Luciferianism and Freemasonry, page 3

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:33 AM

link

It is not a theory, Lucifer was/is the name of the planet Venus. There is no dispute of the Latin translation of this word in its original meaning.

Lucifer does not mean Venus, I'm sorry, what it does mean is shining, glowing, bright light.

It is far from correct and has hundreds of translation errors. Anyone who thinks that a book that originated in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English-and incorporating obsolete language-has no mis-translations should really do some research before making absolutist statements.

It is corect as a definition, you can name the planet venus lucifer and you can name a charecter lucifer as in meaning, but the word means bright light, shining.

You can have a black dog and a black cat and name them sadow, but a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog and not one and the same.

It's really simple.
Base word for lucifer = shining, bright.

1
The translation from hebrew to latin for the word lucifer as in the character lucifer was done because it was his name, the shining one.

2
The planet venus was named lucifer because it was bright, the brightest in the sky, romantic poetry was made after the planet venus by the greeks, romans and so on.

number one and number two are not the same thing, but they are named the same. There are alot of people named Bob, did you know that?
There must be milions of people named bob and jack, even animals I bet but they are diffrent individuals.

The original text in Isiah was refering to a Babylonian King. This is supported by Biblical scholars. Please see Robinson's A Pilgrims Path as an example for further clarification.

Why did I know you would say that? Not really, it's hebrew and babilonian mitology, besides the king there was a character named heilel, an entity that rebeled aganst the gods, he climbed the mountain and alied his self with other guardians to take over the mountain top and kill the chief god.

Just like lucifer, lucifer, luceafar, means shinny-glowing, intense light and not planet Venus dear mason. Planet Venus is just a name of a planet like earth is named. The translation from the bible has nothing to do with planet venus and no shining does not mean VENUS as a word.

Your opinion of the word's meaning does not matter. The word, in Latin

I speak the closest language to original classical latin with old preserved sinonims and verbs dating back to classical latin. I know what lucifer means, and it's not lucifer, it's luceafar in Latin. It's a beacon of light, intense light, it has nothing to do with planet Venus. The name lucifer for planet Venus is just a name like you would name you cat shadow because your cat is black, I told you.

You can state anything you want but try doing some research before you attempt to misinform people with statements that are easily researched and disproved.

Ohh there is no misinformation. The name lucifer can be aplied to anything that has a bright shining light, planets, characters.

Is there a planet named Lucifer? yes.
Is there a character named lucifer? yes.
Is he named after the planet venus? no, he is named after the word meaning just like planet venus was named after the same meaning.

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:30 PM

link

Originally posted by pepsi78
Lucifer does not mean Venus, I'm sorry, what it does mean is shining, glowing, bright light.

No, the root words in Latin are lucis and ferre or to 'bring-light', or 'light-bearer'. It was applied to the planet Venus as it was the Day/Morning Star and was only used in that context.

It is corect as a definition, you can name the planet venus lucifer and you can name a charecter lucifer as in meaning, but the word means bright light, shining.

The King James version is an interpretation (just as many of its translations are) and can not be taken literally. Further, there were/are no mentions of Lucifer in prior translations as a synonym with Satan/The Devil.

You can have a black dog and a black cat and name them sadow, but a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog and not one and the same.

Or you can have a cat called a Bengal and people will know the difference betwen the house cat and the wild cousin from which it took its name. The contempraneously accepted usage of the Hebrew root word from which Lucifer is derived when the Old Testament was written had nothing to do with Satan.

It's really simple.
Base word for lucifer = shining, bright.

We covered this, it was actually two words.

1
The translation from hebrew to latin for the word lucifer as in the character lucifer was done because it was his name, the shining one.

But it did not refer to the Devil/Satan.

2
The planet venus was named lucifer because it was bright, the brightest in the sky, romantic poetry was made after the planet venus by the greeks, romans and so on.

The Greeks? Really? They called the planet Venus Phosphoros which, in Greek, meant 'Bringer of light'. Incidentally, they thought that Venus was actually two different entities and called the other version Eosphoros which meant 'Bringer of Dawn'. Eventually they realized that it was the same planet and called it Hesporos. Phosphoros would later be translated into Latin as Lucifer.

number one and number two are not the same thing, but they are named the same. There are alot of people named Bob, did you know that?
There must be milions of people named bob and jack, even animals I bet but they are diffrent individuals.

Symantics, the root name is derived from the planet Venus as historical language progressions demonstrate.

Why did I know you would say that?

Because it is correct.

Not really, it's hebrew and babilonian mitology, besides the king there was a character named heilel, an entity that rebeled aganst the gods, he climbed the mountain and alied his self with other guardians to take over the mountain top and kill the chief god.

Did I just not say it was a Babylonian King? Please re-read where I discussed the Greek root word for the Babylonian king reference.

Just like lucifer, lucifer, luceafar, means shinny-glowing, intense light and not planet Venus dear mason. Planet Venus is just a name of a planet like earth is named. The translation from the bible has nothing to do with planet venus and no shining does not mean VENUS as a word.

I speak the closest language to original classical latin with old preserved sinonims and verbs dating back to classical latin. I know what lucifer means, and it's not lucifer, it's luceafar in Latin.

Sure. I guess that is why I had to explain the definition to you.

It's a beacon of light, intense light, it has nothing to do with planet Venus. The name lucifer for planet Venus is just a name like you would name you cat shadow because your cat is black, I told you.

Really? Guess you missed the explanation of the Greek foundation of this word.

Ohh there is no misinformation. The name lucifer can be aplied to anything that has a bright shining light, planets, characters.

But in reference to the Bible and, more importantly, to this topic, it does not refer to Satan.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:20 PM

link

No, the root words in Latin are lucis and ferre or to 'bring-light', or 'light-bearer'. It was applied to the planet Venus as it was the Day/Morning Star and was only used in that context.

I don't see any diffrence, it's something that shines, it's bright, it brings light and no it was not only used in that context.

The King James version is an interpretation (just as many of its translations are) and can not be taken literally.

It's what heilel is, the shining one. I do not see anything wrong with the translation.

Further, there were/are no mentions of Lucifer in prior translations as a synonym with Satan/The Devil.

I guess you have to look in the bible.

Job 41:18
Its snorting THROWS OUT FLASHES of light; its eyes are like the red glow of dawn.

Luke 10: 18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

There is no doubt who satan is and it should make it clear for you.

Satan was a 7th dimension Cherubim, the most shinny and bright class of angels from the hatchery of angels. The bible describes him as shining and bright.

Did I just not say it was a Babylonian King? Please re-read where I discussed the Greek root word for the Babylonian king reference

You got the babilonian mithology and I'm not talking about "THE KING", the shining one(a creature) named heilel climbs up the mountain to kill the chief god on the top after he was cast down, it's the same story from the bible really.

It's his name and I think the translation in latin matches him well.

This with Lucifer is not Satan is a way to distort things really, the KGV version really does not matter when you take in to account the other things. The translation may have been aplied without any consideration at all regarding if lucifer is satan because the definition of shining one= satan predated long before the KVG bible was translated.

I do not see anything wrong with the translation really it's right on the spot so I think it's pointless, you can't prove that lucifer is not satan.

Sure. I guess that is why I had to explain the definition to you.

Lucifer in ancient times was used even to describe the light house, lucifer is used usualy for objects that produce bright light like Venus, did you not think that Venus the planet was named like this because of it's brightnes and that the word lucifer predates the naming of the planet Venus.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:48 PM

link

Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't see any diffrence, it's something that shines, it's bright, it brings light and no it was not only used in that context.

So if it was not the inital and sole intent of the Romans to translate the Greek name of the planet to Lucifer what then was it? The Romans did this prior to the Christian mistranslation of Lucifer vis a vis Satan.

It's what heilel is, the shining one. I do not see anything wrong with the translation.

The initial meaning of the HLL/Lucifer translation had nothing to do with Satan. You have yet to link or provide evidence, other then citing the King James Bible, supporting this statement.

I guess you have to look in the bible.

Which version?

Job 41:18
Its snorting THROWS OUT FLASHES of light; its eyes are like the red glow of dawn.

Nope, no Lucifer reference there.

Luke 10: 18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Or here either.

Lucifer=Lucifer, not, 'I think I will locate something I think may be close.' Show me a version of the Bible that references Lucifer as Satan prior to the notoriously mistranslated King James version. I would not hold my breath if I were you because it does not exist.

There is no doubt who satan is and it should make it clear for you.

We are not discussing who I think Satan is (a made up character in my opinion if you must know) but whether or not the Bible originally described him as Lucifer.

Satan was a 7th dimension Cherubim, the most shinny and bright class of angels from the hatchery of angels. The bible describes him as shining and bright.

Angel hatchery? Dogmatic mumbo-jumbo. It stil does not equate to Satan=Lucifer in the Bible.

You got the babilonian mithology and I'm not talking about the king, the shining one(a creature) named heilel climbs up the mountain to kill the chief god on the top after he was cast down, it's the same story from the bible really.

Wrong, he was a presumptious King cast down for his actions. Biblical scholars have long associated this tale with Nebuchadnezzar.

It's his name and I think the translation in latin matches him well.

You can think whatever you choose, it still does not rewrite historical or evidential fact.

This with Lucifer is not Satan is a way to distort things really, the KGV version really does not matter when you take in to account the other things.

It does matter because it is germaine to the topic. The King James Bible translation is irrealavant as it is erroneous in this regard, just as numerous other aspects of it are mistranslated. I said earlier it was incorrect and you disagreed.

The translation may have been aplied without any consideration at all regarding if lucifer is satan because the definition of shining one= satan predated long before the KVG bible was translated.

There is no 'may' about it. The translation was applied incorrectly. The notion that The Light Bearer/Phosphoros/Lucifer was somehow applied as an additional moniker for Satan is incorrect and you can not support this with any historical evidence.

Satan was never referred to as Lucifer/Phosphoros in any historical text or document.

I do not see anything wrong with the translation really it's right on the spot so I think it's pointless, you can't prove that lucifer is not satan.

Of course you see nothing wrong with the translation, it fits with your narrow world view and any acquiescence on your part would nullify this dicotomy.

Extant Taxon

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:58 PM

link

reply to post by pepsi78

Interesting debate here. However, while hardly being an expert myself, my understanding of the current state of play as regards Satan and Lucifer seems to be that it was post O.T. interpretations, or hermeneutics, that created the link between the two, & seems to lay the assertion you make as wholly in the eye of the beholder.
I'll include the following links to see what your thoughts are:

Is Satan Lucifer?

...one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts. The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “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!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”? No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:

I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).

As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23). It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).

Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on. The context presented in Isaiah 14:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, & also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

And Wikipedia (hardly an authoritative source I know, but it summarises & provides links for further investigation) addresses the controversy between bible scholars on this, but it still seems to me that only later subjective interpretations identify Lucifer and Satan as one & the same:

Wikipedia: The Lucifer Story

I'd be interested to know your thoughts as it seems to me, & many others, that the identities of Satan and Lucifer have been evolving over time, changing and shifting as culture itself evolves. The oldest book in the bible, Job, seems to have Satan (never identified as Lucifer) as a more moderate character in the employ of God.

[edit on 6/12/09 by Extant Taxon]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
I'd be interested to know your thoughts as it seems to me, & many others, that the identities of Satan and Lucifer have been evolving over time, changing and shifting as culture itself evolves.

I think you have addresed the crux of the issue. The identification of Lucifer as Satan has evolved over time and was never the true intention of the name. Only a cursory glance at the evidence would display this fact and it is obvious that with the links you provided language and meaning can, and do, shift over time.

Project2501

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Freemasonry & Kabala are brethren counterparts. As the temple of solomon make it so, as listed in the kabala is the shamir. The shamir was the seventh of the ten marvels created in the evening twilight of the first friday. Twilight Zone Kabala is neither day nor night. So By Adding Day+Night=Duration & this is a complete triangle and this is The Shining Delta of Illumination of mathematical change. The Shamir was the Substance carried in the Ark. It was possible a green stone? Like this one but more advanced example logic the worm being born from the peacocks tail! notice the pretty gold tones from the shell crust. Made from Mercury, Sulphur & Salt.

Just Search Freemasonry & Kabbalah to see the Divine Marriage of Freemasonry & Kabbalah they are inseparable.
Freemasonry & Kabbalah
The Kabbalah and Freemasonry - "The Kabbalah is divided into two kinds, the Practical and the Theoretical. The Practical is occupied with the construction of talismans and amulets and is of no interest to Freemasonry."

"The Theoretical Kabbalah is divided into the Dogmatic, which is a summary of rabbinical theosophy and philosophy, and the Literal, which teaches a mystical mode of explaining sacred things by assigning numerical values to the letters of words."

"The Literal Cabala — divided into Gematria, Notaricon, and Temura — was made use of in the writing of what Mackey termed the "Advanced" degrees of Freemasonry. These more properly should be termed the additional degrees of concordant masonic bodies. The Kabbalah plays no role in regular Craft Freemasonry." - So in the Blue Lodge you will not see Kabbalah but! you will most differently see it in the scottish rite & york rites as stated. 4-32nd degrees & even that 33rd degree where that let you sweep up after breakfast!

Overall many people fear apotheosis which is a subject to the divine level. "In theology the term apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual, group, or locale has been raised to godlike stature." - source wikipedia - perhaps this is the lucifer concept with in masonry that people fear.

The Left Pillar Stream of the Kabala is the Shining Column (Lucifer). The Pillar of Severity. Because severity is the opposite of cruelty! But many people forget that severity has a opposite pole of understanding. We shall call them barbarians? or just lazy people, perhaps they are just misinformed people.

Remember the Operative Masons only Job is to rebuild the temple of Solomon. Without the Temple of Solomon the Speculative Masons Alchemy crumbles. Solomon & Solomon's Temple is 1 of a complete key to the masons knowledge base. Much of the lore of masonry is riddles and lore mixed once a scholar comes forward with a gavel,24 inch-gauge, plumb-line & the Square & Compass the rhetoric of persuasion becomes hard like that of the ashlar but will be instructed perfected.

Special Word of the Day "Gepharaith" = the Masonic G with in the Compass & Square it signifies Sulfer. Do you happen to know anyone associated with Sulfer by chance gentlemen & ladies? Many masons attribute the G with God & or the other triune of Geometry, Generation & Gnosis! While some say "Gepharaith" which is sulphur. (Energy,Sulphur & Omnipotence)+(Intelligence,Mercury+Omniscience)+(Matter,Salt,Omnipresence)= The Triune & Since the G is the reference symbol to Energy & Energy is power the G is to manifest without rest? As well the G/Gepharaith is with Omnipotence Supreme logic is with it? So this lucifer concept has much more to offer than mer mortals are willing to accept? How old is the english language again?

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link

reply to post by Project2501

Interesting once more, but I do not see the realavance to the issue we are discussing. Can you explain how this relates to Luciferianism and Masonry?

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link

So if it was not the inital and sole intent of the Romans to translate the Greek name of the planet to Lucifer what then was it? The Romans did this prior to the Christian mistranslation of Lucifer vis a vis Satan.

Well it was to translate the name helel that apear in the hebrew bible.
In the hebrew old testament the word helel apears in stead of lucifer, so they made a translation, what don't you get? They gave it a name to match the description. It's nothing more than that. So they called him lucifer. There is no missinterpretation, or error, hellel needed a name in latin and got one. I think if I'm not mistaking and I might be the word HELL
also comes from helel, but I might be wrong.

The initial meaning of the HLL/Lucifer translation had nothing to do with Satan. You have yet to link or provide evidence, other then citing the King James Bible, supporting this statement.

I just did, but you dismiss it all.

Nope, no Lucifer reference there.

If you take the word lucifer and what it means it is a good description.

Luke 10: 18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Or here either.

Is this what you call debunking?
What I see is satan as lighting, bright, light description, it's obvius.

Show me a version of the Bible that references Lucifer as Satan

I just did.

prior to the notoriously mistranslated King James version. I would not hold my breath if I were you because it does not exist.

The KVG does not really matter I told you, the name for lucifer predates
the translations, you got satan described as lighting, bright, fire, it has to do with anything that shines and that is bright. The character helel also
is translated the shinny one. The word lux means bright, intense fire.

It's the one with the eyes of the dawn that has fire in them and that is bright like lighting. You would find such examples all over the bible for satan.

We are not discussing who I think Satan is (a made up character in my opinion if you must know) but whether or not the Bible originally described him as Lucifer.

The bible describes him as lucifer, as lighting, as fire, as anything that is bright and shinnes, it's really the same character.

Angel hatchery? Dogmatic mumbo-jumbo. It stil does not equate to Satan=Lucifer in the Bible.

Yes it does, the cherubium that shines with golden plates with a fire sword and burning eyes. It's lucifer, better said lux- ferr.

Wrong, he was a presumptious King cast down for his actions. Biblical scholars have long associated this tale with Nebuchadnezzar.

I think I told you again and again I'm not talking about the king f but a mithological creature in the babilonian mithology, an animal of a sort, demon.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

It's not about the king's name.
www.urbandictionary.com...

In Christian tradition, this passage is proof for the fall of Lucifer. However, it may be that this passage is an allusion to a Canaantie or Phoenician myth about Helel, who is the son of the god Shahar. Helel sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this. El, Elyon, and Shahar are members of the Canaanite pantheon, while the "mount of meeting" is the abode of the gods, which corresponds to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology. There is a Ugaritic poem about two divine children, Shachar (dawn) and Shalim (dusk), who were born as the result of the intercourse of the god El with mortal women. There are, however, no Canaanite sources that tell about Helel ben Shahar or a revolt against Elyon.

The concept predates I have told you and I was right.
The name helel dates back from Canaanite tribes the oldest inhabitants in that area that later mixed with other tribes and formed the population in that area israelits, babilonians and so on. Similar story like in the bible.
As you can see there is a link to the greek mithology, because you were wondering why, you got your answer now.
The romans did not make the translation up, they had it all along, they just aplied it.
You lose dude.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

prevenge

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

I concur, I am however, interested in the methodology behind this theory/belief and am looking for the a coherent explanation.

Thank you for your reply.

It may have alot to do with the Gnostic understanding of Lucifer as the Light bringer.. as one of many symbolic gestures of the name.. through Kabbalistic Language of Branches... one branh being the Venusian concept... another branch as..not being an actual 'being' but understood through Gnosis as being that same symbolic aspect of life-energy up the spine that brings enlightenment to the brain.. ie: Kundalini, Caduceus, Chi, Holy Spirit etc...

The vital power that both tempts our animal bodies.. and simultaneously can be resisted and harnessed in order to reach higher states of being.

Masonry is based deeply in Kabbala and Gnosticism, so you have the Gnostic understanding of 'The Lucifer'.. 'light bringing' process of the esoteric anatomy, ...THEN you have fanatic Christians using base-minded primitive cave-man-like thinking in superstitiously thinking that Gnostics / Masons worship some 'person' called Lucifer, because the Christians fear punishment from their patriarchal idea of God if they 'stray' into understanding esoteric or occult explanations of the divinity within man... by in any way straying from the surface-interpretation-level writings in the Bible, written by other men..

In essence IMO, you and other Masons are being inaccurately depicted, by ineffectual paranoid misunderstanding people.

Don't sweat it.
Enjoy the beauty of the symbolism.

P.S. Elegant, intelligent postings like yours makes me feel strongly about considering joining Masonry. I'm already steeped in much Esotericism and Gnosticism.. I would only be enabling myself to further my application of my knowledge by joining.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by prevenge]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link

Originally posted by pepsi78
Well it was to translate the name helel that apear in the hebrew bible.
In the hebrew old testament the word helel apears in stead of lucifer, so they made a translation, what don't you get? They game it a name to match the description. It's nothing more than that. So they called him lucifer. There is no missinterpretation, or error, hellel needed a name in latin and god one.

So now you are telling us that the paganisitic Romans translated the Bible? You are aware that the Roman Empire did not become monothesistic until the 4th Century AD and Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (the basis for the King James version) was not produced until 382 at the earliest? What would the Romans have been doing with a text that only Jews would have had much interest with?

Heilel (Nebuchadnezzar) the Babylonian King did indeed need a name, and it was Lucifer in Latin (once they got around to converting to Christianity and translating the Bible). This of course took place a good deal of time after the book was written and there was no correlary between Lucifer and Satan once this was accomplished.

I think if I'm not mistaking and I might be the word HELL
also comes from helel, but I might be wrong.

You are mistaken, it is not related.

I just did, but you dismiss it all.

I saw no links to dismiss, only your opinion which still remains unsubstantiated by any historical evidence.

Is this what you call debunking?
What I see is satan as lighting, bright, light description, it's obvius.

You can see Satan hiding in every noun and description that you wish, it still does not make it so. Translations of bright lights in the Bible do not equate to Lucifer being Satan.

I just did.

It is very disengenious to shorten my quotes to try and support yourself. I said show me a version, other then the King James, that equates Lucifer to Satan.

The KVG does not really matter I told you, the name for lucifer predates
the translations, you got satan described as lighting, bright, fire, it has to do with anything that shines and that is bright. The character helel also
is translated the shinny one.

No, in the Bible Satan is described as The Adversary and is only mentioned twice by name in the Torah.

The word lux means bright, intense fire.

No, Lux/Lucis means light.

It's the one with the eyes of the dawn that has fire in them and that is bright like lighting. You would find such examples all over the bible for satan.

You are really stretching to prove your point, there is no reference to Satan or Lucifer in that quote.

The bible describes him as lucifer, as lighting, as fire, as anything that is bright and shinnes, it's really the same character.

The King James Bible makes this description and no other. If there were another version surely you would have cited it by now instead of continually rehashing this poor defence by mentioning the Kng James version.

Yes it does, the cherubium that shines with golden plates with a fire sword and burning eyes. It's lucifer, better said lux- ferr.

And please, once again, show me where this is refering to Satan equaling Lucifer.

I think I told you again and again I'm not talking about the king f but a mithological creature in the babilonian mithology, an animal of a sort, demon.

And I keep telling you that we are refering to the Bible and its descriptions, there is no mention of your mithological[sic] creature in the Bible. It is commonly known that it is a refernce to Nebuchadnezzar. It is not a 'sorta' animal or a 'sorta' demon, it is a parable about a presumptious king.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

It's not about the king's name.
www.urbandictionary.com...

Urban Dictionary is not a source.

Allthough it is quite comical that you said it dates to the Caannaites when the link you provided says there are no Caananite sources. Funny, and you said I lose.....care to debunk yourself further?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link

Originally posted by prevenge
Masonry is based deeply in Kabbala and Gnosticism, so you have the Gnostic understanding of 'The Lucifer'.. 'light bringing' process of the esoteric anatomy, ...THEN you have fanatic Christians using base-minded primitive cave-man-like thinking in superstitiously thinking that Gnostics / Masons worship some 'person' called Lucifer, because the Christians fear punishment from their patriarchal idea of God if they 'stray' into understanding esoteric or occult explanations of the divinity within man... by in any way straying from the surface-interpretation-level writings in the Bible, written by other men..

I think that your explanation is by far the most plausable one to date. Human ignorance usually leads to misconceptions regarding the meaning of words and ideals and I believe it so for the topic we are discussing.

I'm already steeped in much Esotericism and Gnosticism.. I would only be enabling myself to further my application of my knowledge by joining.

I think you may enjoy the entire experience and could bring much in the way of knowledge to the endeavor.

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link

So now you are telling us that the paganisitic Romans translated the Bible?

What I'm saying that the name helel needed a translation and got one in latin, the rest is irelevant and does not serve this topic.

Heilel (Nebuchadnezzar) the Babylonian King did indeed need a name, and it was Lucifer in Latin (once they got around to converting to Christianity and translating the Bible). This of course took place a good deal of time after the book was written and there was no correlary between Lucifer and Satan once this was accomplished.

Satan is connected to helel , are you afraid of masonry being labled luciferian, so you can then say lucifer is not satan?

You are mistaken, it is not related.

Yes it is buddy.

I saw no links to dismiss, only your opinion which still remains unsubstantiated by any historical evidence.

If you want some evidence you got it right in the bible.
Who was the babilonian king?
We only need the bible for this, are you ready?
Here we go.

King of tire you say?
This is king of tire.

From the bible.
Ezekiel 28:11-19

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

You were the signet of perfection,[a]
(D) full of wisdom and(E) perfect in beauty.
13You were in(F) Eden, the garden of God;
(G) every precious stone was your covering,
(H) sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,(I) emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.[c]
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14You were an anointed(J) guardian cherub.
I placed you;[d] you were on(K) the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways
(L) from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of(M) your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from(N) the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you,[e](O) O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
17(P) Your heart was proud because of(Q) your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
18By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so(R) I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
(S) in the sight of all who saw you.
19All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
(T) you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever."

Guess we find out who the king is. He is satan. What was the kings name?
Was it Helel?

From the cannianite story it's identical the mitological character named helel is the same one.

He is on the mountain, he is cast out, he falls.
The king and the cannianite character are named helel, they bolth fall from the mountain top, they blolth want to climb up back and get revenge.

You can be stuborn and sustain your version all you want, it's just too litlle to sustain you claim.

I guess lucifer is satan.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link

You lose the correct answer wins.
Who did you think you were going to trick?

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link

Originally posted by pepsi78
What I'm saying that the name helel needed a translation and got one in latin, the rest is irelevant and does not serve this topic.

It is absolutely realavant to the topic. The debate is whether or not Lucifer can be related to Satan outside of the King James Bible's incorrect translation. It can not.

Satan is connected to helel , are you afraid of masonry being labled luciferian, so you can then say lucifer is not satan?

I already have said Lucifer is not Satan, not in the Biblical context. It is a Miltonian misconception that has propagated this simile and you have yet to show otherwise.

Yes it is buddy.

So now you are inventing more nonesense? The Hebrew word HLL has nothing to do with the Anglo-Germanic word Hell, they are not related. From The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology;

The modern English word Hell is derived from Old English hel, helle (about 725 AD to refer to a nether world of the dead) reaching into the Anglo-Saxon pagan period, and ultimately from Proto-Germanic *halja, meaning "one who covers up or hides something".

Here is part of your problem, you see similes and casually link them together forming a chain of ignorance. Proto-Germanic is very far removed from Hebrew.

Please, show me a scholarly source that supports your opinion. I fear that they will be in short supply as you have proven once again that you are not willing to fact check yourself before making a statement.

If you want some evidence you got it right in the bible.
Who was the babilonian king?
We only need the bible for this, are you ready?
Here we go.

King of tire you say?
This is king of tire.

From the bible.
Ezekiel 28:11-19

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

You were the signet of perfection,[a]
(D) full of wisdom and(E) perfect in beauty.
13You were in(F) Eden, the garden of God;
(G) every precious stone was your covering,
(H) sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,[B](I) emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.[c]
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14You were an anointed(J) guardian cherub.
I placed you;[d] you were on(K) the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways
(L) from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of(M) your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from(N) the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you,[e](O) O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
17(P) Your heart was proud because of(Q) your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
18By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so(R) I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
(S) in the sight of all who saw you.
19All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
(T) you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever."

Guess we find out who the king is. He is satan. What was the kings name?
Was it Helel?

Considering you are quoting the English Standard Version of The Bible, which itself is based on the King James Version, this passage does not support any of your assertions. As a matter of fact you continue to undermine your own position by your inablity to locate and link a version of the Bible the compares Lucifer to Satan other then these later and bastardized translations. READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

Incidentally, several of the bracketed letters in your Bible quote indicate that, 'The meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain', which of course means they guessed.

From the cannianite story it's identical the mitological character named helel is the same one.

The Bible reference is not to your mythological character but to the King of Babylon. He is the one being derided for his prideful and presumptious manners and mores. The Bible ancedotes are allegorical, you do understand that do you not?

You can be stuborn and sustain your version all you want, it's just too litlle to sustain you claim.

Except of course I can support my statements with acutally scholarly citations while you continue to fall back on the sole point of refernce for your position, the inimitably flawed King James Bible.

I guess lucifer is satan.

I am sure all the Biblical scholars await your thesis paper on this point proving them all incorrect.

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link

Considering you are quoting the English Standard Version of The Bible, which itself is based on the King James Version, this passage does not support any of your assertions

Yes it does, it shows the king is satan, black on white, directly.

. As a matter of fact you continue to undermine your own position by your inablity to locate and link a version of the Bible the compares Lucifer to Satan other then these later and bastardized translations. READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

I just did, the babilonian king is satan, you got the bible verse .

Incidentally, several of the bracketed letters in your Bible quote indicate that, 'The meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain', which of course means they guessed.

This is what I call ignorance. Go on....fight against the wave.
You got evidence right there but you are tring to twist it.

The Bible reference is not to your mythological character but to the King of Babylon.

That is true, and what it does it indicates that we don't even need the cannianite story because we got a direct link betwen satan and the king in the bible. The canianite story is at this point just to provide evidence on a second notice that it's one and the same, same story same name.

He is the one being derided for his prideful and presumptious manners and mores. The Bible ancedotes are allegorical, you do understand that do you not?

No evidence to sustain that he was not talking about satan, I'm sorry.
It states very clear that he was "created" no metaforic element there and that the king of tire was an angel, a cherubium.

I like how you are trying to twist things in your favor but it will not work, it's not the first time you guys try to twist things.

It's the same description from other parts of the bible where satan is cast out but this time makes refrence to the king of babilon.

Except of course I can support my statements with acutally scholarly citations while you continue to fall back on the sole point of refernce for your position, the inimitably flawed King James Bible.

You got satan all over the bible described as bright light, lighting
You got the cannianite deity named helel that has the same story as satan and the name of the king of babilon.
You got god saying the king is satan.

Here it is again.

Ezekiel 28:11-19

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

God says to tell the king of tire something and here is what it should tell the king.

You were the signet of perfection. (humans are not perfect)
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. (no one is perfect in aspect)
You were in Eden, the garden of God; (the king could not be in heaven , only if he is satan)

every precious stone was your covering, (it's satan)
sardius, topaz, and diamond, (it's satan)
beryl, onyx, and jasper, (it's satan)
sapphire,(I) emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.[c]
(it's satan..satan satan...)

On the day that you were created (created note not birth)
they were prepared.
14You were an anointed(J) guardian cherub. (satan was a cherub, the king could not be a cherub unless he is satan)

I placed you you were on the holy mountain of God; (satan was placed on the mountain, and who else was on the mountain? the cannianite helel?)

in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways (perfection again)
from the day you were created, (created, humans are not created)
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of(M) your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from(N) the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you,[e](O) O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
17(P) Your heart was proud because of(Q) your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
18By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so(R) I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
(S) in the sight of all who saw you.
19All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
(T) you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever."

I forgot to comment all of it, every line is incriminating and it describes satan, every line, that is not a description of a human being I'm sorry.

What do you got? you saying that it's translated wrong
and that it was refering to king of tire. You are contradicting god wow
and every other refrence.

I gave you biblical refrence.
Historical refrence from the cannianite times.

You lose dude, I told you, deal with it.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link

Originally posted by pepsi78
Yes it does, it shows the king is satan, black on white, directly.

Your continued use of the King James Bible proves nothing, it is a highly flawed work and is not a historical text. The Lucifer/Satan reference is recognized by almost all Bible scholars as incorrect and not contemporaneous with other Bible anecdotes.

I just did, the babilonian king is satan, you got the bible verse .

Once again, link a scholarly source, not a King James Bible website.

This is what I call ignorance. Go on....fight against the wave.
You got evidence right there but you are tring to twist it.

Whether you call it ignorance or not here is the same quote with the notations included that show that the translation is not exact.

That is true, and what it does it indicates that we don't even need the cannianite story because we got a direct link betwen satan and the king in the bible. The canianite story is at this point just to provide evidence on a second notice that it's one and the same, same story same name.

Here, let me help you, take my hand as we travel into the world of research. Please read this link which leads to a book authored by a respected Bible historian. There are many of these and they detail that the Lucifer reference in the Bible specifically deals with Nebuchadnezzar.

No evidence to sustain that he was not talking about satan, I'm sorry.
It states very clear that he was "created" no metaforic element there and that the king of tire was an angel, a cherubium.

I like how you are trying to twist things in your favor but it will not work, it's not the first time you guys try to twist things.

It's the same description from other parts of the bible where satan is cast out but this time makes refrence to the king of babilon.

Please read the above link S-L-O-W-L-Y as it details why your statement is incorrect. I did not have to twist anything, it was already the truth and accepted fact.

You got satan all over the bible described as bright light, lighting
You got the cannianite deity named helel that has the same story as satan and the name of the king of babilon.
You got god saying the king is satan.

No you do not 'got Satan all over the Bible', I already informed you that Satan appears only twice in the Torah. The bulk of the references appear in the New Testament and that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Here it is again.

You keep quoting the same flawed book over and over to support your views. Once again, please locate another source that espouses the same interpretation as the King James Bible and its equally incorrect derivatives.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

pepsi78

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link

Your continued use of the King James Bible proves nothing, it is a highly flawed work and is not a historical text. The Lucifer/Satan reference is recognized by almost all Bible scholars as incorrect and not contemporaneous with other Bible anecdotes.

That text is in every version of the bible, it does not call satan lucifer,
what it does is it shows satan is the king and the king was named lucifer.

So satan=lucifer, it's simple.

Once again, link a scholarly source, not a King James Bible website.

I told you it's not the verse of king tire going against god that I'm refering to, but the other way around. I'm refering to Ezekiel 28:11-19
It's in every bible.

Whether you call it ignorance or not here is the same quote with the notations included that show that the translation is not exact.

No those are just links that take you to diffrent passages of the bible for
eizikel. Nothing to do with translation.I gave you a version from the english version of the bible, it's not even from KGV.

Here, let me help you, take my hand as we travel into the world of research. Please read this lin k which leads to a book authored by a respected Bible historian. There are many of these and they detail that the

It's not my job to research material, you post it , you make a point out of it.

Lucifer reference in the Bible specifically deals with Nebuchadnezzar.

And Nebuchadnezzar is satan, the bible says so, I did not make it up.

Please read the above link S-L-O-W-L-Y as it details why your statement is incorrect. I did not have to twist anything, it was already the truth and accepted fact.

If you are going to post something do it and make your point.

No you do not 'got Satan all over the Bible', I already informed you that Satan appears only twice in the Torah. The bulk of the references appear in the New Testament and that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Satan apears in genesis at least 3 times. But you can argue the "NAME" does not show up but it's satan. Only you and your felows can makebeilive
that something that is there it is not. This is free masonry and people can see now how you are trying to twist it. What a shame.... No way out this time.

You keep quoting the same flawed book over and over to support your views. Once again, please locate another source that espouses the same interpretation as the King James Bible and its equally incorrect derivatives.

I gave you a pasage from the standard english bible, not the KVG

You still have not provided evidence that satan is not lucifer.
All you did is provide a bunch of nonsense that I explained to you.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]