It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Luicfer and Satan

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally by joejoe
...next time try to think rational and overwork such texts...so that you can show those" ignorants"(no bad meaning) how thing are going…

...THE BIBLE IS TRUELY THE BOOK OF BOOKS...maybe read it before you talk about it


Believe me I have read it, and probably forgotten more about it then you have ever known, and you can take me to court on that. You name the time and topic of debate…

I already stated that those quotes where NOT from the Bible, and their sources, so why would you insult my Biblical knowledge based on something I admitted was not from the Bible, but rather originally from the Cabalists, occult, and Pseudopigraphica?

You are making this remark based on what? your belief in Numerology?
You show me where it is written in the bible that a number has to be multiplied by another and the result added together, to make it true?
I would like this chapter and verse please.

Also performing math on the numbers does little in my book to prove anything, numbers can be manipulated to give just about any results you wish.

Ps… The study of Numerology is actually a form of divination, and therefore not something that someone that professes Christianity should believe in to begin with.




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
After glancing through my girlfriends NIV ( not a big fan), I noticed that they removed Lucifer all together. Not sure if its all NIV, or just her bible's publisher, but it was replaced by morning star. Not sure why. Either they realized that Satan should not be confused with the word Lucifer, or they realized that the chapter was referring to the king of Babylon, and not Satan. My guess is the later.



[edit on 16-1-2005 by wiggy]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
It should be noted that Amadues made a mistake when he last spoke of this matter, and asserted that LUXIFERO had a double conotation, this is wrong, as it's the wrongly translated 'Heylel' which carries a negative meaning, whereas LUXIFERO has a positive; Heylel is the word used to describe Satan as an obsence boaster; "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high" (Isaiah 14:13-14)

As it where, it's a common dogma that assertains Lucifer as the much abhored Satan, and many scholars have corrected this mistake which replaces the 'morning star' with Satan; as the NIV does not contain the word, Lucifer, instead, Morning Star. The KJV, however, uses Lucifer, as it is still a version outdated: 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!.

Pope Damascus in the year 382 A.D commisioned a scholar, Jerome, to make an official revision of the Latin Bible. Of great consequence, it's been debated wether he used an actualy Hebrew version, or a Septuagint version - it's a trivial matter, for now. Jerome simply translated the Hebrew word, Heylel, a word whose meaning I described, with that of Lucifer. Now, Lucifer is derived from two Latin words, Luxi ( I CARRY ) and fero (Light). This obviously does not sound like Heylel, does it? It's the complete opposite. The problem is very simply as you see, and just a minute error in mistranslation which was never corrected due to conceptual habituation.

So, Christos is actualy Lucifer -"Phosphoros" in Greek- and not Satan.

Deep



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
All of this fits into "religious conspiracy" how?

Anyway, Lucifer and Satan are cool words for when you are writing heavy metal music and want to impress long hair teenagers who are smoking dope and drinking beer.

Like:

Satan satan satan
haaaaail Lucifer
satan satan satan
the light bringer!

sing along and bang your head.

Oh wait, are the 80's over? Damn.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
The Original Devil, the other names and mythological bible story came after the translations of the bible to include a more colorful background and different stories of, the (Devil, Beelzebub, Lucifer and Satan) occurs Lucifer was more appealing to the church and links to heaven.

"E-V-I-L" Personified became the "D-E-V-I-L"

Baalzebub was a local "baal" or god - of the Philistines city of Ekron, in ll Kings.

Beelzebul is mentioned in the Gospels as "prince of demons" incorrectly called "Beelzebub" in the King James Version, through mistaken identity with the god of ll kings.

The Evil, Satan, Lucifer, has gone through a metamorphosis through history from a philistine God, to what the bible accounts and the Catholic church as painted him today, Christianity has embraced the accounts of the "evil one" as needed.

Occurs movies, pictures and so called "visions" has given him a body, a face and a evil intent over human kind and the forever fight of "Good and Evil" "Haven vs Hell"



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Its not the names per se.
You can use lots of names..and todays "experts " do just that to make confusion occur. This is deliberate. To make right into wrong ..good into evil. This is historically demonstratable.
The NIV text is a very poor text to use for any such comparison of names in the bible..so much has been change and altered in this version. First off...any credibility of the NIV was shot in the foot when it is realized that they used Brook Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Horts...translation of the Classical Greek texts. All scholars know that the Olde Testament is in Hebrew and the new testament is in common greek..or Koine..not classical. Wescott and Hort were members of a club called the ghostly guild and involved in other activities...of non christian natures. Not a good requirement for translatiors of a bible. Continuing on to the NIV...Virginia Mollencott and Marten Woudstra on the translation committee were homosexuals...this is why the references to sodomy were removed in the NIV versions. A quick computer study of words will clear this up when compared chapter and verse to the King James Version. If they changed the name lucifer...what else have they changed...this cannot be accidental
What they have done in most of the new versions is make things more obscure and unclear...in every category.
To my knowlege..Lucifer is the office...and Satan is the name..of the covering cherub.

Also in reference to light...any study of light ..and the religious characteristics..will clear up this one. In occult studies and paganism..the light is of one version...."Have you seen the light????"
In Christianity it is a different light ..this is clear from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament. Prohibitions of the Hebrews were not to get the lights mixed up or have communion with the wrong light nor take upon them the traditions and customs of those who used the other light and the traditions of men. You see this over and over in the history and track record of the Olde Testament Hebrews along with occasional punishments for their disobedience in following the wrong light.
Almost all scholarly attempts in modern times have been to make the difference in the two lights unclear..not clear. To counterfit this Biblical Light with a light based on the traditions of men.
You never find the usage of the word "the One" or " the coming one" in the King James bible. You do however see it over and over in the NIV and other translations. The one or the coming one is a code word for satan...it is never used to refer in this manner of Jesus the Christ. The one is also a name commonly used in Eastern Religions as the name or identifier of there gods...totally contrary to christianity.
A counterfit light and a counterfit..the one. This is why it is necessary for a believer to be very observant and aware of what is going on. Especially as concerns new bible transtlations and counterfits.
Learn to peel back the veneer of what is told you and check it out ...on sound biblical principles...and check out the historys of the new translations.

Thanks ,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwen
the only way to understand the differences, using the bible, is to read it in its orginal language (Hebrew and Greek)...?

Any translation is bound to subjective representation...


i think that you all need to just drop it. becouse luicfer was chain for 1000 years, and saten and the devil were both thorn in the pit and it's in the bible.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
To my knowledge..Lucifer is the office...and Satan is the name..of the covering cherub.


Did you transpose your meaning?


Lucifer is the name and the office is that of ha'satan. GOD's Attorney General. There have been others filling this position - but perhaps Lucifer - just happened to be best lawyer in the most supreme court of them all?

It can only be that way because ha'satan is NEVER a proper name in the way we try to use it...but Heylel is a true Hebrew name in the book of Isaiah - Heliel or Haliel are better spellings in the English language. Heli means SUN - Joseph was a son of Heli who was a priest....Heliopolis!


A counterfeit light and a counterfeit..the one.


This is a saying we've got to stop spreading around! Counterfeit light??!?
Either it is light or it is not light. In which case it would be darkness.
Counterfeit light is not dark - it is light.
Therefore it is JUST light.

Counterfeit light is a HIGHLY illogical idea without a purpose.

GOD is really not all that into trying to fool us so bad that we live in shame for 2 or 3 thousand years afterward!

GOD doesn't send delusion to fool us but to teach us! And if we are in the dark the shadows are misleading...but in the light it is crystal clear! Just like Plato's cave!

Keep it Simple! Simplicity is divine when done right.

The Fallen Angel is a pretty educational read because it tells about HOW these mutations occur in our common schools of thought...

And Angels don't fall, anyway. They dive or leap or whatever - falling would be gracelessness and is no different than saying that human beings fall off cliffs because they were too proud or wanted to 'be GOD.'


Another totally illogical idea in the common Lucifer/satan argument.

Lucifer had no reason to 'be GOD' when Lucifer was already ONE with GOD!

Just like Adam and Eve were ONE with eachother!









posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The Original Devil, the other names and mythological bible story came after the translations of the bible to include a more colorful background and different stories of, the (Devil, Beelzebub, Lucifer and Satan) occurs Lucifer was more appealing to the church and links to heaven.

"E-V-I-L" Personified became the "D-E-V-I-L"

Baalzebub was a local "baal" or god - of the Philistines city of Ekron, in ll Kings.

Beelzebul is mentioned in the Gospels as "prince of demons" incorrectly called "Beelzebub" in the King James Version, through mistaken identity with the god of ll kings.

The Evil, Satan, Lucifer, has gone through a metamorphosis through history from a philistine God, to what the bible accounts and the Catholic church as painted him today, Christianity has embraced the accounts of the "evil one" as needed.

Occurs movies, pictures and so called "visions" has given him a body, a face and a evil intent over human kind and the forever fight of "Good and Evil" "Haven vs Hell"




So, Beelzebub is the great deceiver? Interesting.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
'Baalzebub' would be whomever is in possession of Zu, the storm-bird - but out here in the wild west we call him thunderbird.

Bel ZaBabbar is the same as saying 'The LORD of the shining Zu.'

No deception there...just good old fashioned meteorological magic!



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
'Baalzebub' would be whomever is in possession of Zu, the storm-bird - but out here in the wild west we call him thunderbird.

Bel ZaBabbar is the same as saying 'The LORD of the shining Zu.'

No deception there...just good old fashioned meteorological magic!


Well the next question would be who or what the heck is Zu?



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   


Zu is the Sumerian version of the HUGE bird of prey usually rendered as an eagle or even a phoenix in other ancient mythos. And in a few select locations
there are what they call the giant thunderbird! GIANT and OLD
EGAD it is scary!


As far as group dynamics involving Zu, it was something like Excalibur was, in another age - but it was independently alive in the form of the storm-bird.

The deepest esoteric wisdom stored in a shape-shifting griffon/gargoyle who has free will!


Imagine that! :shk:

the first thing that comes to MY mind is: the Moghul hordes


The storming seems to have been some sort of fail-safe dummy-proof mechanism built into reality just like Karma is built in.

Thank GOD! Hopefully we have outgrown it in this last 7 or 8 thousand years...



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Well, thank you for such an informative reply. I suppose one would need to do a bit of studying to fully grasp what it is your talking about, because in all honesty, I haven't the foggiest


I will try and get back to you when i wake up...



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
OK its a little clearer methinks. Is your comparison by analogy similar to a game of chess ?

For instance, Baalzebub could be likened to the King and Zu the storm-bird, a Queen in a chess game. The Queen is the Kings most powerful weapon on the checkered board. Able to strike fear and terror in the hearts of the opponent if wielded correctly?

What do you think?



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunnydays
For instance, Baalzebub could be likened to the King and Zu the storm-bird, a Queen in a chess game. The Queen is the Kings most powerful weapon on the checkered board. Able to strike fear and terror in the hearts of the opponent if wielded correctly?


EXACTLY.


What do you think?


I think I know you.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

I think I know you.


Really?


[edit on 1-11-2007 by Sunnydays]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunnydays
Really?


Uh-huh. Really.


Wondering who in the heck is chained in the desert?


No one now.


It WAS Azazel.


And again the Lord said to Raphael:
'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire.


From Enoch.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by queenannie38]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38



Wondering who in the heck is chained in the desert?


No one now.


It WAS Azazel.


And again the Lord said to Raphael:
'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire.


From Enoch.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by queenannie38]


So why isn't Azazel chained in the desert? Isn't he supposed to be there until the day of Great Judgment? I realize their is alot of symbolism here. Is darkness indicative of a worldly existence. Rough and Jagged rocks symbolic of hardship and covering his face a life away from the astral light?

Then on the Great Day he is cast into the fire? Isn't he already there? Thanks for sharing the Enoch snip... It brings up so many questions? Azazel was the angel who, presumably, represents the serpent in the Garden at least according to the wiki article.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunnydays
So why isn't Azazel chained in the desert? Isn't he supposed to be there until the day of Great Judgment?


Yes. But the 'Great' Judgment is that which applies to the sons of GOD, in Heaven...and so it is prior to the Lesser Judgment of the Earth.

Heaven = the ethereal realm
Earth = the material realm

There is no time in the ethereal; however, since Azazel was held captive in materiality, time would apply to the Great Judgment only for Azazel. For Azazel, judgment was given last October.


I realize their is alot of symbolism here. Is darkness indicative of a worldly existence.


Could be…from what I understand, though, darkness is ignorance. The absence of knowledge.


Rough and Jagged rocks symbolic of hardship and covering his face a life away from the astral light?


The rocks seem to me to be rather literal. When the face is covered, it is hidden from sight. Invisible to the mortal eye even as he dwelt amongst mortals.


Then on the Great Day he is cast into the fire?


Don’t get ‘day’ mixed up with ‘judgment.’ If you know what I mean.



Isn't he already there?


The fire is the pure energy of the Holy Spirit. The lake of fire, in Revelation, is NOT a punishment but rather a place where baptism occurs.

So, following the judgment, Azazel was received back into the fold. Azazel was the prodigal son! The lost sheep which was sought by Jesus.

There were two goats sacrificed on the Day of Atonement – the once a year covering of all sins of Israel (mainly those infractions of which the people were totally unaware). They were required to be twins, both totally perfect according to Moses’ law concerning sacrifices. Their assignment was determined by lot; the white stone for ‘YHVH’ and the black stone for ‘Azazel.’ Leviticus 16:7-10

The Day of Atonement is Yom Kippur; which is either in late September or early October. This year it was September 22 and last year it was October 2.


Azazel was the angel who, presumably, represents the serpent in the Garden at least according to the wiki article.


That’s not right – Azazel is a goat, not a snake.


Every son of GOD is a manifestation of one of GOD’s character traits. Azazel is the strength of GOD and the snake represents divine wisdom.

In Hebrew - in the OT - the word translated as sheep or lamb (sey) could also be goat or cattle – the true meaning of the word is simply: a member of a flock.

If it is together with the word keseb, then it specifically means sheep; and when with the word aze, means goat – derived from azaz, which means: to be stout (literally or figuratively): - harden, impudent, prevail, strengthen self, be strong.

Aze = Azaz = Azazel



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Thank you for that...That certainly clears up a few things.

Well, its official..I have absolutely no clue... Not even a little one..




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join