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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix


I had no problem showing scripturally that the LAND OF THE CHALDEANS would be judged. I had no problem showing that the Bible says that the Medes will come on the DAY OF THE LORD.



I think the difficulty you are having stems from your attempt to make a literal application of the of the prophecies in Isa & Jer to modern day Iraq, but fail to do the same to the scriptures that refer to the Medes & Persians and the other nations mentioned in my previous posts that would join Cyrus in overthrowing the Babylonian Dynasty.

If your references to Babylon & the Land of the Chaldeans has a literal meaning, as you infer, then logically, the references to the Medes & Persians must have a literal fullfillment. Current events do not show the people occupying that geographic area of the ancient nations of Mede & Persia kingdoms of Ar′a·rat, Min′ni and Ash′ke·naz are taking the lead in deposing Iraq or expressing any desire for a restoration of true worship in Jerusalem to take place. This is why you need to consider the deeper references to Baybylon on Rev. I gave you several scriptural references in one of my previous posts.

The expression Day of our Lord occurs over 33 times in the Bible. They do not all refer to the same thing. Any decisive victory over Gods enemies can be said to occur in the The Lords Day. For Instance, This expression is used for example in Josh 10:12 when referring to the Destruction of the Amorites by the Israelites. So as far as the Babylonian Dynasty was concerned, The Lords day for Babylon occurred in 539 BCE when Babylon fell to Cyrus.

I agree that there is a greater Symbolic meaning to these prophecies. I do not believe they are confined merely to the geographic region of the modern day Iraq.
The scriptures I referred to in Revelation indicate that it has a much more sinister role that that corrupt regime.


[edit on 15-9-2006 by Sparky63]




posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I was just showing you that the Antichrist will set up his kingdom just like Nimrod did. The thing that hath been is that which shall be done. Are you telling me you don't believe that the Antichrist will set up a world government?


Surely you must admit that Eccl 1:9 had absolutely nothing to do with Nimrod or the Antichrist.

You have taken this scripture out of context and attempted to apply it it both Nimrod and to the Antichrist. This is deceptive and yet you have not acknowleged that it is an incorrect application of this scripture.

If you are truly interested in sharing information & Bible truths with others you must not resort to using scriptures out of context to support your opinions.

This is not helpful.


[edit on 15-9-2006 by Sparky63]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
This has been a very interesting discussion.
Sun Matrix; I have enjoyed discussing these prophecies with you. It is obvious that we share the same interest in the Bible and Bible prophesy. I too am interested in current events to see how they unfold. We are truly living in interesting times.
I commend you for you abililty to recognize that the prophetic accounts in Jer Isa & Daniel have a greater application than just what happened in ancient times.
We disagree over the fullfillment. Isn't that always the way


I want to end my discussion on this subject before it erodes into a volley of sarcasm and vindictiveness. It is sometimes hard to avoid with this point-counterpoint format.

I look forward to your future posts on other subjects.
Thanks again


[edit on 15-9-2006 by Sparky63]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I dont know if you are Jewish or not but it doenst matter of what faith you are; the fact that you stated that Lucifer was some kind of babylonian king "persecuting the jews in Ancient times: is a little far fetched. The fact is that Lucifer represents to the satanist or Luciferian to break away from mans very own ignorance which is not left in a myth of mystery, but repersents the carnations of mankind and all his bull# hidden in conpriacy theroies, that never take off from the ground. The fact the most people are trying to defame or ridcule a religion based on "conspriacy theories" is just that, a theroy not backed with evidence or scietific or archeological fact. If you are saying that you know the truth and every other scientific mind or historian scholar is waked or does not know his or her field of expertise is like saying the jews and the nazi's were freinds.

Which bring me to another fact: during the life of Akenaton 3rd with his monotheistic relgion that died when he did, i do belive that the remenants of the new relgion became the jewish faith, so what is more hypocritical a relgion that was created to persecute the gentiles or the conspriacy of the wise men of zion who created the illuminati (who were and are jewish) so for you to come on a site and proclaim that you know the true nature of Lucifer is like saying that i found atlanits. So before you go and proclaim your profound wisdom you better back up what you are saying, for the morning star and the Venus were worshipped by the ancient romans as well as most southern European nations as a God of light and the goddess of love, there for you analogy is incorrect as far as your version of what you decalre as "King Lucifer".

P.S.
And one more thing when you talk about Isreal you are talking about Jerusalem as far as ancient History is concerned (a city state not a nation) was only the vast city of Jerusalem, the rest of what we call Isreal was actually Palastine which did and still does belong to the ancient people of palenstine who are now muslim and live in poverty and are murdered by the dozens by "Gods chosen people" The Isaralite ( how Satanic is that), but i bet your conspiracy theroy doesnt cover them because we view them as evil and sadistic. So lets get our facts straight and quit continuing a lie that all of Isreal today belonged to the jew yesterday, because that is not TRUE. And no i dont hate jews im tired of the Jews making themselves out to be "Gods" only chosen people where they can get away with having Nukes and get away with lieing to the international community seems to me they have special staus and im tired of it; if that the case then i welcome lucifer.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I forgot lets think with common sense, like Isreal never started a war, they were always peaceful and loving, well history has another story. So quit making Isreal the victim becasue they have raped the world a hundredn times over.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luciferianknight

P.S.
And one more thing when you talk about Isreal you are talking about Jerusalem as far as ancient History is concerned (a city state not a nation) was only the vast city of Jerusalem, the rest of what we call Isreal was actually Palastine which did and still does belong to the ancient people of palenstine who are now muslim and live in poverty and are murdered by the dozens by "Gods chosen people" The Isaralite ( how Satanic is that), but i bet your conspiracy theroy doesnt cover them because we view them as evil and sadistic. So lets get our facts straight and quit continuing a lie that all of Isreal today belonged to the jew yesterday, because that is not TRUE.


If you want to get your facts straight, maybe you should begin by realizing that there is no such thing as a race of people called Palestinians.

The word Palestinian came from the Philistines who by the way weren't Arabs.

A Palestinian was merely someone that lived in Palestine which was really Jerusalem. It was renamed Palestine by the Romans after they conquered it.

Most of the original so called Palestinians were really Jews or Lebonese.

Yasar Arafat was Egyptian, by the way.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sun Matrix
 


palestine has its root in "philistine"
when a word goes from archaic semtic tongue to greek to latin, they tend to shift



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Sun Matrix
 


palestine has its root in "philistine"
when a word goes from archaic semtic tongue to greek to latin, they tend to shift


The name Palestine came from the word Philistine, an enemy of the Jews. That's why it was chosen when Rome renamed Jerusalem. The point is though, there is no such thing as a race of people called Palestinians....and the Philistines weren't Arabs.

This is just more of the smoke being blown up the worlds arse. As God says.....I will make Jerusalem a 'cup of trembling'.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
tech thanks for the info,but i think you misinterpeted what you read



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
We can now assume that the Roman priests probably changed the 14th chapter of Isaiah for certain reasons.

The only reason Lucifer was changed to Satan is because of misstranslation by late Christians while using the original hebrew text.


The word Lucifer is an accurate translation of the original Hebrew passage from Isaiah 14:12. It has never been changed to Satan, and there has not been a mistranslation. Some Christians however, have associated Lucifer with Satan.


Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error, later Christians were for equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

Now that everyone knows that Lucifer/Satan.. W/E... was just some Babylonian King...
Will all the Satan churches please shut down?
Will all the dumb Satanists finally kill themselves and get over with it?
Will retarted redneck christians finally stop calling everyone Satan?
Will the insanity ever end???
No. It won't. So go on with life and Satanists go back to church, your King is calling you... or your goat, w/e you worship.


Just because Lucifer is not Satan, does not mean Satan does not exist. Lucifer and Satan are two different concepts. Lucifer is the morning star, and Satan is the adversary.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic





[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]

[edit on 18/9/2007 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


Hi,Im new!What a cool forum.WoW!The Lucifer info is brill and I would love someone to help me understand exactly who Mary Magdalene actually WAS.Also doing my head in is the reference to 'the other Marys' which appear somewhere in the New Testament.HELP!



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I pretty much covered this and had the same irrational rebuttals. People believe whatever they want. Disturb their view of reality and they get even more irrational trying to defend that reality. Ever disturb a child playing make believe?


"Satan is not Lucifer"
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Oddly it was condemned to Below Top Secret, after originally starting here.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join