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 vs Lucifer

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
hi


well, according to the language of the genesis story, the serpent was a shining one, brazen and glowing. some have misinterpreted it to mean that it references only his enlightenment of the human race -- bringing light to man. but other related texts, such as the book of 1 enoch and sumerian-akkadian texts, further elaborate that the "light" we were brought was that of enslavement for the purpose of civilization building. therefore, you really can't leave the "light" in the references as merely applying to venus the planet or as the gaining of "knowledge", and must further examine it as the means by which our species were enslaved to build the huge, ancient monuments of the planet

they found some "uncivilized" humans living in the buff, drinking out of the rivers and enjoying the tranquility and peace of simply being, and enslaved them, taught them to wear clothing, taught them how to remove riches of the earth (ores and minerals) and make them into weapons of destruction, how to cultivate plants for the purposes of drug usage, how to brew beer from hops, how to manipulate and genetically alter crops, and so on and so on, right up the technological ladder to the building of massive monuments, mathematics, religion, large scale resource management, and etc.

but with the building and co-habitation of mass amounts of people in civilizations came the necessity for laws and the realization of wrong doing.




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


Very nice post indeed!

and, thank you for the source.




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld

Originally posted by starwarp2000
reply to post by newworld
 


These passages refer to the fall of Lucifer!!!

Ezekiel 28: 12 - 15

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

And also references in Revelations, about the Dragon's tail sweeping down a third of the Angels.

I will read your reference and get back to you.




the key word there is "son of man". this can't possibly be referring to the fall of satan, since he is an angel/archangel (i forget which) and not a human being. And I see that you checked the source and came to the conclusion that the translations could be wrong. but the thing is that scholars have looked at the issue between Lucifer and Satan in the original texts and that's why the general consensus seems to be that they are different beings that were confused into one as time went on.

however, i believe you are right in that the bible needs to be translated again, without errors using the best translators out there. a new, authoritarian version of the bible needs to be printed (basically the definitive final version) without errors and as accurate as possible.


"Son of man" is God (Or one of his messenger's) talking to Ezekiel!!!!

It's just like if I said, "hey, newworld! Write this down for me!

Hence, "son of man" is referring to Ezekiel, not Satan.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
Satan is multiple personalities with multiple bodies. You can say Satan has one soul. The bible only provides hints, yet the rest of said "evil" Satan is so said to be so "evil" only by peer pressure into false witness. By peer pressure, people repeat what is wrote and heard. They fear what they really don't know about Satan.

Easier to think of Lucifer as a personification than to pinpoint somebody. There are very romantic and lustful experiences to be found about this. Discover them if you explore.

There is another Satan, and maybe this is where some confusion comes from. Think of yourself in a mirror. When you read the bible and read about Satan, then consider any personal judgment you make about that Satan in the bible is actually a mirror of you. In effect, you judge yourself. Now you got to live with such judgment until you can overcome it.

Life gets better when you can learn not to bare false witness. *wink*

How many of you can say absolutely positive things about Satan? Hmmm. Oh the virtue of love and compassion...

Oh look, I didn't say anything 'far out there' in this post. *smile*


[edit on 31-7-2009 by dzonatas]


What a load of hogwash!!!

You judge yourself???????

Why do we need God then ?????



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Apache-Yaqui
 


Seems very similar to Baptists. My daughter wanted to be baptized, because my wife and I saw nothing in this ritual and did not insist upon it. So we went to her baptism. There was a big tank of water behind the stage and she was dunked in the joy of Jesus. Yee Haw! She said it was a wonderful experience. Yet, there were younger people who were scared and forced to be dunked. Oh, yeah, the devil or Satan or Lucifer was in them and so that is why they were afraid and fought against it. lol. My daughter, the baptized Christian, washed in the blood of the lamb. Yikes. She's the worst of my three.



But like God, I love her. Unlike God, I won't forsake her for not believing in me and send her to an eternity of hell and damnation.




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


I see. I made a mistake and assumed god was talking to satan when he was talking to Ezekiel.
Anyway, how does that refer to the fall of Satan?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
the sumerian-akkadian enki was the serpent in the garden, i think. he fits the profile (based on various texts). that makes him lucifer.
he was also the master of fate .... this is a time-related clue. it also identifies him as the "accuser", which is the original meaning of the word satan.

so lucifer=satan. ...i think. based on research, anyway.




[edit on 31-7-2009 by undo]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by inregardstoo
There are many references to a morning star in the EAST in reference to Lucifer. There are many other ancient cultures and religions who also make reference to an eastern star like Zoastarianism and the Egyption Horus/Osirus Story. The Horus story shows the star Sirius as the Eastern star in this latter generation as it really used to be the North Polar Star above the the capstone in the ancient times before the deluge.


Why do people immediately assume that the "Bright Morning Star" in the Bible references Venus?
I mean, humans weren't even around when Lucifer was created, and these passages are written from the perspective of God's throne, not the Earth.

When Lucifer was place on the throne of the Earth with 1/3 of the Angels, we still don't know if Venus existed. And so we shouldn't.

The idea is not to get stuck on points but to learn from the overall spirit of the teachings.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


it's possible that it was his domain and he lost it to jesus. (venus i mean). it's a title. like a title of royalty.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
reply to post by gwynnhwyfar
 


that's the EXACT source i posted in the beginning of the thread. People either don't read it or simply dismiss the information. I thought the issue of the difference between Satan and Lucifer was already clarified in this thread? did i miss something???

(thanks for posting it here though, it will help those who decide to read from the last pages. and sorry if the tone of my post seems to be anger, it's actually neutral
)


Yes you did miss something!
The issue hasn't been clarified.

That article was written by a Theosophist which has nothing to do with the Christian religion.
For a Theosophist to comment on religious matters, would be like next time you want your car fixed you take it to a bicycle mechanic. You may get your car fixed but it wont be as good as a real mechanic and it will probably break down sooner than later.
LOL Like this argument



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge

Originally posted by starwarp2000
Well firstly Lucifer doesn't exist anymore! His name was changed to Satan, so any reference to Lucifer is just a historical reference.

Satan is an Arch-Angel (albeit a fallen one) and is made of spirit.


silliness.
make up children's book conceptualizations of archetypical characters all you want.
still silliness and lacks depth and literal practical meaning that one can gain anything worth-while form spiritually.



Satan sits on the throne of the Earth at this moment!!! He will remain there until Christ returns and removes him.


true.. but in a symbolic sense.
satan being the current form of body/mind we're in right now...
christ as in the future liberated body/mind we will in habit with awakening to a literally new body and consciousness.

no "people" or "spirits" named jesus and satan..

I know it's kinda sad when you have to let go of that perception of them.. saying bye-bye to the gossip-oriented action-film type interpretation... might leave you feeling a lil hollow inside...

because they're actually SYMBOLIC PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGREGATES.
who represent something you can "learn from" in a very deep sense.. and PRACTICAL MANNER in which you can derive actual literal unimagineable ascendance from...

NOT actual "beings"

nothing personal.. but i pray for the death of your type of perception of the mythology.



GET OFF THE DRUGS IMMEDIATELY



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000

Originally posted by newworld
reply to post by gwynnhwyfar
 


that's the EXACT source i posted in the beginning of the thread. People either don't read it or simply dismiss the information. I thought the issue of the difference between Satan and Lucifer was already clarified in this thread? did i miss something???

(thanks for posting it here though, it will help those who decide to read from the last pages. and sorry if the tone of my post seems to be anger, it's actually neutral
)


Yes you did miss something!
The issue hasn't been clarified.

That article was written by a Theosophist which has nothing to do with the Christian religion.
For a Theosophist to comment on religious matters, would be like next time you want your car fixed you take it to a bicycle mechanic. You may get your car fixed but it wont be as good as a real mechanic and it will probably break down sooner than later.
LOL Like this argument


So you don't think a theosophist who probably spent his/her whole life studying religion is capable of tackling down this issue? so who, in your opinion, is capable of answering this question correctly?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by newworld
 


well the problem i've noticed with some of the older thoughts on the topic is that they don't incorporate all the data, only those portions that fit their theory or the theories of their predecessors. what about the rest of the info? as archaeology progresses, more data is being dug up that seems to make big holes in everybodies theories on these subjects. the only possible solution is to look at the whole picture and not just the parts that will continue to bolster your position or the positions of the scholars that have come before you. in short, the only best and possible solution is to look at the entire thing, from the perspectives of the various ancient texts, read them for yourself, do comparative analysis and never discount anything. by assuming such and such was not or is not possible, you've set yourself up for lack of revelation.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by newworld
 


Ezekiel 28: 12 - 15

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Let's take the points one by one:

1) Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
2) Thou hast been in Eden
3) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth
4) thou wast upon the holy mountain of God

1. He is the most perfect creation of God.
2. He was in Eden
3. He was one of the covering Cherubim (Ark of the Covenant)
4. He was at God's throne.

Now how, oh how, can anybody equate this to a "HUMAN" king or anything mortal?
What man has God said these things to???

So it must only be talking about an immortal being and the only logical recipient is Lucifer.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


it's possible that it was his domain and he lost it to jesus. (venus i mean). it's a title. like a title of royalty.


Yes, i see your point.

I always imagined a vision from God's throne of the creation of Lucifer and the spirit of God rising like a Morning Star from the sides of the North.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


the most revealing part is where he's identified as the king of the abyss (abzu) - who sits in the midst of the sea (abzu, abyss) (enki, ea, same guy). he was most likely a host body (the king of tyre, i mean).



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld

Originally posted by starwarp2000

Originally posted by newworld
reply to post by gwynnhwyfar
 


that's the EXACT source i posted in the beginning of the thread. People either don't read it or simply dismiss the information. I thought the issue of the difference between Satan and Lucifer was already clarified in this thread? did i miss something???

(thanks for posting it here though, it will help those who decide to read from the last pages. and sorry if the tone of my post seems to be anger, it's actually neutral
)


Yes you did miss something!
The issue hasn't been clarified.

That article was written by a Theosophist which has nothing to do with the Christian religion.
For a Theosophist to comment on religious matters, would be like next time you want your car fixed you take it to a bicycle mechanic. You may get your car fixed but it wont be as good as a real mechanic and it will probably break down sooner than later.
LOL Like this argument


So you don't think a theosophist who probably spent his/her whole life studying religion is capable of tackling down this issue? so who, in your opinion, is capable of answering this question correctly?


Well no quite frankly. A theosophist would have been taught from books written by other Theosophists written by other Theosophists.......... on and on until truth lies like a corpse on the cold floor.

Better to read the Original yourself, clarify the truth, prove the truth, and then live it. Don't rely on other people's drivel to guide your pathways.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by newworld
 


well the problem i've noticed with some of the older thoughts on the topic is that they don't incorporate all the data, only those portions that fit their theory or the theories of their predecessors. what about the rest of the info? as archaeology progresses, more data is being dug up that seems to make big holes in everybodies theories on these subjects. the only possible solution is to look at the whole picture and not just the parts that will continue to bolster your position or the positions of the scholars that have come before you. in short, the only best and possible solution is to look at the entire thing, from the perspectives of the various ancient texts, read them for yourself, do comparative analysis and never discount anything. by assuming such and such was not or is not possible, you've set yourself up for lack of revelation.


But no book should need revelation. Even by having suspension of disbelief and analyzing the text one sees that some things in the book are not making some sense. For example the issue between Satan and Lucifer. i noticed some people in here are looking at it with the perspective that the bible is telling real events, and some of us in here (like me) are looking at it in a literary and scholar point of view (in other words treating it like any other book and dissecting the information).

the problem comes when two or more people try to explain this issue in different points of view. for example the secular scholarly world would say that Satan and Lucifer are different beings. the theologists or christians would say that in fact Satan and Lucifer are the same being. and then we have all the other groups who say they are in fact an allegory of ourselves, or that Satan was his name after falling and Lucifer was before the fall, etc.

so how would one go around this issue so we all reach the same conclusion? one has to remember that what counts as evidence for one is not a reliable source for another.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000
reply to post by newworld
 


Ezekiel 28: 12 - 15

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Let's take the points one by one:

1) Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
2) Thou hast been in Eden
3) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth
4) thou wast upon the holy mountain of God

1. He is the most perfect creation of God.
2. He was in Eden
3. He was one of the covering Cherubim (Ark of the Covenant)
4. He was at God's throne.

Now how, oh how, can anybody equate this to a "HUMAN" king or anything mortal?
What man has God said these things to???

So it must only be talking about an immortal being and the only logical recipient is Lucifer.


I see. thanks for clearing that up. i'll do more research on this to see if this in fact would be a second passage that refers to the fall of satan, or if this is a mistranslation or if it refers to an actual human king. For the time being it convinces me that it refers to the fall of Satan, so even if the passage that actually mentions the name "lucifer" was referring to a king, then this second passage you showed me would still cover up the problem of the fall.

thanks for being kind enough to provide this information. hopefully someone else will come along and try to debunk/debate this evidence to see what the other view of this evidence is



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by newworld
 


it's both literal, symbolic/metaphorical and poetic. that's the crux of the problem. some are picking up on one aspect and ignoring the others. for example, the idea that it's purely a story about the movement of planets. if so, why are there literal beings coming down to the earth from the literal planets and literally effecting the lives of the people on the planet, talking to them, interacting with them, and so on? there's the big picture and then the layers of the picture. don't get hung up on just one. they are all relevant.




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join