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.

 

King Lucifer

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Satan does not exist in the Bible. It is a complete creation of the Dark Ages. The hebrew word "shaetan" is a concept referring to the "one who opposes". In ancient times, anyone who was an enemy or a rebel to any authority could be called "Satan".

Same goes for the concepts of Good and Evil... it has nothing to do with Christianity historically. It's the manichean gnostics, or disciples of Mani, who strongly believed in this duality, and then the Catholic Church appearantly recycled the idea.

THere is a reference to the Seventh Angel, or Shemiazaz, who was a powerful archangel that revolted against God's authority, with about 300 other angels. He's the best candidate for being recognized as the "devil", but it is refered to only in the Book of Enoch.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I need one more bit of clarification.

Is he saying he is the offspring of David and that he is also the Morning Star?
Or is he saying he is the offspring of the parantage of David and the Morning Star together? Like he is the morning star's kid?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
I need one more bit of clarification.

Is he saying he is the offspring of David and that he is also the Morning Star?
Or is he saying he is the offspring of the parantage of David and the Morning Star together? Like he is the morning star's kid?


Jesus was not the result of a parentage between David and the Devil...
You are right to assume that he is the offspring of King David though... though I have to admit that He was CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT... you still shouldn't confuse this with the lineage of David. Mary and Joseph were of the lineage of David.. this still has nothing to do with the conception...

He is the replacment of the the Morning Star.. the failed being is cast from heaven forever.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I agree after thinking about it. The coma wouldn't be there between "I am the offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star" if he was saying that David and the morning star parented him.

Maybe Jesus and Lucifer are One. Male and Female of the same thing.

Not to be picking at you but you still seem to think I am referring to a devil or satan and not once did I imply that.
Edit: As above So below

The ultimate redemption?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by interestedalways]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
I agree after thinking about it. The coma wouldn't be there between "I am the offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star" if he was saying that David and the morning star parented him.

Maybe Jesus and Lucifer are One. Male and Female of the same thing.

Not to be picking at you but you still seem to think I am referring to a devil or satan and not once did I imply that.
Edit: As above So below

The ultimate redemption?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by interestedalways]


I am only trying to understand the STORY! Thats all I think it is.. a well crafted STORY... sorry.

I have said what I have thought and I do not believe that there is a great evil being that is opposing God. If there is, then God forgive me.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
interestedalways


Originally posted by interestedalways
I need one more bit of clarification.

Is he saying he is the offspring of David and that he is also the Morning Star?
Or is he saying he is the offspring of the parantage of David and the Morning Star together? Like he is the morning star's kid?


I understand it as him saying that he is from the lineage of David and that he is also the bright Morning Star.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

[edit on 12/9/2006 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
I agree after thinking about it. The coma wouldn't be there between "I am the offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star" if he was saying that David and the morning star parented him.
Maybe Jesus and Lucifer are One. Male and Female of the same thing.
Not to be picking at you but you still seem to think I am referring to a devil or satan and not once did I imply that.
[edit on 12-9-2006 by interestedalways]


"I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16)

In Isaiah 14:12, St. Jerome, translated the Hebrew "morning star" into the Latin term "Lucifer" (light bearer), a name commonly ascribed to Satan by Christians, and represents the fallen star, an ancient symbol for the fallen or evil one. The mourning star actually appears as the planet Venus, the brightest "star" in the sky. Venus always appears low on the horizon, thus it looked like a fallen star (fallen angel) to the believers.

In Hebrew Heylel ben Shahar means "Helel son of Shahar." Helel was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god named Shahar, the origin predates the Bible and I believe its use in Revelation 22 is deferential. Helel was the god of the morning star and his father was Shahar, god of the dawn.

The word "Devil" is not used in the Old Testament. It is Abaddon in Hebrew, Apollyon in Greek, meaning "destroyer." The Devil is the name given to a supernatural entity who, in most Western religions, is the central embodiment of evil. This entity is also commonly referred to by a variety of names, including Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles and Beelzebub.

The Helel-Lucifer (i.e. Venus) myth was later transferred to Satan, as evidenced by the 1st-century text "Vita Adae et Evae" where the Adversary gives Adam an account of his early career.

Satan(meaning "adversary" or "accuser"), and the Arabic shaitan, derives from a Semitic root šṭn, meaning "to be hostile", "to accuse".

The most common synonym for Satan, "the Devil", entered Modern English from Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Latin diabolus, from Late Greek diabolos, from Greek, "slanderer", from diaballein, "to slander"

Lucifer is sometimes used in Christian theology to refer to Satan, from a reference in Isaiah 14:12-14. In Jewish theology, however, this figure (Helel in Hebrew) has nothing to do with the Jewish understanding of Satan. Beelzebub (meaning "Lord of Flies") is actually the name of a Philistine god, but it is also used in the New Testament as a synonym for Satan.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
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 God credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Gods 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 God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Even were it not for the confusion between the morning star and the popular conception of Satan, it must also be kept in mind that any literary source attributed either in fact or in popular thought to an entity identified as what people call Satan wouldn't have come into being until a very long time after any actual historical event(s.) We are dealing with enormous spans of years, the rise and fall of empires, assimilation and reassimilation by various cultures, etc. Surviving religious texts represent amalgamations of numerous works that have been translated, retranslated, interpreted, and misinterpreted over a countless sum of years. It must also be said that there are mythologies which predate these subsequent stories and interpretations as well. They also predate mention of the serpent in Eden.

Some possible origins for the belief in a primordial evil deity such as Satan might be found in those older, yet similar (and probably related) cosmologies. For example, Sumerian mythology held that there was a God called Enlil which was born out of the union of the God of heaven and the Sumerian Earth goddess. Enlil was the God of air, and was glorified as "king of Gods." He raped the daughter of a human woman, and the child born as a result was named Sin. Enlil was banished to the underworld for this rape.

Likewise in Ugarit (where, ironically, the morning star Venus was venerated,) a city in what is now Syria, a hierarchy of deities was worshipped in which El (the God of heaven) co-created Hadad (the God of the mountain, and possibly the original inspiration behind the later Abrahamic interpretation of God) and other Gods with an Earth Goddess. Hadad was considered the Earthly God, or the God who ruled over a great host (Elohim) on the mountain (parallels with the Hebrew God are readily apparent in my opinion, but I am by no means an authority and there is obviously debate concerning this,) and he came into conflict with another God called Yamm who was named prince and judge of the other Gods. Is it possible that this title of judge and the perception of Yamm as the adversary of Hadad, might be what resulted in the original conception of Satan, the adversary/accuser? Yamm is subsequently personified as a leviathan or sea serpent, as well.

Whatever the case, it is considered likely that long before any of these cosmologies and myths were ever recorded for posterity, they or similar earlier tales circulated orally for unknowable lengths of time. For this reason above all, the true origins of such stories (whether you believe them to be based on literal fact, or entirely fictional) are probably lost to time forever, other than educated guesses and informed hypotheses.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow


First off. Lucifer is a latin name. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel named Lucifer or Satan. It was about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime, persecuted the people of Israel.



And what was the name of this Babylonian king???????????/



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TJ144
In reality, the quote from Isaiah indeed refers to a king of ancient Babylon, named Helal.


You are mistaken, the was no King Helal. Helal was a word in the text and was not the name of a king.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
TJ, as you seem to be fairly educated on the translation/mis-translation field of study in regards to the Bible, is there anything you could share regarding the whole 'elohim' thing?


May he can tell you what year King Helal ruled since there wasn't one.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
If it wasn't Babylonian King Helal that presocuted the Israelis then who was it?
What are you getting at?
Do you have evidence to say otherwise?
I am just going by the Hebrew text.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
Maybe Jesus and Lucifer are One. Male and Female of the same thing.




www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
This has to do with the 14th chapter of Isaiah.
The Roman Priests changed the 14th chapter of Isaiah.
In the original Hebrew text the 14th chaber of Isaiah referred to a King that persecuted the people of Israel... his name was not Lucifer!
The Roman priests changed the name of the king to Lucifer and I want to know why!


WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS THIS!
Why did the Roman priests change the book of Isaiah and why did they invent this demon called the Morning Star (AKA Lucifer, Satan)!??


I would be happy to answer your question. The Roman priest had nothing to do with changing the books of Isaiah. There seems to be plenty of incorrect information coming from web sites that like to tickle your ears.


The Dead Sea Scrolls were found containing all 66 books of Isaiah and they were exactly like the Jewish Old Testament books.


The Babylonian King is not Helal as there was not a king Helal.

The Babylonian King is King Nimrod who was given power by Lucifer the false bringer of light. The one that fell from heaven who apparently is at work even now.



2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light


You can play with the words all you want and it still won't change the truth.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I thought Nimrod had the tower of Babil built. Are we talking about the same King?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
I thought Nimrod had the tower of Babil built. Are we talking about the same King?



Yes we are.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
So let me get this right...
King Nimrod created the tower of Babylon.
God destroyed the tower and created babel amongst the people.
A group of people learned Hebrew and started their own Kingdom.
Was it King Nimrod who persocuted the Hebrew people or a latter king named Halel (which the text mentiosn) I am not certain... I'm not trying to claim I am a professional in this subject.
One thing is sure, the Hebrew people came about after Nimrod build the tower of Babil, ty for mentioning this.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
So let me get this right...
King Nimrod created the tower of Babylon.
God destroyed the tower and created babel amongst the people.
A group of people learned Hebrew and started their own Kingdom.
Was it King Nimrod who persocuted the Hebrew people or a latter king named Halel (which the text mentiosn) I am not certain... I'm not trying to claim I am a professional in this subject.
One thing is sure, the Hebrew people came about after Nimrod build the tower of Babil, ty for mentioning this.


Babylonian King Nimrod was given his power by Satan who appears as an angel of light(Lucifer or whatever name you want to call him.). Upon his death it was claimed by his mother Semiramis whom he married that Nimrod was Baal the sun god who is Satan by the way.

Study up on Nimrod Semiramis and Tammuz.

It was not until later that God called (Abram)Abraham and the Hebrew people came into being.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Now I get it.. Jesus is Satan in human form, cast down because he equated himself with God.

çomon people.. do you really believe Jesus fooled us for 2000+ years.. I believe so.. Just nobody dares saying this.. well I dare.. and I said it. there you go, now crucify me.. lol.. bugger

(look mom, I'm on anti-psychotics)

[edit on 13-9-2006 by kneejo]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join