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.

 

Jesus & Lucifer one and the same???

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CoffinFeeder
 


" for as conflicting, convoluted and contrieved as the babble, er I mean bible is, it would make it pretty easy to mistake jesus and lucifer as one in the same."

Which Bible are you referring to? And do you care to give an example or two?

For my money, it took me quite a while to understand The Word. It took hearing the 5 deceptions of Islam to come to a realization, then it took some teachers who knew The Word well, to get me to a further understanding. The Bible [ KJV only ] has multiple levels to it.

And the only thing I've ever seen associated with The Word, that was contrived, were the wolves in sheeps clothing who were misleading believers.




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by CoffinFeeder
 


" for as conflicting, convoluted and contrieved as the babble, er I mean bible is, it would make it pretty easy to mistake jesus and lucifer as one in the same."

Which Bible are you referring to? And do you care to give an example or two?


He is probably refering to the Latin Vulgata translation, which translates the Greek phosphoros into lucifer, when refering to the morning star:

2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

2 Peter 1:19 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.

Latin "lucifer" or Greek "phosphorus" are words refering to the morning star Venus.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Thanks for that, too bad the thread has run out of gas tho.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Shouldn't we be looking at other translations for cross-referencing? Or do we feel King James was more "in the know"?

What about the earlier translations in greek, hebrew or aramaic?

I don't think there is a real association between 'Lucifer' and "Satan".



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
For latin lucifer is correct for the translation of 2 Peter. It's a direct translation from Greek phosphopros. It refers to the planet Venus when it rises just before the sun at dawn. But it wouldn't be correct to translate it into lucifer in English. In English morning star is correct. As for the other two instances of Lucifer in the Latin Vulgata, they are misinterpretations.

[edit on 21/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Thanks for the reply Christian Mystic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think if there is a connection to be made it would be between Lucifer and Jesus potentially, but not between Lucifer and Satan.

Can we see some biblical references to support a connection between Lucifer and Satan? From any and all translations, and not exclusively KJV.

[edit on 013030p://21u24 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



" Shouldn't we be looking at other translations for cross-referencing? Or do we feel King James was more "in the know"? "



Have you ever heard of pastor scott? She is on ch38 @ midnight in the chicago area. She discusses certain passages, in many different languages, such as aramaic, greek, spanish, and so on, to get a better feel for certain passages in the scriptures. I find it quite interesting.

And to answer your question;

Well, the Lord said His Word would be distilled 7 times, and from what I understand, the KJV is the 7th one, hence why it is many peoples preference!



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
In order to try and debate whether Jesus & Lucifer is one of the same, one must prove the existence of either Jesus and Lucifer first.

Providing NO evidence for the existence of both, makes Jesus and Lucifer meaningless.

Peace

CR



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Thanks for the reply Christian Mystic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think if there is a connection to be made it would be between Lucifer and Jesus potentially, but not between Lucifer and Satan.

Can we see some biblical references to support a connection between Lucifer and Satan? From any and all translations, and not exclusively KJV.


KJV heavilly rely on the Latin Vulgata. As for a connection between Lucifer and Satan in the Bible, it is nonexistant. Satan is never called Lucifer. That connection was made after Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost in my opinion. It is based on fiction and church dogma. It is in popular culture that Lucifer and Satan are equalled and given dominion over Hell.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

As for a connection between Lucifer and Satan in the Bible, it is nonexistant. Satan is never called Lucifer. That connection was made after Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost in my opinion. It is based on fiction and church dogma. It is in popular culture that Lucifer and Satan are equalled and given dominion over Hell.


Well that has been my contention over the years as well. Which is why I was asking. I always find it amusing and somewhat dis hearting when people draw this connection. It's kinda like associating the color red with devil-worship, or Satanism with Anarchy. Pop-culture fiction and Church dogma indeed..



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Since the Babylonians were heavily into astrology and did nothing without first consulting the stars for answers, making an astrological remark like the one in Isaiah 14:12 would make quite an impact:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!"

Telling such an omen to the emperor of Babylon would have a very good x-factor, it is a prophecy about the fall of Nebukadnezzar, and Isaiah found it written in the stars. Venus was in such a position on the sky that it marked the fall of the Babylonian Empire.

[edit on 23/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Since the Babylonians were heavily into astrology and did nothing without first consulting the stars for answers, making an astrological remark like the one in Isaiah 14:12 would make quite an impact:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!"

Telling such an omen to the emperor of Babylon would have a very good x-factor, it is a prophecy about the fall of Nebukadnezzar, and Isaiah found it written in the stars. Venus was in such a position on the sky that it marked the fall of the Babylonian Empire.

[edit on 23/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]


wow, we actually agree on something!!


just to add. helel (morning star), and shahar (dawn) were the original hebrew words. they are discovered to have been the names of 2 babylonian astral deities.

since the king was also deified in babylonian customs, the scripture can be read as refering to him. considering that babylon ¨made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home¨

then the scripture is put into context.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
i think the jesus and lucifer are the same in the sense of ying and yang that one can't leave with out the other. so there for they must be the same person. cause there is never light without shadows. good without evil.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by XcLuciFer
 

concerning the devil(john8:44)
Messiah says:you are of your father the devil,and you want to do the desires of your father.he was a murderer from the beginning,and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.whenever he speaks a lie,he speaks from his own nature,for he is a liar and the father of lies.

concerning the Messiah(john10:10)
Messiah says:the thief comes only to steal and KILL and destroy;I came that they may have LIFE ,and have it abundantly.

common sense tells me that these are 2 different beings.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
my theory is that the position of morning star, a sort of honorific, was given to Yeshua when Satan lost it. This would have the sumerian equivalent of Enki losing his standing with Enlil and Enlil's other son, getting the position instead.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by undo]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Personally, I think naming Satan is a wrong interpretation of Isaiah.
So, I do not think he ever had that title.
Jesus is the herald of the day coming and the end of darkness.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
But Satan is the bringer of knowledge (lucifer). If he's the sumerian Enki (and I think the texts suggest he is), then he's the creator of human civilization (which is supported by rabbinical texts and hebrew pseudopigraphia as well). this would be Satan as the "light bringer" or the "bringer of knowledge.

Someone mentioned that the letter L in lucifer was never capitalized, and that this had been a later modification of the texts. Truth is, none of the hebrew words were case sensitive. they were all written in the same case. the only way you could tell when something was being stated in a matter of degrees or magnitude, such as a host of gods vs. the almighty god, was how it was stated in context. context is everything in scripture. without watching the context, you could end up with almost any translation you want from the text. in fact, that's what happens. people who aren't accustomed to dealing with context, lift single passages out of entire books, taking them irreparably out of context and incorrectly apply them to some other topic they want to support.




[edit on 1-8-2008 by undo]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
here's a couple of examples, as well, as to the importance of the original languages (context is the first step in true scholarship and the language is next):

the english word "images" in the old testament, turns out to be translated from the hebrew "matstsebah", which is alot more specific than the word "images." for example, a mastaba, is a forerunner of the pyramids and may have even been the name given to pyramids by the hebrews of that day. so when the text says god is going to destroy the images of the egyptians, he may very well have meant the pyramids of the egyptians. heck, there might be entire pyramids that have been razed to the ground or buried beneath a sea of sand, and we wouldn't even know it if unless we were looking, but the translation gives you the impression it's just talking about an idol figurine, a statue or a column with carvings in it. but no, a matstsebah is a monument, a memorial, typically with an altar of some kind, and frequently with a pillar or pillars. that's more than a statue or idol figurine, et.al, it's more than "images."

another example is the translation of the passages in which abraham and sarah are visited by some very controversial figures, just prior to the destruction of sodom and gomorrah. the text says, three "enowsh" came to visit them. this is translated into english as "men". three men came to visit them. but if you consider the surrounding context, it's no longer three men. abraham even calls one of them "my lord", which in the original language is adonay. so context is everything. and enowsh may not mean men at all, which suggests again, that the original language is equally important.

never ever take anyone else's word for it, not even mine. go read it, study it, research it, for yourself. watch the context and find the original languages.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by undo
People who aren't accustomed to dealing with context, lift single passages out of entire books, taking them irreparably out of context and incorrectly apply them to some other topic they want to support.


Amen undo. Obviously Yeshua and Lucifer are not one in the same. Yeshua being sinless and perfect and the creator of all things doesn't jive with


"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!"




posted by XcLuciFer
So once the latin 'lucifer' is translated to 'Lucifer', another name for Satan, and the second time its translated to 'morning star', so who or what is this morning star? The 'morning star' appears twice in the KJ Version of the Bible,


Sorry wrong. Do some research first next time. Morning star also appears in Job. It means angel.



When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:6-8


Which completely lines up with the interpretation that lucifer is a fallen angel.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Nimrod was the creator of civilization.
I do not think you can look at some other texts to get the right meanings to words in the Bible.
That would only work if they were written in the same culture and time.
I do not put all that much credence into Rabbinical writings.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join