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.

 

Satan is not Lucifer.

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I have been over this before, lucifer is satan, or better put hellel, translated from hebrew in latin it means lucifer.




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



So seven thousand men die in an earthquake? I'm missing the part where it says they are fallen angels.


Rev.12:9 tells us Satan and his angels were cast to earth while Rev.11:13 tells us how many there were.


You left out the part about the dragon drawing a third of the stars, Celestial beings, from heaven. I would think that the Host of Heaven numbers far beyond just 21,000.


Those are two different events. The fallen angels, the 7,000, are from this age. They are spoken of in Jude 6 and Genesis 6. They came to earth and mixed with daughters of Adam. The results were the Nephilim. Those giants were probably the souce of the mythological gods.

The "dragon drawing a third of the stars" references the first earth age, when Satan rebelled and took 1/3 of God's children with him. For that reason all souls must be born and go through this present second age to decide who we will follow - Satan or God. Peter and Paul both taught us about the first earth age. One example is found in:


11 Peter 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6.Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7.But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men


He isn't speaking about Noah's flood there but a time in which the world perished. God destroyed it because of the rebellion of Satan and this present second age came about in Gen.1:2 when "the Spirit of God moved upon the face fo the waters."




I'm still missing the connection.

The Beni Elohim from Genesis, Sons of G-d, they make appearances all over the Tanakh or the Jewish Testament. I have never heard of the ones who descended numbering more than a few hundred.

The non canonical Book of Enoch says it was only a couple of hundred. Jude directly quotes the Book of Enoch in regards to the Beni Elohim.
The results were a number of things including the Nephilim. The Nephilim are not the source of most Mythological deities though.

The Host of Heaven and the Sons of G-d are the ones responsible for that according to the Tanakh. Some are the work of men's hands and minds as well.

The 1/3 of stars is written as prophecy not history. If Satan had fallen during a rebellion around the time of Creation, He would not of been allowed to roam free on earth or enter the Adatel in Job or Zechariah. He would of been isolated and bound like the beings who were the progenitors of the Nephilim.


I'm guessing your abit confused over the first chapters of Genesis and Peter is not helping.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.". (Genesis 1:2) Hebrew: "Veha'Aretz Hayta Tohu Va'Bohu Ve'Chosech Aal Pnai Tehom Ve'Ruach Elohim Merachephet Aal Pnai Ha'Mayim".



Tohu means Desolate, Matter without substance. It is associated with Chaos, Colorless, Formless, Potential Existance, Unrealized.

Va'Bohu means Empty, Tangled, Chaos, Void, Confused.

To quote Rabbi Hirsch "an indistinct confused entangled mass."

Dont forget The Darkness CHOSECH , this Darkness is not merely an absence of Light. Isaiah 45 references G-d creating this Darkness. The same Darkness that settled upon Egypt in the Ninth plague upon it. It was a Darkness that could be felt and extinguished all light within Egypt. The Darkness surrounded the manifestation of G-d at Sinai. Moses entered this Darkness to receive the Torah.

"Moses approached the thick darkness where God was" (Exodus 20:21)

"The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick Darkness."
(1 Kg.8:12, 2 Chronicles 6:1)

"He made Darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. "
(Psalm 18:11) The dark waters being a reference to Tehom.

"Clouds and Darkness are round about him."
(Psalm 97:2)

This Darkness was upon the Face or Surface of the Deep. Pnai used here for face could also be translated as Interior.

The Deep, Tehom, The Abyss, Unfathomable. Tehom in a sense is the womb from which Earth is born.

Ruach, is often translated as Spirit, Wind, or Breath.

Ruach Elohim moved upon the face/interior of the waters.

These arnt just any waters. These are the Primordial "waters" of tehom. The waters that contained the Tannim, like Leviathan and Rahab.

Both the Darkness and the Ruach Elohim are upon the face of Tehom.

Note there are no Stars, No Host of Heaven yet at this point. The Satan of Job hasnt even been created yet. How could a being not even created yet draw down others who had not been created yet. That doesnt happen till verse 14.

There isnt any room for the idea your presenting. For speculation purposes had there been another creation G-d would of utterly annihilated it, along with any beings within it. G-d is the Only One that is Eternal.












[edit on 23/8/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I have been over this before, lucifer is satan, or better put hellel, translated from hebrew in latin it means lucifer.


You do realize Lucifer is a Roman deity. I'll repeat a Roman deity. We might as well start translating everything as the name of Roman gods if we go along with that rediculous idea. Its Helel and only Helel. Helel is not a Roman god. Helel is not even a god. Helel is a man who wants to be a god, thus by calling him Lucifer youve fulfilled his desire by making him into a Roman god.

I'll have to agree to disgree over the Helel is Satan assertion which I have already shown why I do not agree, but Please stop calling a figure from the a Bible by the name of a Roman divinity.

[edit on 23/8/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I dont recognize anything from Paul of Tarsus as legitimate.


That doesn't mean it isn't! Just that you have not yet reached that level of understanding.


Do you realize what the Covenant is and what it stems from?


Matthew 26:26-28. The blood shed by my brother liberating us all.

(edited to correct scripture reference numbers)



[edit on 8/23/2007 by queenannie38]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
SATAN is a function - a job performed by an entity
HEYLEL is the name of an entity.

apples and oranges



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
SATAN is a function - a job performed by an entity
HEYLEL is the name of an entity.

apples and oranges


and Lucifer is a Latin word, the name of a Roman deity that has absolutley nothing to do with Satan or Helel. Could we possibly agree on that?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by queenannie38
SATAN is a function - a job performed by an entity
HEYLEL is the name of an entity.

apples and oranges


and Lucifer is a Latin word, the name of a Roman deity that has absolutley nothing to do with Satan or Helel. Could we possibly agree on that?


Lucifer is a fallen angel. After he fell he became know as Satan, the adversary.

You don't seem to follow the origin of your so called Roman diety Lucifer.
Lucifer is Baal the sun god....the bringer of light. At the death of Nimrod, he is said to become Baal. Baal is Ra......Ra becomes Osiris. Nimirod is Osiris.........Nimrod is Gilgamesh. Nimrod is Zeus....

Nimrod is the man possessed by Satan...who is Lucifer. The same way Antichrist will be possessed by Satan.

Your minor Roman diety Lucifer can be tracked right to Babylon.....and Satan.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
and Lucifer is a Latin word, the name of a Roman deity that has absolutley nothing to do with Satan or Helel. Could we possibly agree on that?


i'm not even in THAT contest - i threw out the name "Lucifer" in regard to Isaiah 14:12 long before this thread.

No proper name = satan.
Lucifer, Heylel, Michael, or even George Dubya.

It's a question of grammar not theology!!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Nimrod is the man possessed by Satan...


With all due respect, my dear friend - where do you find documentation to support that?

All i know of is:


Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Luke 22:3


There are BUT 4 instances of the name Nimrod in the bible:


Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Genesis 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

1 Chronicles 1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.

Micah 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.


Scuttlebutt, all the rest.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by queenannie38
SATAN is a function - a job performed by an entity
HEYLEL is the name of an entity.

apples and oranges


and Lucifer is a Latin word, the name of a Roman deity that has absolutley nothing to do with Satan or Helel. Could we possibly agree on that?


Lucifer is a fallen angel. After he fell he became know as Satan, the adversary.

You don't seem to follow the origin of your so called Roman diety Lucifer.
Lucifer is Baal the sun god....the bringer of light. At the death of Nimrod, he is said to become Baal. Baal is Ra......Ra becomes Osiris. Nimirod is Osiris.........Nimrod is Gilgamesh. Nimrod is Zeus....

Nimrod is the man possessed by Satan...who is Lucifer. The same way Antichrist will be possessed by Satan.

Your minor Roman diety Lucifer can be tracked right to Babylon.....and Satan.


You will not find the name Lucifer in ancient Babylon.

If you think Lucifer is just another Epithet of a Myriad of deities names why the preference for a Latin word, a Roman god?

Why not use the actual Hebrew word Helel? Why not use an older name like Marduk? Why not call it any other of the myriad of names?

The Roman deity had nothing to do with Baal. Baal is not a sun deity at all. Baal is a title like Bel that is connected with numerous deities. The Equivalent of Bel from Babylon which was often used in reference to Marduk. It is related to Belus and Belos which was identified with Zeus and Jupiter. Zeus, Marduk, and Jupiter are all connected to the same planet, Jupiter. The Semitic god Hadad was a storm and rain god. He was often called Ba'al and has nothing to do with Sun.

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: "There is no intimation in the OT that any of the Canaanite Baals were sun-gods, or that the worship of the sun (Shemesh), of which we have ample evidence, both early and late, was connected with that of the Baals."

In Assyria and Babylon he was called Adad. He was also identified with Teshub in Anatolia. There are similarities with the Nordic Thor, Celtic Taranis and Vedic Indra.

One of the major links between them all is that the deities are all Dragon Slayers. In fact Ba'al Hadad's Primary adversary is The Seven Headed Dragon of the Abyss called Lotan, the Canaanite Equivalent of Leviathan.

Ra is not Baal Ra is not Osiris. You are connecting a myriad of ideas across a wide spectrum. You might as well say Lucifer is Jesus and Jesus is King Arthur and King Arthur is Robin Hood and Robin Hood is Loki and Loki is Thoth and Thoth is Solomon and Solomon is etc. Its like the Six Degrees of Separation, which can connect about anything.

Lets look at Nimrod the Mighty Hunter and founder of the First Empire after the Flood. The Bible is very vague about him. He intiates the construction of the Tower of Babel which leads G-d to confound the languages. The Book of Jasher a non canonical book states that Esau beheaded him.

Nimrod may of been the inspiration for the Sumerian deity Ninurta, a god of war and hunting.

Alexander Hislop of the Free Church Scotland came up with the idea that Nimrod was a source of various gods, in his book The Two Babylons: Papal worship Revealed to be the worship of Nimrod and His wife.

Hislop decided that Nimrod was the Mesopotamian ruler Ninus even though they would of lived many centuries apart. Ninus was said to have married a woman named Semiramis. Neither her nor Ninus have ever been identified as even being real people, but had they been they would of lived long after Nimrod had died.

Hislop believed Ninus and Semiramis were Isis and Osiris and Astarte and Tammuz. He goes on saying that almost all myths trace back to the two and thats why the Catholic Church venerates Mary. He explains that Rome actually follows Babylonian Paganism.

Many fundamentalist Christians such as Jack Chic agree with this idea.

Scholars and Archaeologists have shown on the other hand that Hislop had made poor conclusions based on a lack of infomation.

Ralph Woodrow, an evangelical Christian minister who had intially supported Hislop's work has come to criticize it after researching it writing a book called The Babylon Connection which explores Hislop's bizarre ideas.

Quote from The Babylon Connection: "The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to refer­ence works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions."

So at this point I refuse to engage in anymore discussion of the Nimrod= the entire Mythological Spectrum of the Human Race. It may not convince you to think like the Minister Ralph woodrow did but its convinced me that the idea is Ludicrous and not worth the waste of my brain power any further.





[edit on 23/8/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
... why the preference for a Latin word, a Roman god?


If you really want to know the mundane reason for Jerome's translation, then here are some starting points for research:

Lucifer. Bishop of Cagliari, Sardinia, of the 4th century
Arianism
Pope Damasus
Luciferianism
the schism between the Meletians and the Eustathians

Here are a few starting links:

Jerome wiki-linky
Luciferian wiki-linky
New Advent page on Jerome
New Advent page on Lucifer of Caligari

It all boils down to religious/socio-political melodrama-soap-opera type B.S.

'men of God' acting like fifth-grade girls



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





Why not use the actual Hebrew word Helel? Why not use an older name like Marduk? Why not call it any other of the myriad of names?



Suits me fine.........Marduk.......Molech it's all the same just different areas.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





did but its convinced me that the idea is Ludicrous and not worth the waste of my brain power any further.



Since you can't waste the limited brain power, I won't waste my time dismantling about 3/4 of what you said. I will just conclude. Ra over time blends in to the Osiris cult. Osiris is both Dionysus the son of Zeus and Zeus himself. Zeus is Bel...Bel is Baal. You might check the Bible about the Prophets of Baal........a false god...Lucifer.

CONCLUSION.......Satan is Lucifer appearing as an angel of light.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





did but its convinced me that the idea is Ludicrous and not worth the waste of my brain power any further.



Since you can't waste the limited brain power,


ad hom



I won't waste my time dismantling about 3/4 of what you said. I will just conclude. Ra over time blends in to the Osiris cult. Osiris is both Dionysus the son of Zeus and Zeus himself. Zeus is Bel...Bel is Baal. You might check the Bible about the Prophets of Baal........a false god...Lucifer.


again, put up or shut up on this theory. show us the historical evidence for it. don't retort with "you can find it in 2 minutes by looking it up on google"
just show it to us.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Every time I do........you start agreeing with me and then run and hide because the facts speak for themselves. I answered all your questions (twice) and then you run around with the same comments. YOU ARE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Sun Matrix
 


wText YellowTextText
wow , so was zeus actually a false god then?
That is really interesting.......can you explain
Is this all the same god that was called different names by different cultures or is it a comparison of some sort....



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Every time I do........you start agreeing with me and then run and hide because the facts speak for themselves. I answered all your questions (twice) and then you run around with the same comments.


"every time [you] do..."? you've yet to. i grew up in missouri, now show me. i want the answers with verifiable evidence



YOU ARE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH.


no, i'm afraid of your lies and distortions of the truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lenisey
reply to post by Sun Matrix
 


wText YellowTextText
wow , so was zeus actually a false god then?
That is really interesting.......can you explain
Is this all the same god that was called different names by different cultures or is it a comparison of some sort....


Zeus is merely Nimrod of Babylon.....also know as Gilgamesh(and hundreds of other names.) Nimrod of Babylon is Egyptian Osiris. Here is tidbit that tracks Osiris from Egypt to Greece.


The tale of Osiris losing his manhood to fish (becoming fish like) is cognate with the story the Greek shepherd god Pan becoming fish like from the waist down in the same river Nile after being attacked by Typhon (see Capricornus). This attack was part of a generational feud in which both Zeus and Dionysus were dismembered by Typhon, in a similar manner as Osiris was by Set in Egypt.



By the Hellenic era, Greek awareness of Osiris had grown, and attempts had been made to merge Greek philosophy, such as Platonism, and the cult of Osiris (especially the myth of his resurrection), resulting in a new mystery religion. Gradually, this became more popular, and was exported to other parts of the Greek sphere of influence. However, these mystery religions valued the change in wisdom, personality, and knowledge of fundamental truth, rather than the exact details of the acknowledged myths on which their teachings were superimposed. Thus in each region that it was exported to, the myth was changed to be about a similar local god, resulting in a series of gods, who had originally been quite distinct, but who were now syncretisms with Osiris. These gods became known as Osiris-Dionysus.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



I'm still missing the connection. ...The Beni Elohim from Genesis, Sons of G-d, they make appearances all over the Tanakh or the Jewish Testament. I have never heard of the ones who descended numbering more than a few hundred....The non canonical Book of Enoch says it was only a couple of hundred. Jude directly quotes the Book of Enoch in regards to the Beni Elohim.


There was more than one time this happened.


Gen.6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Who were those giant "mighty men", men of renown" if not the giant figures of mythology?


The 1/3 of stars is written as prophecy not history. If Satan had fallen during a rebellion around the time of Creation, He would not of been allowed to roam free on earth or enter the Adatel in Job or Zechariah. He would of been isolated and bound like the beings who were the progenitors of the Nephilim.


He rebelled before the beginning of this age and that was the reason for the chaos, the Tohu Va'Bohu. As God tells us in Isaiah 45:18, He "created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited", not void as it is found in Gen.1:2.


Dont forget The Darkness CHOSECH , this Darkness is not merely an absence of Light.


That's true but there is a difference in the "darkness" in those verses. I don't quite understand it but the darkness that "was upon the face of the deep" was what God divided from the Light. Is that darkness the same darkness He dwells in or was that darkness evil. If Christ is the light of the world then who is the darkness?


There are no Stars, No Host of Heaven yet at this point. The Satan of Job hasnt even been created yet. How could a being not even created yet draw down others who had not been created yet. That doesnt happen till verse 14.


He was created in the first age, as were we. Verse 14 refers to this 2nd age.


There isnt any room for the idea your presenting. For speculation purposes had there been another creation G-d would of utterly annihilated it, along with any beings within it. G-d is the Only One that is Eternal.


He did annihilate it. That age was the one in which the dinosaurs lived. This age began around 14,000 years ago.

The event is called the katabole. The foundation of this age was a "throwing down, casting down, descent", it "frequently denotes opposition,distribution, or intensity". God destroyed everything and it was so violent the plates split apart. That is the reason we find African animal bones in Nebraska.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind

Who were those giant "mighty men", men of renown" if not the giant figures of mythology?


Renown = shem (name)
Men who had made a name for themselves; men of authority and/or honor. VIP’s.


8034
shêm
A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.



He rebelled before the beginning of this age and that was the reason for the chaos, the Tohu Va'Bohu. As God tells us in Isaiah 45:18, He "created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited", not void as it is found in Gen.1:2.


Tohu bohu means ‘vain (empty) and desolate'. Simply meaning at that time there was no spirit yet descended into matter. Empty and without form (remember then, that man was 'formed' from the dust and God breathed spirit into his nostrils - life - making him neither empty or formless).


Dont forget The Darkness CHOSECH , this Darkness is not merely an absence of Light.



H2822
chôshek
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.


That darkness was the manifestation of the state of matter devoid of spirit.


He did annihilate it. That age was the one in which the dinosaurs lived. This age began around 14,000 years ago.


The end of the last ice age; the beginning of the present Holocene age.


The event is called the katabole. The foundation of this age was a "throwing down, casting down, descent", it "frequently denotes opposition,distribution, or intensity". God destroyed everything and it was so violent the plates split apart. That is the reason we find African animal bones in Nebraska.


Katabole is not a destructive word but rather means casting down as in how a builder would cast down the foundation of a building.

The foundation of the world was a physical structure, not a spiritual one; however it was created for the purpose of building that which the spiritual would be later established upon.


katabole lit., "a casting down," is used
(a) of "conceiving seed," Heb 11:11;
(b) of "a foundation," as that which is laid down, or in the sense of founding; metaphorically, of "the foundation of the world;"

G2602
katabolē
From G2598; a deposition, that is, founding; figuratively conception: - conceive, foundation.


God ‘inseminated’ matter with spirit. And so putting an end to the vain desolation of matter devoid of spirit.
How did that ‘insemination’ occur? Sons of God (spirit) mated with daughters of men (Cro-Magnon man? or perhaps Homo-erectus or some such - I'm not an anthropologist so excuse my terminology)

When the ice age began to melt, tremendous stresses were placed upon the tectonic plates and therefore there was a lot of geological upheaval; volcanoes and earthquakes, etc. Water weighs A LOT, as we all know. For there to be a relatively rapid readjustment of water distribution upon the Earth’s crust, it is logical to understand that the land, itself, suffered great cataclysmic upheavals in order to re-accommodate the weight of the water.

There is NOTHING in those first chapters of Genesis to suggest or to warrant assumption that anyone rebelled against anything...remember what Paul says, many centuries later:


Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1 Corinthians 15:46


FIRST the natural (tangible/material)
SECOND the spiritual (intangible/ethereal)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join