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.

 

The Bible Code-Is Jesus Actually Lucifer?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Nostradamus.org

666 ELS Code in New Testament Written by the Staff of Nostradamus.Org 2/15/1999

ELS Code in Nostradamus Prophecies

See more ELS codes in the New Testament



Guess whose name appears connected to SATAN if you use the newly discovered BIBLE CODE or ELS (Equidistant Letter Spacing) Code?

Using an ELS sequence of 666 to research the King James Version of the New Testament. A very famous historial figure appears directly connected to SATAN at the ELS sequence of 666.

The Torah was the first religious work analyzed to see if the ELS Code was valid. Remarkable discoveries of hidden ELS codes were indeed found in the Torah.

This is what you will find at an ELS sequence for SATAN in a King James Version of the New Testament.

Is this the HIDDEN NAME of the FALSE PROPHET who is SATAN?



As you can see Jesus Christ connects directly to the word SATAN in a ELS of the KJV of the NT at an ELS sequence of 666.

Is Jesus the deceiver?

The False Prophet?

When questioned by the Rabbi's, are your works miracles from SATAN, he never denied they were.

He never directly called himself GOD or even the Son of God in the NT.

And the last thing he said was that he was THE MORNING STAR in Revelations 22:16

Look up Lucifer in a collegiate level dictionary.

Does MORNING STAR appear as an AKA of Lucifer...

Was he???

The program used to find this ELS CODE was Code Finder.

www.starnet.com.au...

Sollog was the first person to find this 666 ELS Code Sequence. He has been also known to state publicly that Jesus Called Himself Lucifer.

Is this the PROOF he is right....

He was the first person to find ELS codes in the prophecies of Nostradamus as well.

Personally-I don't think a "Christian" should be using a "Bible Code", since that would be a form of divination, wouldn't it? Besides, I read in THE DISINFORMATION BOOK, that the book Moby Dick, was found to be as prophetic as the KJV.

If this topic has ever been done here at ATS-I apologize.....




posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
You are kidding right?

Oh please tell me you were just kidding.

I cant believe someone would accualy think this of Jesus!

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I don't believe that Jesus Christ is "Satan", or a satan, this post is more about the legitimacy of the Bible Code than anything else



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I wondered that too, until I found this site: The Morning Star: Jesus or Lucifer?, which states that the author of Isaiah was making a sarcastic comment when he called the Devil 'morning star'.

The Bright Morning Star goes to the misnomer of "Lucifer", which is an incorrect title for Satan or the Devil taken from the King James Version of Isaiah 14:12. Were it not for this odd transliteration, "Lucifer" would not exist as a term in English, and there would be no confusion on the matter. As it is, we need to be careful, I would suggest, in using the term to describe who the Bible calls "Satan" or "the Devil". Most Christians are onto this, yet still the term "Lucifer" persists. In any case, the "morning star" is the title of Christ throughout the rest of Scripture.

2Pet 1:19 (NIV) And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
Rev 2:28 (NIV) I will also give him the morning star.

Rev 22:16 (NIV) "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."


Since it is clear that Jesus is the "Bright Morning Star" (even said so Himself) then how should we understand Isaiah 14:12?

Isa 14:12-15 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

This should be understood as a sardonic title for the "anti-christ" or beast. He claims to be "christ", right? He claims to be Messiah, and has his moment under the sun, but comes to be brought low ultimately. Contrast the real Bright Morning Star: He lives humbly, does not boast, is not arrogant, is submissive to the Father... even unto death. Then the Father raises Him to the highest place; in the morning so to speak ...

In any case, "Lucifer" means "morning star", so it should not be used to describe Satan. Jesus is The Morning Star.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link   
thank you Pisky. Since it is 3:39am my time (EST), I better get some sleep before I attempt to comment on this post any further. I'll return later today to follow-up.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   
i will post it here, because you seem interested.
letter spacing codes are lousy. the method they use is to wrap text around a virtual cylinder and then change the length of the cylinder to get different results. the problem is, there is almost an infinity of combinations of letters that result. that is why moby dick, or any other book for that matter, is just as prophetic.
however.
there are real codes in the bible. some were put there by masons(francis bacon was the final editor of the KJV). some, perhaps by divine plan. dr. len horowitz has some codes published in "healing codes for the biological apocalypse".
what i find INFINITELY more interesting, are codes built into our language. they are definitely divine, in my opinion.
using a=6. b=12. c=18, etc., ....jesus=444, lucifer=444,(satan=330).
people who equate lucifer with satan are mistaken. lucifer appears but once in the bible.
in greek gematria, jesus=888. interesting, no?
using the above formula:
computer=666
vaccination=666
kissinger=666
golden arches=666
illusion=666
necromancer=666
the list goes on and on. try it!
see the thread, 'holy base six resonance' for more related material....

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
imho Isaiah 14:12 is nothing more than a taunt by Isaiah (like it says at the beginning of chapter 14) against Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, an analogy which is again used in Revelation to prefigure the "beast". I believe the same can be said of Ezekiel 28:12, where he takes up a taunt against the king of Tyre.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Bible Codes is a hoax and coincidence.
English language is such that you easily get other words using that method from "bible codes", neither was bible written in English..



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Megaquad
Bible Codes is a hoax and coincidence.
English language is such that you easily get other words using that method from "bible codes", neither was bible written in English..


it's not exactly a hoax. the people who spent thousands of hours of there lives and inspiration to find the coincidental messages did their research because they were looking for truth. not to decieve.

there are codes in the bible, like i said. they just aren't skip letter sequences.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritchild
I don't believe that Jesus Christ is "Satan", or a satan, this post is more about the legitimacy of the Bible Code than anything else


I understand the point you are trying to make, and I'm with you. The "code" can also be applied to the Koran. The fact is, if you numerically analyze a large body of text, the code will work. It's just a matter of probability, not a matter of "hidden secrets".



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The King James Version of the Bible was edited by a 33rd Degree Mason...King James...



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Your facts are completely wrong..

King James the first comissioned, not edited, the KJV of the bible in 1611. more than 100 years before Freemasonary came about, so he couldnt of been a 33rd degree Freemason could he?



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Depends on which version of the NKJ Version. The one we read today or the orginal Old English. Since both versions would have diffrent sequences of wrods and the code would be totally diffrent. In the Torah code they used the orginal hebrew, so I hope this guy used the orginal old english which is far diffrent from modern english.



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritchild
I don't believe that Jesus Christ is "Satan", or a satan, this post is more about the legitimacy of the Bible Code than anything else


I don't know how many time I have said this on this site but I will say it again. "Jesus" was not his name, "Christ" was not his name. "Christ" was his title. So think about that the next time you say "in Jesus name we pray" Who are you really praying to?!?!?

[Edited on 19-1-2004 by DaTruth]



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
If freemasonry is satanic in nature, then the ideals it holds are ageless. So the argument about when Freemasonry began is baseless really in regards the King James version of the bible but one must focus on the editor and King James himself.

I still content that Lucifer is humans in the flesh, souls in the 3d. So in a stange twist Jesus is a small part Lucifer. But nobody here has presented evidence yet that Lucifer is Satan. Remember Live=evil. Lucifer is the deceived souls brought to earth.



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ozzie
Your facts are completely wrong..

King James the first comissioned, not edited, the KJV of the bible in 1611. more than 100 years before Freemasonary came about, so he couldnt of been a 33rd degree Freemason could he?


Freemasonry has been around since the times of Egypt and King Solomon just under different names. If you let masons tell it, its been around since Stonehenge. That is why D.C is set up like ancient Egypt with Arlington national cemetery on the other side of the Potomac just like the king of the dead is on the other side of the Nile. I think your facts are completly wrong

[Edited on 19-1-2004 by DaTruth]



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
among the many inscriptions found on the inside of rosslyn chapel are clear depictions of masonic ceremonies which was built hundreds of years before free masonry "officially began" so its been around for a very long time



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
masons take some of their oaths in egyptian.
read, "the hiram key".
'the craft' of freemasonry is definitely older than the name 'freemasonry'.



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Satan is hoping you will think this way. Then again he is not full of love and compassion like Jesus. Get a grip and pull on your ears.

BTW, Masonry has not been around since Soloman or his temple, that's all a bunch of BS that the Mason's want you to believe. Get the book, Born in Blood, and read it, it proves beyond a doubt where Masonry began, etc.

Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry
by John J. Robinson


Look inside this book
List Price: $24.95
Price: $17.47 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details.
You Save: $7.48 (30%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours

Want it delivered Wednesday, January 21? Order it in the next 21 hours and 16 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details.

www.amazon.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
If you look at anything long enough, you can find a code. The fact of the matter is, the bible can't be taken as a history book. Likewise, there is no code. What would the code be based on? Hopefully not english, because that is not the original language the bible was written in.

I hear people constantly interpreting the bible. They MAKE STUFF UP to fit their views to begin with. The Bible says one thing directly, and then people say..."oh no, it meant another", simply because it contradicts something else in the bible. How can a reliable code be developed form something that is based on perception and opinion in the first place?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join