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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Who sits on the left hand of God?

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).



edit on 10-10-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
a reply to: luciferslight

Rebellion sits on the left hand of God. Mary means "rebellion" so make of that what you will.

Lucifer is not Satan, Lucifer is the light-bringer and morning star. You know who else is known as the light and morning star? Jesus.

Revelation 22
16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."


Compared to:

Isaiah 14
12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!


Lucifer is the light bearer, Jesus is the light. The demonization of Lucifer is a demonization of the light and of what is TRUE. We as a species have rebelled against nature so we have drifted to the left hand whereas we should be more toward the right and peace. So I guess it is we as a species that sit on the left, though not every individual is this way.




But the KJV is better me thinks.

Isaiah 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!

Revelation 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.

The Devil his future is revealed.
Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Created
The New World Translation is even more accurate (when considering the origin of the name "Lucifer" and what the Hebrew actually says, it was written in Hebrew after all, not Greek or Latin). Isaiah 14:12:

How you have fallen from heaven,

O shining one, son of the dawn!

How you have been cut down to the earth,

You who vanquished nations!


Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?

The name Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the King James Version renders Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” means “shining one.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means “bringer of dawn.” Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew “morning star” or “Daystar.” But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses “Lucifer” (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

Who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.

Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: “To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High.”—Isaiah 14:13, 14.

“The stars of God” are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these “stars” ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became “the mountain of meeting.” By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those “stars.” Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the “shining one.”

The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of “the god of this system of things”—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.

Source: Questions From Readers

Obviously those who are trying to conflate "Lucifer" with Satan and/or even Jesus are not going to use an accurate honest bible translation for that. Much like those playing the conflation game with the phrase "I Am" btw. Or many similar examples.
edit on 11-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

joecroft: Equal under WHAT Law…???…who’s Law…?

The Law that allows this Universe to exist; therefor YOU to exist.

Joecroft: You said I was being Dogmatic in your last response…but aren’t you doing the same thing with these supposed Laws…?

These are the Laws of the Absolute (not mutable as are PERFECT); not mine.

Joecroft: Give me a list of things which you believe drives the “Will” in your next response…and we’ll take it from there…

Nothing drives Will; one becomes aware of its edges then begins to percieve it then fathom its existance then fashion it into a useful tool.

Joecroft: My point that I’ve made in 2 posts now, is that “desire” can have a direct impact on a persons “Will”…It stands to reason, that that’s the case,

Warped and unclean because it is part and parcel of the Ego's *instant gratification* agenda.

Joecroft: When the “desire” is in the negative it could be regarded as being ego driven…but if the desire is Spiritually based then it traverses the ego altogether…IMO In short, we can’t say “Desire” is bad in all cases.

I wouldn't know. I am not spiritually based. I will again say; the Ego is not your friend it defines your individual personality only.

edit on 11-10-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).


The Book of Enoch suggest a Link between Enoch and his transformation into the angel Metatron…which way well be metaphoric and not literal…which is what I actually think is the case…

In other texts though Metatron is not connected to Enoch in any way…so a lot Depends on which texts you go with…


- JC



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by joecroft
Equal under WHAT Law…???…who’s Law…?




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
The Law that allows this Universe to exist; therefor YOU to exist.


I think perhaps you had to write a little bit more, in order to cover the question completely…



Originally posted by Joecroft
You said I was being Dogmatic in your last response…but aren’t you doing the same thing with these supposed Laws…?




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
These are the Laws of the Absolute (not mutable as are PERFECT); not mine.


Of course…“Perfect Laws” *Shrugs Shoulders*…but How do you know they are perfect…?

Have these Laws been tested under test conditions and falsified etc… lol

How do we know these things are true, Veteran of the Specie…?



Originally posted by Joecroft
Give me a list of things which you believe drives the “Will” in your next response…and we’ll take it from there…




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Nothing drives Will; one becomes aware of its edges then begins to percieve it then fathom its existance then fashion it into a useful tool.


“Nothing drives the Will!!!”…are you serious lol…?

If nothing drives the “Will”, as you propose, then where does the “Will” come from…in your humble opinion…?




Originally posted by Joecroft
When the “desire” is in the negative it could be regarded as being ego driven…but if the desire is Spiritually based then it traverses the ego altogether…IMO In short, we can’t say “Desire” is bad in all cases.





Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
I wouldn't know. I am not spiritually based. I will again say; the Ego is not your friend it defines your individual personality only.


“NOT spiritually based”!!!

WTH!!!…

What kind of wool have you been pulling over my eyes all this time lol…and remember goats to the left…sheep to the right…lol

You may wish to answer this via u2u…but just what exactly is it you believe in…? just what kind of thought form, ideology, system of belief, or truth base, are you operating from…?

If you’re not Spiritually based, does this mean your Ego is in control…and if so what does your “Will” think about it all lol


PS – I noticed you bypassed that question again…that’s twice in a row now…(Congrats)


- JC



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: luciferslight


TechniXcality:" Who sits on the left hand of God?"

Who sits TO THE LEFT hand of God. No one; as there is no God to sit upon either side.



Greetings and Namaste, vethumanbeing. It's been a long time. But I would like to answer the original post's question as well as your statement. Master Jesus sitting on the right hand of God is a metaphor, therefore is not literally anybody sitting on either side of God. As you may well know, the Son of God known as Master Jesus represents an attribute of God in our Universe, which is the SON--yielding from the first Trinity of God--Father, Mother, and Son. The Master is not from the First Trinity. However, he is our representation, a few steps down so to speak (more like a few steps towards the outside of the circle). The Bible was simply stating that as a SON, Jesus is the right side of God, while the left side belongs to the Mother Spirit from the First Trinity. It was a metaphor to explain Master Jesus' divinity. Therefore, if you examine what the Bible really was referring to (the FIrst Trinity), it's God split into 3 equal Divine Beings from a world beyond time and space.

May this clarify some of the confusion in this thread. Peace be with you.


edit on 10/11/2016 by ctophil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: luciferslight
. But if it's Lucifer (Satan) then that makes God the infinite Creator for creating good and evil.


Namaste, friend. God didn't create good nor evil. There is no duality where God resides. Remember our Father lives outside of the World of Time and Space. When the Universes were created, good and evil, light and darkness were born due to God's design of freedom. Humans and all other created beings (this includes angels and spiritual beings) had the choice to not choose the Path of God. When this happens, the heart's rebellion will choose evil. Evil is nothing more than "Energy Veil," which means illusory cover up of God's Perfect Will; therefore, people who choose evil are blind to God's way of life. Thus this so called "Evil" in man's hearts is nothing more than an illusion that came out of rebellion against God.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb: Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).


Joecroft: The Book of Enoch suggest a Link between Enoch and his transformation into the angel Metatron…which way well be metaphoric and not literal…which is what I actually think is the case…In other texts though Metatron is not connected to Enoch in any way…so a lot Depends on which texts you go with…

Yes; just texts written by humans interpreted by humans and then read by humans. It would not surprize me that *Pokimon* iconography/tokens at some point is misinterpreted as a viable language form 3000 years from now.
edit on 12-10-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ctophil
Hello friend! Nice to hear from you again! Yes; thank you for bringing me back to reality...metaphor of course; in the heat of debate one forgets this premise (or for me trueism).



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio



Originally posted by Malocchio
Metatron sits at the right hand of God and is called Youth and Little Shaddai. Metatron was Enoch and has many names.

The hand is the evil side so nobody sits at God's left. And I don't know if God does much sitting but I would say that he has been sitting for a little bit...long time.


Yes, Enoch was transformed into the Angel Metatron. So Metatron and Enoch are one and the same.

You said Metatron sits at Gods right hand…But take a look at this verse from 1 Enoch…Chapter 24…




1 Enoch…Chapter 24

Of the great secrets of God, which God revealed and told Enoch, and spoke with him face to face

1 And the Lord summoned me, and said to me: Enoch, sit down on my left with Gabriel.




- JC




I could be wrong.

I just figured the left hand is always a symbol of evil but I guess I will have to check out 3 Enoch later and see.

I own all 3, left or right is possible but I

Actually it's in 2 Enoch, your quote. So you are right. I was actually assuming about the whole left hand thing but thinking one side of God is evil was foolish in retrospect.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Who cares that humans created them?

They wouldn't exist otherwise.

Pokemon analogy? Please.

Whoever said that I am a dupe for saying that Metatron is Enoch then goes on to say Enoch was A Melchizedek, that there were four is incorrect.

You are the dupe. Adonizedek is the only other Melchizedek. Zadok was a High Priest of Solomon.

Other than that Melchizedek is Shem.

And Metatron IS Enoch.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


That's because Enoch is only one Metatron and the most known.

Any texts that don't say he is Metatron don't say it because the tradition began with 3 Enoch not because it is not legit.

Enoch/Metatron is the little Shaddai.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Malo:Who cares that humans created them? They wouldn't exist otherwise.

Most things would not exist if HUMANS had not CREATED THEM.

Malo: Pokemon analogy? Please.

You created all that is in 7 days only?

Malo: Whoever said that I am a dupe for saying that Metatron is Enoch then goes on to say Enoch was A Melchizedek, that there were four is incorrect.You are the dupe. Adonizedek is the only other Melchizedek. Zadok was a High Priest of Solomon. Other than that Melchizedek is Shem.And Metatron IS Enoch.

Metatron may have been anyone you have NO PROOF. The four Melchizedeks according to NO PROOF are:
Malavatia Melchizedek
Machiventa Melchizedek
Manitutia Melchizedek
Manovandet Melchizedek

These are mandators or controllers of the Local Universe your life depends upon. Dont tell me there are only two when I know better. You want to call one Shem or Enoch? How so? Zadok; high priest of Solomon!?!! What geographic area? Machiventa Melchizedek was the high priest of Salem as in Jerusalem (cannot be two ruling at ONCE). How many years did Zadok live and does he appear in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

edit on 13-10-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Yes; just texts written by humans interpreted by humans and then read by humans. It would not surprize me that *Pokimon* iconography/tokens at some point is misinterpreted as a viable language form 3000 years from now.


Language can be a tricky thing to reconstruct many years down the line, without some kind of guide or comparison…case in point …the “Rosetta Stone”

Actually there’s something I missed from your previous reply…which is here below just for clarity…



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).


Where are you drawing this idea of Melchezidek from…do you have any quotes from any particular texts…?


- JC



edit on 13-10-2016 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Yes; just texts written by humans interpreted by humans and then read by humans. It would not surprize me that *Pokimon* iconography/tokens at some point is misinterpreted as a viable language form 3000 years from now.


Language can be a tricky thing to reconstruct many years down the line, without some kind of guide or comparison…case in point …the “Rosetta Stone”

Actually there’s something I missed from your previous reply…which is here below just for clarity…



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).


Where are you drawing this idea of Melchezidek from…do you have a quotes from any particular texts…?
- JC

I have to think about how to answer this. Bare with me.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio



Originally posted by Malocchio
That's because Enoch is only one Metatron and the most known.

Any texts that don't say he is Metatron don't say it because the tradition began with 3 Enoch not because it is not legit.

Enoch/Metatron is the little Shaddai


Right…good point…

The scholars tend to split the texts into groupings...but like you said, just because that tradition isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it isn’t legit…




Originally posted by Malocchio
Actually it's in 2 Enoch, your quote. So you are right. I was actually assuming about the whole left hand thing but thinking one side of God is evil was foolish in retrospect.


Well, its not completely foolish because it’s a common theme in the Bible. Good often gets depicted to the right and bad to the left, sheep and goats being an obvious example.

But there are a few cases where Angels are described as sitting all around the throne room of God; It’s depicted in 1 Kings and I think a few other places in the OT…so Yeah, in those cases it’s clearly not suggesting that angels on the left or bad or evil etc…

Although having said all that I think Christ is specifically (metaphorically) on the right because he represents the good and righteous side of God…IMO


- JC



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

Probably.

Left hand path is the path of the ''Satanist."

Sometimes not actually a Satanist but one who chooses the road less traveled and questions the foolishness of accepting the doctrines of church men who only exist to oppress and the traditions they claim are holy and true.

One could say Jesus preached the left hand path (narrow road few will find).

Certainly people on the narrow path have no affiliation with the organizations claiming to follow Jesus.

Christianity is the wide road.

Jesus is the narrow. Confusing, but true.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Obviously you have issues proving multiple Melchizedeks existed as he is mentioned a few times in the Bible and all mentions refer to the same individual who is Shem.

This is Hebrew tradition and can be found in the book of Jasher (correct record) a book I own and have read.

The story of Melchizedeks birth in rare versions of 2 Enoch at the end have him born of immaculate conception and in priestly garb, though not from Noah's wife.

This is the only reference in any scripture that could support your theory and it's a likely interpolation by a Christian and not found in most translations.

Sorry, Melchizedek was Shem and only one Melchizedek exists in Hebrew or Christian tradition.

Christianity thinks because of the cryptic and rather nonsensical book of Hebrews that Melchizedek was Jesus. LOL.

Philo makes Melchizedek into the Logos or draws comparison, so it would seem he is the inspiration for Hebrews if not the author (it's a theory).

But to conclude you have nothing to prove your theory of 4 Melchizedeks though you seem to think you do.

You don't.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: vethumanbeing
pf
Obviously you have issues proving multiple Melchizedeks existed as he is mentioned a few times in the Bible and all mentions refer to the same individual who is Shem. This is Hebrew tradition and can be found in the book of Jasher (correct record) a book I own and have read.The story of Melchizedeks birth in rare versions of 2 Enoch at the end have him born of immaculate conception and in priestly garb, though not from Noah's wife.
This is the only reference in any scripture that could support your theory and it's a likely interpolation by a Christian and not found in most translations. Sorry, Melchizedek was Shem and only one Melchizedek exists in Hebrew or Christian tradition. Christianity thinks because of the cryptic and rather nonsensical book of Hebrews that Melchizedek was Jesus. LOL.Philo makes Melchizedek into the Logos or draws comparison, so it would seem he is the inspiration for Hebrews if not author (it's a theory).But to conclude you have nothing to prove your theory of 4 Melchizedeks though you seem to think you do.You don't.

There are differing histories of this era by others; THOSE ALSO THAT INVOLVE ALL OF MANKINDS; (yours in particular: religious growth REGRESSIONS) by those other than what is prescribed by your particular demon's brand of dogma. This would be your favorite brand/flavor you are indoctinating as the *behold* the TRUTH IS TOLD. Melocchio rhymes with Pinocchio.
edit on 14-10-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join