50 PM
a reply to: drevill

not so fast amigo:

The King was blunt and unashamed in his avowal of love for Buckingham and compared it to Jesus' love of John:

I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.

James adopted a severe stance towards sodomy using English law. His book on kingship, Basilikón Dōron, (Greek for "Royal Gift") lists sodomy among those “horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive”. He also singled out sodomy in a letter to Lord Burleigh giving directives that Judges were to interpret the law broadly and were not to issue any pardons, saying that "no more colour may be left to judges to work upon their wits in that point."[4]

However, nearly two centuries later, Jeremy Bentham, in an unpublished manuscript, denounced James as a hypocrite after his crackdown: "[James I], if he be the author of that first article of the works which bear his name, and which indeed were owned by him, reckons this practise among the few offences which no Sovereign ever ought to pardon. This must needs seem rather extraordinary to those who have a notion that a pardon in this case is what he himself, had he been a subject, might have stood in need of."[5]

sodomy convictions can be for many reasons - political, jealousy, fun....etc

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in