Was Jesus the Morning Star?

Literally speaking, of course, the term (or name, or title) 'Lucifer' does NOT equal the term Shaitan/Satan/Satanas ('blocker') in the 'Bible' (at least in the last book of the so-called Greek Old and New Testaments)

Literally, LUCI-FER ('bearer of - the Light') was once applied to the figure of the Daviddic Messiah among 1st century Apocalypticists such a the 'Book of Revelation' (=The Scroll of the Book of the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Levite) where R. Yehoshua bar Yosef / aka Iesous / aka Jesus is LUCIFER-- but certainly not the serpent/devil/belial or other evil being in the same book

Here is a snippet from Rev. 22:16 composed during the height of the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome in 66-72 AD:

I, Iesous, hereby send my Messenger (Heb: Malachi)
even to bear witness of these things to you

Amen, I am Lucifer, the Bright & Morning Star
even the Taproot and Spawn of David,

Which of course is a Midrash on the Aramaic targum of Proto-Isaiah 14:12

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
Son of the Morning Star !
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who would lay goyim low!

Did not you say in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of EL
Yea, I will set my throne on high !

I will sit on the mount of assembly
even in the far North--
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will make even as El Shaddai

But look now how you are dragged down to the Pit
Even to the depths of She'ol
Those who see you wag their heads
pondering at your affliction, saying

Aha, isn't this the same man who made the land [of Israel] shake,
even he would topple the Kingdoms [of the goyim],
Yea, he who made the land [of Israel] like a desert
and overthrew all of its cities,
Who captured so many prisoners
And refused then to release them?

The idea being that (in the eyes of the non-believers watching the execution of this Daviddic Pretender) even though he had thought to lift himself up to heaven like some kind of Messiah god man (so say his detractors), look how he is laid low (i.e. by Roman Crucifixion--which is no picnic).

These same kinds of Midrashim were used by the earliest Christians (horrified about the kingdom not coming as advertised and moreover in the horribly shameful hideous execution of their fearless leader) in forming all those apologetic gospel traditions e.g. use of Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 or Psalm 69 (the socalled Suffering Servant passages)

Psalm 22: Unclean Dogs surround me,
yea the band of evildoers encircle me:
All they that see me put me to shame
Yea, they hurl insults at me,
wagging their heads, saying

Since he trusts in YHWH so much
let YHWH save him now !

Yea, the strong Bulls of Bashan encircle me
like roaring lions, yelping over their prey
the people stare and gloat over my situation
they open their mouths wide, saying

Yea, let YHWH deliver him
since he delights in him so much !


The concept and label of LUCIFER was supposed originally in ancient cultures to be THE BRINGER OF THE LIGHT (i.e. a good god or goddess) and usually referred to the planet VENUS which is the brightest star in the sky at early morning as it 'draws up the Dawn' (hence 'star of the morn') ; you can see it in the eastern sky at daybreak.

Presumably the earliest Messianic Christians believed LUCIFER to be their Jesus who was going to bring them the Dawn on the New Age in the Kingdom of Heaven - even The Spawn and Taproot of David, the Bright Morning Star -

The Persian period Myth (BCE 431-331) that the once good divine angel Bringer of the Light (LUCIFER = from the Latin words: LUX, LUCIS = light, & FERO, FERRERE = I bring, carry) has 'fallen from his original light place' in heaven and knocked from his perch in his previously glorious place morphed over time into the idea that LUCIFER (once brilliant) lost his title and now was relegated to the 'darkness' (with such epithets as Belial, Beliar, ye Olde Serpent, Dragon, Father of Destruction (Aram. Abba-Doq'on = Abaddon) Father of Lies, Shaitan-Satan, Baal-zevuv &tc.) but the Lucifer's position (which is actually not a pejorative term but a neutral word to be filled by whomever) was eventually filled (according to the Christians) by the Messiah of Israel in the last days (= as the 'Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings' i.e. a light bearer image, as we see in Malachi chapter 4) as a result of his 'glorious' Martyrdom in 36 CE during the Insurrection at the 100th Anniversary of the Invasion of Judaea by the Roman General Pompey (63 BCE) following 100 years of semi-self rule (163BCE - 63 BCE) under the Hashmonean Macabbeean priest-kings.

At least that it what the earliest 'Christian' Messianist communities (which was made up of originally Galilean and Judaean 1st century peasants) seemed to have believed about the name--at least to judge from the importance given to the title LUCIFER in the comparatively early (albeit muddled, mis-shapen and badly translated) Greek textual copies of the nearly impossible Greek ('full of Grammatical Howlers') of the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Levite (=Book of Revelation).

reply to post by Sigismundus


Great post! Very well written and insightful.

I do have some questions and comments, though. With regard to Rev 22:16: Which translation are you using? I'd like to find a copy online. I'm using the Textus Receptus, which was compiled in the 1500s. It's not as if I read Greek, but I do try to work at these things when they come up. (Yes, I need a better hobby.) The Textus Receptus doesn't use the phrase Lucifer, but it does use 'the bright and morning star'.

Regarding Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12: I understand what you're saying, however, I still contend that it's a Latin word being used as a phrase describing a person, which was the correct translation when it was translated into Latin. I think it becomes an incorrect translation when used as a name in this case.

Did anyone notice in the first 3 videos what looks like a face in the black chair behind him. It looks Demonic.

Then the last video its blacked out.

Very Strange.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
I'm always surprised to see that no one thinks of Lilith, Adam's FIRST WIFE.

There is no evidence of that. The only real understanding is from the dead sea scrolls talking about how there was a bit of a war removing demons, nasties, Lilith, etc etc.

Lilith was a female Mesopotamian storm demon associated with wind and was thought to be a bearer of disease, illness, and death.

She was just some ancient demon..sometimes taking the form of a screeching owl from what I read with a bit more depth. Thats about it.

The Lilith is the first husband of Adam, or the wife of Cain is simple fiction and more than likely recent folklore to sell white wolf games (such as VtM, VtR, etc). Certainly cant use those sources as anything beyond fantasy.

As far as the beings of light. Well, that is a whole different bag of hammers we can continue down later in this thread...I have my speculations on it, but will let the subject stay focused for a few.

Sorry for this, not trying to derail your topic but Lillith is mentioned in earlier Bibles that clearly have Genesis I and Genesis II. All bibles after the Vatican's 60s meeting that 'cleaned house' are the ones with missing books that caused confusion in teaching the masses. Our family Bible is from the 1800's and has all the abridged/removed books, not of gnostic tradition (those removed by Council of Nicea).

witcombe.sbc.edu...

reply to post by DaWhiz

In an effort to explain inconsistencies in the Old Testament, there developed in Jewish literature a complex interpretive system called the midrash which attempts to reconcile biblical contradictions and bring new meaning to the scriptural text.

Employing both a philological method and often an ingenious imagination, midrashic writings, which reached their height in the 2nd century CE, influenced later Christian interpretations of the Bible. Inconsistencies in the story of Genesis, especially the two separate accounts of creation, received particular attention. Later, beginning in the 13th century CE, such questions were also taken up in Jewish mystical literature known as the Kabbalah.

According to midrashic literature, Adam's first wife was not Eve but a woman named Lilith, who was created in the first Genesis account. Only when Lilith rebelled and abandoned Adam did God create Eve, in the second account, as a replacement. In an important 13th century Kabbalah text, the Sefer ha-Zohar ("The Book of Splendour") written by the Spaniard Moses de Leon (c. 1240-1305), it is explained that:


At the same time Jehovah created Adam, he created a woman, Lilith, who like Adam was taken from the earth. She was given to Adam as his wife. But there was a dispute between them about a matter that when it came before the judges had to be discussed behind closed doors. She spoke the unspeakable name of Jehovah and vanished.
In the Alpha Betha of Ben Sira (Alphabetum Siracidis, or Sepher Ben Sira), an anonymous collection of midrashic proverbs probably compiled in the 11th century C.E., it is explained more explicitly that the conflict arose because Adam, as a way of asserting his authority over Lilith, insisted that she lie beneath him during sexual intercourse (23 A-B). Lilith, however, considering herself to be Adam's equal, refused, and after pronouncing the Ineffable Name (i.e. the magic name of God) flew off into the air.

aka, the bible didn't make sense, so they made up some stuff.

So I've watched video four now. Yes, I see a face in the very soft super plush velvet chair. Honestly, the chair looks comfortable enough that the face doesn't creep me out.

*Cliff's notes: Cannibalism and sex! That should make a few people want to watch the video. (You know who you are...) Oh, and the greatest piece of evidence in his favor yet!* End cliff notes..

So, in Deuteronomy 28:53 the Lord (at this time called the Lord thy God) says 'And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters' and in a later verse says something to similar effect for the wives. However, he neglects or doesn't bother with a previous passage (Deu 28:15) which says if you do not follow God's commands the following really horrible things will happen.. (paraphrased, of course.) One of the things was the city being besieged and people resorting to cannibalism, as mentioned.

In 2 Samuel, David is told that his wives will be taken before his eyes, given to his neighbor, and lain with under the sun. This was actually an admonishment for sleeping with another man's wife, putting him in the front of a battle to get him killed, and then taking his wife (Bathsheba). Years later, his third son from Bathsheba, Absalom, put a tent on top of his father's roof and had his way with his concubines. In broad daylight, for all to see. The video narrator claimed this, with the cannibalism, was evidence of an unkind God.

Honestly, I have to say that I don't understand this notion that people have that God's a warm, loving, kind God. Particularly in the Old Testament writings. Evidently, sometime in the eighties, Christian ministries decided to not teach the writings of the Old Testament in their entirety. Some just left out the unfriendly parts. Then in the nineties came the warm, fuzzy, feel good, self help Christianity books with their own new age interpretations of God. (OK, I'm ranting. That's a topic for another day.)

The last pieces that he puts together in this episode is his most compelling evidence so far. Two separate passages relate exactly the same thing, one with the Lord moving David to take a census of Israel, the other with Satan moving David to number Israel. This, to me, would be the greatest arguing point he could have. General Christian consensus is that God made Satan move David to take the census. However, they do say that it is Satan in both passages. (The first passage says "and he". The 'he' is Satan. I know, I don't see it either.)

Personally (and I know that many will disagree) I didn't see the Satan of the Old Testament as evil. I saw him as an elemental manifestation of judgment (similar to a legal prosecutor). Job and Zechariah 3:1-2 are pretty much were I see this.

Hi Zero Pistons

Paleo-Hebrew as you know is written without vowels which makes exact translation into English difficult. You can add different vowels to a consonantal text to get different words & meanings.

When the consonantal text itself is fluid (i.e. comes in different versions) the accuracy is even worse -THE major issue with the paleoHebrew of the ‘Old Testament’:

We have found at Qumran DIFFERENT consonantal texts amongst the fragments of Caves 1-11 of the Dead sea Scrolls as early as BCE 320 –the scribes (‘the Dead Sea Scroll covenanters’ who called themselves by 22 names, e.g. ‘The Sons of Light in the Last Days’ etc.) and who were busy copying different families of text copies of the same pale-Hebrew and Aramaic etc. books that were very similar but did not match each other 'LETTER FOR LETTER' –and they proceded in their copying tasks if they did not know which version was better---so they copied BOTH SIDE BY SIDE in the same library as if they could not make up their minds---right up to June of AD 68 during the outbreak of the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (AD 66-72) in which they and 1 million other Judaeans and Galileans were wiped out by Rome.

Some of these text families of un-pointed (un-vowelled) consonantal old testament and other similar books do not match each other when compared carefully. We have various Hebrew consonantal texts that ‘underlay’ the Greek translations of the OT from c. 250 BCE (commonly called the Septuaginta LXX - OT Grek versions, of which there were at least 4,

e.g. the LXX of Symmachus, LXX of Theodotion, LXX of Aquilla
and the LXX Greek translations that Jerome knew) –

Andd these paleoHebrew underlying consonantal Texts to the Greek are called VORLAGEN (original language source material for translations) and are often fragmentary in what has come down to us to examine under a microscope, as it were.

Sometimes we can take a Greek translation of an unpointed paleo Hebrew phrase & re-construct the original Hebrew Vorlag consonantal text that a translator must have been using—and we see that in the process certain letters get mixed up (e.g. Hebrew Daled is similar to Hebrew Resh in both PaleoHeb & later Square Hebrew letters & were often confused – and can be seen in a number of Greek mis-translations from this fact – we call this the Daled-Resh syndrome.

There are others too which makes re-construction of the original reading of any text very hard.

Proto-Isaiah (e.g. Isaiah 14:12) was spoken/handed down by the person who was responsible for Isaiah chapters 1-39 sometime around the years 720-690 BCE.

From chapter 40 a 2nd writer (called Deutero-Isaiah = ‘second’ Isaiah) forged fake oracles in the protoIsaiah style 150 years later (c. BCE 580 to BCE 530) under Isaiah’s name (& a 3rd forger called Trito-Isaiah, composed chapters 56-66 written under the same name of Isaiah around 530-490 BCE)

The great internal literary differences in vocabularly, Weltanschuauung, Sentence length, Theology, Content & historical references bear all of this out.

Proto-Isaiah was spoken to a live audience around the same time as the difficult paleo Hebrew consonantal text of the prophet ‘Qamos (=Amos) writing about 715 -700 BCE, full of Hapax Legomena (words that only occur once in the ‘bible’ or in any given text) –written down some 30 years later on anything that was semi durable or generally available (palm leaves, stones, bricks, papyrus, potsherds, etc.) –

The individual oracles (of protoIsaiah or 'Qamos etal.) were separated by the fact that they were originally written down on discrete material objects, and not on a single scroll or in a single 'book' as the collections have been later arranged for us to read today.

Only later were these separate Oracles (which sometimes used very difficult poetical spellings, forms, hapax legomena, poetic abbreviations &tc.) worked up into books that we read today by later generations often who did not know what some of the words originally meant –

Even more difficult is the fact that these discrete Oracles were eventually copied into longer texts quite out of any chronological order or ‘logical’ sequence (some were arranged next to others by length of the oracle size, or by their initial letters or by ‘catch words’ (e.g. two widely separate oracles that were not related were placed together in the later scroll e.g. because they both used the word ‘mayim’ (water) etc. (we see the same process in collections of logia/sayings placed into the mouth of a Greek speaking 'Iesous' in the Greek canonical gospels - whoever wrote them - e.g. Mark's collection of discrete separate oracle-sayings using the catch word SALT (e.g. Mark 9:48-50) - these catch words were used as an aide -memoire for preaching purposes no doubt) - ditto for the prophetic oracles of the OT.

But back to our friend LUCIFER.

The troublesome word in proto Isaiah 14:12 [H-Y-L-L] in paleoHebrew is very hard to bring into English exactly being a participle form of a verb (all Hebrew verbs are BASED on 3-consonants called TriLiterals).

HYLL seems to derive (?) from the Heb. Trilateral H-L-L (‘to bring light forth’) so the participle HYLL form would mean something like ‘Light Bringer’ which is where the Latin words LUCI[S] (‘of the light’) + FER (‘carrier’) are derived by persons such as Jerome writing in LATIN in the 4th century in his VULGATE from both the Greek LXX, and the paleoHebrew VORLAGEN underlay copies he had in Bethelehem to the several Greek versions out there, many of which pre-suppose another Paleo Hebrew Vorlag. Most of the LXX Greek translations use Ho HEOS-PHOROS (‘the dawn-bearer’) to translate the Heb. Participle HYLL, which is slightly different than LIGHT-BEARER although close.

Jerome when writing chose to use the Latin word from the Greek and from the Hebrew (he could read & write both) : LUC-IFER to mean ‘HYLL’ (‘bearer of the light’), which probably originally referred to the planet Venus who ‘bears up the sun’ in the morning, and then ‘falls’ (i.e. fades away) being a visual image of rising/falling (‘life& death”, “light and darkness” etc.) which was also similar to the Greek word used in 2nd Peter 1:19 PHOS-PHOROS – ‘Light bearing’ used by the earliest Christians for a symbol of their Messiah ‘in the Last Days’ which of course would translate into Latin as LUCIFER, which today (according to modern Christians) means the Devil.

Clear as mud?

Originally posted by Sigismundus
But back to our friend LUCIFER.

The troublesome word in proto Isaiah 14:12 [H-Y-L-L] in paleoHebrew is very hard to bring into English exactly being a participle form of a verb (all Hebrew verbs are BASED on 3-consonants called TriLiterals).

HYLL seems to derive (?) from the Heb. Trilateral H-L-L (‘to bring light forth’) so the participle HYLL form would mean something like ‘Light Bringer’ which is where the Latin words LUCI[S] (‘of the light’) + FER (‘carrier’) are derived by persons such as Jerome writing in LATIN in the 4th century in his VULGATE from both the Greek LXX, and the paleoHebrew VORLAGEN underlay copies he had in Bethelehem to the several Greek versions out there, many of which pre-suppose another Paleo Hebrew Vorlag. Most of the LXX Greek translations use Ho HEOS-PHOROS (‘the dawn-bearer’) to translate the Heb. Participle HYLL, which is slightly different than LIGHT-BEARER although close.

Jerome when writing chose to use the Latin word from the Greek and from the Hebrew (he could read & write both) : LUC-IFER to mean ‘HYLL’ (‘bearer of the light’), which probably originally referred to the planet Venus who ‘bears up the sun’ in the morning, and then ‘falls’ (i.e. fades away) being a visual image of rising/falling (‘life& death”, “light and darkness” etc.) which was also similar to the Greek word used in 2nd Peter 1:19 PHOS-PHOROS – ‘Light bearing’ used by the earliest Christians for a symbol of their Messiah ‘in the Last Days’ which of course would translate into Latin as LUCIFER, which today (according to modern Christians) means the Devil.

Clear as mud?

Why Venus and not the sun itself...after all, the sun is literally the light, the morning star, the only star that will light up the world and whatnot...

If someone said...our star, why would someone later on think it must be jupiter or venus...why not just assume it means what it means...aka, the sun.

Alternatively, the bearer of light could be referring to the moon, as it bears the light of the sun...

Hi Saturn FX

I suppose the idea that the light is 'being carried or borne by' an agent/assistant/somenting other than the sun is meant here, hence Venus which appears in the morning sky just before sunrise as the brightest object at the time ('son of the morn', 'star of the dawn' which are among some of Venus' epithets).

The fact that Venus is so bright and noticeable and divine (but moves also like other planets = Gkl: planetai, lit. 'wanderers' i.e. who drift away from the face of the fixed stars on their 'own course' (i.e. moved in its orbit) -- is the astronomical-theological reason why it later became identified with an angel of light who 'fell' i.e. did not keep his place in the heavenly chorus--sort of like a wanton married woman running around with a tonne of makeup and sexy clothing on...

Read in the Dead Sea Scrolls e.g. Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch the Son of Jared (cf: Ethiopic I Enoch) about the Fall of the Watchers (Heb. 'Nephilim', 'fallen ones') i.e. the 200 fallen 'angels' who left their former place in the heavens to disobey EL and come down to earth fornicating with women and producing Giants who ate up the foodstuff of the earth (i.e. all because they did not know their place in the heavens, but went on following their own will, i.e. not the divinely 'set courses') -

Ancient middle eastern religions had a major problem with 'planets' not behaving like other stars who tend to 'sing together' (i.e. the fixed stars of heaven 'behave' the Will of the Most High EL - i.e. they seem to move as a fixed chorus of bodies across the night sky in perfect harmony etc.) but as for those pesky planets, look at them, they're all over the place causing havoc down here on earth, the centre of it all (so they believed).

But I suppose in a pinch HYLL could mean the moon in certain contexts, such as its cognate in Arabic 'Heylal' ('crescent moon') - !

reply to post by Sigismundus


Giants.
I was made to understand that the term giants was a mistranslation and was more in line of skymen whom made people fall...the assumption was that they were soo large that it made men fell when they landed...so they concluded it was probably giants...or some such nonsense like that.

but the actual word giants, the nephs, were actually beings from the sky...what is the actual ancient hebrew word and the literal translation...because I have read both sides arguing.

Hi Saturn

I think you are getting the Nephilim ('fallen ones') mixed up with the q'Anakim (lit. 'long (or 'bejeweled) necked ones' 'giants') who were sometimes also nicknamed the Rephayim ('shades', 'weak-ones' i.e. ghost daemons) -- the 2 latter groups would be the sons/offspring of the Nephilim with the daughters of Adam ('with whom they became one bone and produced sons by them taller than the cedars of Lebanon' according to Aramaic Book of Henoch).

However, sometimes reference is made to the Nephilim 'size' (!!) presumably their height, not the 'size' of their xxxx.

And more than one text does get the two confused translating Nephilim (lit. 'fallen ones') as 'giants' in English e.g. Gen 6:4 in the King James Version translating the Masoretic text family rather loosely in this case...

According to the post Babylonian Exilic myths of the Jews in the intertestamental period (=Book of Giants as part of 1 Enoch) which became part of the Ethiopic bible, but not in the West, these Anakim were the ones who were the cause of the great Flood - which was sent by YHWH to drown them (noach and his family and some animals survived in the Ark), while the 200 Nephilim (and all of the captains of the 100s, 50s and 10s) were rounded up by the Archangels Uriel, Raphael, Michael and Gabriel and locked in a pit in 'Harmonah' in Lebanon, with large rocks placed over the place 'until the Great Day of Judgment' (presumably they did not die in the flood, being locked in their cave-gaol underground...!

When the q'Anakim were drowned in the Flood, out of their mouths came 'daemons' screaming and hollering for their lives - and were sent to live under the earth (close to their parents, no doubt) 'where they became the enemies of mankind...and the cause of evil and disease'

Interesting that the area around Ba'al Bek in Lebanon is host to so many giant myths - no wonder - take a look at those 95 tonne blocks !

The word 'Nephilim' is not always spelled exactly the same way everytime we see it in the ancient copies - and the word may derive from a totally different triconsonantal root in Hebrew

Nephelim could derive from NEPHEL ('abortion') and mean for example 'those who cause illicit unions' or 'repbrobates'

Conversely, IF the word was originally meant to be NIPHALIM, it could CONCEIVABLY mean 'those from ORION' (NIPFLAH - means the star group or CONSTELLATION of THE BELT OF ORION in Aramaic = maybe 'Orionids' would be closer ? ), so if you follow that last line of Etymology, we're dealing with extraterrestrials--apparently of a larger size than terran humans - nor sure about their be-jeweled necklaces though !

Originally posted by Sigismundus
so if you follow that last line of Etymology, we're dealing with extraterrestrials--apparently of a larger size than terran humans

Goliath was meant to be one of these giants...but if you break down what the size was, at least how the kjv described him. he stood about 6'5 feet tall.
Granted, for the day that was pretty tall, but about standard for today..well, still tall in todays standards, but not overly.

The Morning star is a title, even you will gain the morning star title when we overcome life on earth. It means right now the morning star is known as Satan but Christ will take his place as the star of this world. If people stop making assumptions they will find the truth of the meanings.


Believers Morning star.

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.
Text

The Inherited star.

Revelation 2:28
just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star.

Text

Christ's inheritence of the star.

Revelation 22:16
"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."
Revelation 22:15-17 (in Context) Revelation 22 (Whole Chapter)
Text

reply to post by The time lord


wouldn't then Revelation 22:16 prove indeed the claims this person makes...Why does he have to wait to become the morning star? is there a queue or something? theoretically the Lord god and God are the same...the only way this makes sense is if he was all along.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by The time lord

 

wouldn't then Revelation 22:16 prove indeed the claims this person makes...Why does he have to wait to become the morning star? is there a queue or something? theoretically the Lord god and God are the same...the only way this makes sense is if he was all along.

Yes there is in fact a wait is on it because the title of the earth is still Satan's untill he fails Jesus and his followers will become the morning star afterwards, this is why the Book of Revelations is about the future.

Jesus will come back as Lord of Lords and King of Kings which is a higher position than before, 144,000 will become Christ like but Jesus will still be the title holder of Lord of Lords.

reply to post by The time lord


Time Lord...

What purpose of a hierarchy be...in a perfect presence....in the highest image of us....

Do you not see where the belief of a need for a hierarchy gets us?

If we are to be perfect....to be present with what is Holy, what purpose is there for hierarchy, for levels...its no less then another goverenment system from the way you described it.

Can you tell me...when in my most humble moments of spiritual seeking, I find Jesus kneeling with me and God holding me? They have shown no need for a showing of 'power'....for when you are in the presence of what is perfect...you just know. Your own awareness to them....allows them to give the same humble awareness....of oneness. The perfection comes out of the will to be aware...of what is Divine.

I would say there is a need for reverence, to what is perfect in spirit.

I just want the world to see....this all must happen out of will...it wont happen by force. No one will be forced to bow ect....Jesus needs help building the temple built without hands...but he does not need or desire to be part of a hierarchy.

So often, we exclude the greatest attribute from the Holy ones, which is humbleness.

LV

No Jesus is not the morning star. Sorry OP.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
ok, and for people that truely dont want to watch the video and will go nuts, here are just a very few points the videos bring up:

my computer doesnt have sound... so i would watch it but i cant.

1) Who did Cain marry?

the problem with this question is that it is usually raised because of preheld assumptions.

the DOES say we all came from eve. so if you are referencing only the bible, then there is one group of people, not humankind, but god moves 2 to eden.

what the bible DOES NOT say is that cain, able and seth are adam's only children.

so.... this,

Cain, Adam and Eve are the only ones on earth at this point...who would be killing Cain if he was being cast out.

is an assumption.

likely the others that cain was worried about would be brothers and sisters and their offspring.

likely, cain's wife was one of his sisters. Yes, god does forbid incest in the mosaic law, but likely he did this as genetic protection. during cain's time, this may not have been an issue

2) Why did the lord need to mark Cain?

because cain would pay for his sins. (romans says that the wages sin pays is death. cain eventually died, so he paid)

why kill cain? why allow cain to be killed?

and incidently, why did the Lord want to protect a murderer soo much to take vengence on anyone whom slayed him 7 fold anyhow...(if anything, that shows what the Lord thinks about capital punishment)

its noones place to cast judgment on cain but god. however, this doesnt mean that god does nothing. in the mosaic law, there was capital punishment. but it had a trial and checks in place to prevent innocents from being murdered

Watched the first two videos and decided this guy was going to have a heart attack looking for his crack pipe. This guy has some serious issues. He claims he "was" a Christian. I doubt that.

Here goes:
1.Genesis 6 is the creation of the gentile races.
2.Genesis 7 is the creation of Gods people, the Jews.
3.Notice one group is created by the words of God and the other's are created by the hands of God.
4. YEs there was a trinity in the beginning, need proof?

The book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible in it Job speaks of a redeemer in the last days. Now in Genesis 1 there is was a redeemer mentioned other than the seed that would bruise the serpents seeds head. This was the first prophecy concerning Jesus coming in the flesh. In Adam's 1st days there was only one law and there was a penalty for it, "Death".

Now Moses was the one given the law in which the formed man had to follow and in the end they didn't do it so Jesus was sent and they rejected him. Then he turned to the gentile races to build the church.

Yes Jesus was there in creation he was the image that man was created from. Three things mentioned: God the creator, Jesus the Redeemer, ADnd the Breath of life "the Holy Spirit".

YEs Satan was also there in the form of the serpent. Satan at this point had already been cast down according to Jesus, Jude and Job and was still able to go before the throne of God to make accusations. However Adams sin was found by Jesus or "The Lord Thy God" while physically walking through the garden of Eden.

Now as far as i can see Cain was marked as a forerunner of the anti-christ and he could not be killed until he spread his seed. He found his wife in Nod which was a gentile. The full lineage of Cain is not given in the Bible but I'm sure if it was it would lead on to Sara's handmaiden that Abraham sired Ishmael with and eventually became the nation of Islam. This would support both Islams and the Jews claim that the AC will come from them. Look at it this way the only guy that can make peace in the mid east will have to be Islamic.

well there it is now you can pick it apart. But I stand by my first words " that video guy has some issues" The Bible itself labels him a false prophet.

just a thought