Lucifer & Jesus

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 49
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I have created one or two threads concerning Satan/Lucifer. In one of those threads it was seen to have been strongly suggested that Lucifer was also know as the light bringing "morning start". #2 and some biblical scholars seem to agree.https://www.history.com/topics/folklore/history-of-the-devil
 
It was also suggested in the link below that  Lucifer was the "serpent" who tempted Eve AKA Satan and Devil and the same is referred to as "“the ancient serpent” (Revelation 12:9, 20:2)


So all of these titles appear  all to be  references to the same being. And this verse is believed by Christians to be a reference to Lucifer and all his titles :Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 


 I am sure that this will be vehemently denied by Christians as referring to Satan  aka Lucifer and all his other epithets.

  And for one simple reason. Jesus (their god) also calls himself;

"  the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16)…

Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? We are never allowed to forget that  Jesus was with god from the beginning, as was  Lucifer Satan /devil serpent, where he was also known as the Word. John 1




 


#2
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Its star of the morning, not moring star. Biblically he is refrenced as son of the morning. Common mistake when you dont look indepth in the hebrew.

Also, history channel and nat geo pushes an agenda with christainity because of company pullings.

#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I cant help but notice this refers to Venus, Am I right or crazy?
#4
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Venus does have some relationship to lucifer in astrological approach
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Melcharaz

More correctly, lucifer does have a relationship to Venus….The myth based on the perceived reality,  rather than the opposite.
Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ the absolute coward that is   MELCHARAZ

Its star of the morning, not moring star.
Semantics. Behave yourself.  You just cannot keep away can you?  Yet have me on block HAhahahahhahahhahahhahahha, I LUV IT!


Biblically he is refrenced as son of the morning.
Well I just referenced  again and BIBLICALLY it states this>>> 

Revelation 22: 16 kjv .  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Isaiah 14:12 Niv
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
    morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!

 So either the scriptures are at fault, or you are. which is it?







Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
I cant help but notice this refers to Venus, Am I right or crazy?

@Melcharaz Venus does have some relationship to lucifer in astrological approach

Yes I noticed that too. Venus is know as the "Morning Star" or Star of the Morning or Bright Morning Star or THE Bright Morning Star" in some religious and Astronomy fields . 

So to say  "More correctly, lucifer does have a relationship to Venus" means to say that  the "Morning Star" or "Star of the Morning"  is  Lucifer. Which Jesus admits to being. Revelation 22:16

So Jesus as the serpent/AKA Lucifer  tempted Eve. Made her and all mankind sinners and then came to earth again to die for our sins.?????

I think there is a lot  more to be explored here when we consider that Jesus as Lucifer the serpent appeared to a woman before the man. We do have to wonder now what knowledge he actually imparted to her in the absence of the man Adam.   After all, didn't  Jesus again first  appear to a woman before the men at his tomb entrusting only her with secret instructions to pass on to the men of his movement? I think the link is unavoidable.


#8
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stephen
the serpent is satan
#9
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Niv is not very good. You didnt even try to look at the hebrew. I guess the truth doesnt matter to you.
Topic's author
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ the absolute coward that is   MELCHARAZ


Since you blocked me from defending against accusation made against me by you on my own threads; you have interfered in 3-4 of my threads now and posted a few times on each.

This is now considered by me as stalking and harassment, by an absolute coward! 


I guess the truth doesnt matter to you.
If you are going to play interloper while having me on block at least  try answering the question  .


Biblically he is refrenced as son of the morning.
Well I just referenced  again and BIBLICALLY it states this>>> 

Revelation 22: 16 kjv .  "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star".

Isaiah 14:12 Niv
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
    morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!

 So either the scriptures are at fault, or you are. which is it? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  did you miss this? 

Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the serpent is satan
keep up ffs!
#12
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stephen
not nice
#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The serpent is the penis....Biblical pornography.

And the juicy fruit!.....Yum Yum.
Topic's author
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
The serpent is the penis....Biblical pornography.

And the juicy fruit!.....Yum Yum.

You don't know how close you are there vic. 10/10

Intercourse in ancient times was called  "knowing" i.e And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, .Genesis 4

Now if I am wrong about this and Adam didn't "know"  Eve then we are looking at someone else, earn't we?  Could it be  the serpent lord that did the "knowing"?  well the rest of that verse says quite clearly  : 4 I have gotten a man from the Lord.

and it was of the tree of know-ledge that she was seduced


#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Well, tongue in cheek for the benefit of our more devout debaters.....Though the sentiment was serious enough.

And Adam and Eve knew because they were instilled with awareness.

It's a pseudo erotic human tale that turned the act of human reproduction into an act of human pleasure and therefore into an act of assumed human sin against an assumed god....No god actually required....We actually made all this up for ourselves.
Topic's author
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, tongue in cheek for the benefit of our more devout debaters.....Though the sentiment was serious enough.

And Adam and Eve knew because they were instilled with awareness.

It's a pseudo erotic human tale that turned the act of human reproduction into an act of human pleasure and therefore into an act of assumed human sin against an assumed god....No god actually required....We actually made all this up for ourselves.

Top marks again vic. 

Now when we consider the points I  made at post #7 above: i.e.  " that Jesus as Lucifer the serpent appeared to a woman before the man. We do have to wonder now what know- ledge he actually imparted to her in the absence of the man Adam". 

But there is more. The first female and male couple created it seems were " not compatible". I have to wonder if this means that "the serpent Lord Jesus", who was there from the beginning" had to endow or physically show the  Adam how to "know"  his wife, or did he just slip  her some "knowing"  while Adam wasn't looking? The scripture does say that all the "knowing" and knowledge was done in the absence of the man.  Or in today speak , behind his back.  This then is probably why the Christian church has almost obliterated the role of women from the NT  and cannot even entertain the idea that Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher may had sex with Mary Magdalene, his wife.






#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
disgusting and vile
Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
disgusting and vile

 Maybe a little crudely put, Doc, but they are facts from the bible.

"Knowing" a woman or a man meant sexual  intercourse.  So you deny away till you see your next unicorn, but the biblical facts speak for themselves. The fabled tree of know-ledge was all about sex.  To this very day  when a man or women cheats on a spouse it is said to be  "stolen fruit".

And this is fact too, Doc;  as I stated above; " this then is probably why the Christian church has almost obliterated the role of women from the NT  and cannot even entertain the idea that Jesus the Rabbi / Teacher may had sex with Mary Magdalene, his wife. 

If Jesus was really a Rabbi - and the scriptures appear to attest that he was, then he would have at least had to have been married. If he was a high priest then he would have had to have been married with children. 

You need to grow up Doc,
Compare all of these same bible verses doc, tell me what you see  Genesis 4:1

#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Simply, basic human instinct turned into human fantasy...It's how we function.

Religious fantasy or pornography, it's the same basic process of manipulating data and making subjective decisions.

Prude or porn star, theist or atheist, it's your choice.
#20
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
not true
#21
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stephen
not true
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Tell me in a sentence of more than two words why this is not true.
#23
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
no.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Therefore I conclude that Stephen and I are correct and you are incorrect.
Topic's author
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore I conclude that Stephen and I are correct and you are incorrect.


Indeed , Vic. 

And the term "knew" or knowing" is used when there wasn't any  "knowing"  going on too. Look at these verses concerning Mary and Joseph and the infant Jesus seeded by a god doing a bit more "knowing".


Matthew 1:20-25. because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit , [the lord] 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

And if this isn't enough to convince the Doc then is all he has to do is compare those exact verses Matthew 1:24-25 with any other bible.

Ex: New Living Translation Matthew 1:24-25
25. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

So old Joe didn't or  couldn't "know " his wife until after the Lord ( again)  had somehow "knew" her first.

  Now I don't know what you think,  Vic, but this is so, so reminiscent of the very first instance about "knowing" where a Lord " knew" a human female and she begat a child from him.  " I have gotten a man from the Lord. " said Eve. #14

Now I can tell you without doubt that the garden of Eden story is all about sexual intercourse and the seduction of Eve by the serpent Lord himself who was a "son of the god". And these sons of god didn't stop there, they kept "knowing" daughters of men which was taboo, yet it was the earthly man (not the woman it seems) who was evicted from his home.
4  when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.Genesis 6:4

Interesting how it appears  that only the man was driven out and no mention of the woman - his wife having been expelled along with him.


“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword .  Genesis 3:21-24.  ( Nothing seems to have changed there to this day, does it.)

Indeed, and so against all the laws of their own fathers, the son's of the gods  did all the "knowing" ,  and mankind has paid for their crimes ever since. 

You just couldn't make it up could you , Vic? 
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
At least admit I inspired you on that theory.
Topic's author
#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
I inspired you


Not to my know;ledge you didn't. 

AND it isn't a theory. These biblical stories are repeated over and over and are re-enacted over and over time and time again intentionally and PURPOSEFULLY at certain places in time. There is always another wife or concubine who has a son . To begin with she  is either a "virgin" or "barren", she then  "miraculously" falls pregnant and the first born usually is sent into exile and returns from exile to save someone or redeem his rightful position as head of a nation.  Read the bible. The pattern is clear as day. 

This pattern has been repeated throughout the millennia  right up to this present day.  Her Majesty  Elizabeth's  second son Andrew has now been publicly exiled and struck off all royal duties. The next in line to the throne is the Queen's first son  Prince Charles', who's second son has also gone into exile in America with an American actress. 

The Queens father took up the throne after his brother went into self imposed exile in France preferring to screw an American actress Mrs Simpson and give up the throne to the second son.

This pattern can be chased back to Mesopotamia where the legitimate first born son was classed as the second son IF he was born of the "gods" or Kings concubine or second wife.
Simply put, controversy has  ALWAYS surrounded the second son.
I am far too idle to list them all. 

 Don't not be fooled into thinking that these  "barren" women are "barren" because of  old age and that  it necessarily mean that these women were unable to have children, period. It also meant that they were far too young to have children and  this is why they were "barren".

 So as much as you would like to claim credit for all  my years of  dogged research into matter biblical and have  "inspiring me" . I can tell you, you didn't and you haven't, at all, one bit.
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
Your arrogance is an issue for you more than me. Jesus was clearly depicted as a first born, so your 'second born male' theory doesn't work, but Lucifer was indeed depicted as the second son, with Michael as his older brother and Gabriel as his younger.
Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Your arrogance is an issue for you more than me.

Not for me. 
You have claimed to have "inspired me". You haven't. You haven't influenced my thinking or inspired my ideas or theories in the slightest in any way, at all, ever. So by  you claiming that  you had inspired me, in any way, is more than assuming arrogance on your own part in trying to claim credit where non is due, especially to you.


Jesus was clearly depicted as a first born, so your 'second born male' theory doesn't work, but Lucifer was indeed depicted as the second son, with Michael as his older brother and Gabriel as his younger.

But you don't know the whole story as I believe I do. But at least I can count you out as being one of my inspirations for MY theory on that score.  
#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
I know it a lot but not entirely, don't want to waste my life on a fictional tale.