Satan and Lucifer

[Sum1sGruj]

You are going to believe what you want to believe, even if it is some old blood libel that even the Catholic Pope has denounced. I am truly done with you and this thread.

The last sentence of my last post:

Not Jews as a whole. And not Jews now, or yesterday, or a millenia ago.
But with the Jesus incident, some of the Jews made the crucification happen.

And where did blood libel come from? Are you seriously trying to put up that I am accusing Jews of that?

You claim that I am being insulting, but that just isn't so. I didn't heed the gap between Jews and Christians as far as the Adversary, so I will take responsibility for that. But you are persistent in saying that no Jew ever had a hand in Jesus' death, and that simply isn't true.
I have no animosity towards Jews. As I said before, there is a general frustration on both sides, and that makes this a pointless argument.
So I guess I'm done also.

 

[Luminous]

And so Jesus was brought to the Romans, among others, to find some reason to punish him. Jesus was tricked into many dangerous questions regarding taxes and other things. He was pinned against Roman law and God's law, and many Jews used this to manipulate the Romans into crucifying him. And even then, they found no cause. It came down to the Romans either doing what many demanded or an uprising stirring.
The Jews didn't have authority to do too much as the Romans had control over much of the land.

By all this, I am not speaking of every single Jew. Of course there were many who felt it unnecessary. Some obviously even believed him to be the Messiah..

Among other things, how dare Jesus say he was a God on earth? only the Roman King was God of the land. (or how dare people say Jesus was God's chosen leader for Israel? It's weakness was thoroughly conquered by Rome.) What would our government do if someone was said to be God's chosen ruler for America and he began to amass more and more followers, and all you had to do to prevent a civil war was nip it in the bud?
'

 

[gnostic]

Btw, there is another metaphorical rise and fall aspect to Venus other then in the context of it as the 'morning star', in that after a period of it being observable in the morning (Phosphorus), it ceases to be seen in the morning but then rises after sunset to be known as the evening star (Hesperus). So it alternates between being the symbolic bringer of the light to that of being bringer of the darkness.

Yes, I am aware that the astronomical phenomena of the morning star and evening star being one-and-the-same planet, Venus. Venus as the evening star, Hesperus, is the first to appear at dusk, just as the morning star is the last to fade from view.

Now, I have not read all the literature, so I could be mistaken with this assumption. But as far as I know (meaning, all the ones I've read), the ancient astronomers in Greece, Egypt and Middle East believe they are not the same planet.

Have you read differently? If you have, then please supply the sources, because I really like to know.

 

[gnostic]

You claim that I am being insulting, but that just isn't so. I didn't heed the gap between Jews and Christians as far as the Adversary, so I will take responsibility for that. But you are persistent in saying that no Jew ever had a hand in Jesus' death, and that simply isn't true.
I have no animosity towards Jews. As I said before, there is a general frustration on both sides, and that makes this a pointless argument.
So I guess I'm done also.

Then will you admit that there are no such angel as Lucifer in the Hebrew scriptures?

The original context in the original language of the book of Isaiah make no assumption that the morning star was ever angel. Will you admit that?

Rakhel and other Jews know very well of Christian interpretations of Isaiah, but as far as they are concern, you (not just you personally, but in general all...)Christians are wrong as far the assumptions and interpretations go.

The Hebrew scriptures which you'd call Old Testament, is Jewish, so therefore required Judaic interpretation. I am neither Jewish nor Christian (being agnostic), but from my stand point, I happen to agree with the Jewish interpretation.

The concept of good and evil angels are foreign to the Jewish faith, barring the Jewish Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and other Jewish mysticism.

There were no hierarchical angeleology prior to being banished to Babylon. There were no good and evil angel, war in heaven, or even the possibility of afterlife until the publication of pseudepigraphal writings, like the Books of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, which influenced by Greek and Egyptian religions of the Hellenistic period. All of these dualistic concepts were foreign to Judaism prior to the Exile period.

Satan was never evil until the pre-Christian Hellenistic writing of Enochian literature. To the Jews in the Book of Job, Satan wasn't evil, like the Christian Devil, because Satan had specific role as servant of God, doing God's bidding.

Until you understand the Jewish position in relation to the historicity of Satan, then don't assume that the Jews agree with your view. As far as they concern, Christians, as well as Muslims, have hijacked and corrupted their religion with pagan ideas.

Again, I would suggest that you read Jews only: War in Heaven thread that I mentioned earlier. It will give you insight as to why Jews don't believe in Christian concepts of angels and demons, of war in heaven, and of dualism. All these elements that Christians believed in, originated from pagan belief.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Then will you admit that there are no such angel as Lucifer in the Hebrew scriptures?

The original context in the original language of the book of Isaiah make no assumption that the morning star was ever angel. Will you admit that?

Rakhel and other Jews know very well of Christian interpretations of Isaiah, but as far as they are concern, you (not just you personally, but in general all...)Christians are wrong as far the assumptions and interpretations go.

The Hebrew scriptures which you'd call Old Testament, is Jewish, so therefore required Judaic interpretation. I am neither Jewish nor Christian (being agnostic), but from my stand point, I happen to agree with the Jewish interpretation.

The concept of good and evil angels are foreign to the Jewish faith, barring the Jewish Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and other Jewish mysticism.

There were no hierarchical angeleology prior to being banished to Babylon. There were no good and evil angel, war in heaven, or even the possibility of afterlife until the publication of pseudepigraphal writings, like the Books of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, which influenced by Greek and Egyptian religions of the Hellenistic period. All of these dualistic concepts were foreign to Judaism prior to the Exile period.

Satan was never evil until the pre-Christian Hellenistic writing of Enochian literature. To the Jews in the Book of Job, Satan wasn't evil, like the Christian Devil, because Satan had specific role as servant of God, doing God's bidding.

Until you understand the Jewish position in relation to the historicity of Satan, then don't assume that the Jews agree with your view. As far as they concern, Christians, as well as Muslims, have hijacked and corrupted their religion with pagan ideas.

Again, I would suggest that you read Jews only: War in Heaven thread that I mentioned earlier. It will give you insight as to why Jews don't believe in Christian concepts of angels and demons, of war in heaven, and of dualism. All these elements that Christians believed in, originated from pagan belief.

It's nothing I never denied as far as the Hebrew scriptures. But doesn't mean I am saying I'm wrong either.
There are vast connections that can be made simply by reading the OT, which Jews seem to ignore altogether. Jesus was completion. Christians look at the equations.

It's a split, as I will say for the 3rd time, between Christians and Jews. Arguing this further will only continue a contest between Jewish and Christian interpretations, which I generally do not like to do period. I said that some Jews had the main hand in the persecution of Jesus, and it gets translated into me saying that Jews are guilty of blood libel.
Not happening.

 

[gnostic]

Jesus didn't complete anything, according to the Judaic prophecy of the messiah. He wasn't king, he didn't lead the Jews or Israelites freedom against enemy nation, nor rule in the time of peace.

What prophecy did he fulfill?

The only time he was call a king, was when he was crucified. That's hardly fulfilling a prophecy. Where is the promised peace? A generation after his death, the temple had fallen, due to Jewish rebellion against Rome, not because of any fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus.

The concept of kingdom of heaven is foreign to Judaism. The Christians are wrong about a number of things, including all delusional so-called prophecy in Revelation, which Jesus have not fulfilled. How long do you wait? One thousand years had passed, no promise of apocalypse, no return of Jesus and his 1000 years reign. When the Black Death devastated much of Europe's population, they had assumed it was that apocalypse. Then it was World War I, but another false alarm. The alignment of planet, yet again, another false alarm, by Christian doomsdayers. And in the year 2000 have passed, and still no sign of Jesus or apocalypse. Do you think it will happen in 2012, like in the Mayan calendar calculated? Or how about 2034? How many more thousand of years do Christians have to wait, before they realise they made complete fools of themselves with their doomsday.

Fulfillment, my a##. You need to serious recheck your equation every hundred of years, because you all keep getting wrong.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Jesus didn't complete anything, according to the Judaic prophecy of the messiah. He wasn't king, he didn't lead the Jews or Israelites freedom against enemy nation, nor rule in the time of peace.

What prophecy did he fulfill?

The only time he was call a king, was when he was crucified. That's hardly fulfilling a prophecy. Where is the promised peace? A generation after his death, the temple had fallen, due to Jewish rebellion against Rome, not because of any fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus.

The concept of kingdom of heaven is foreign to Judaism. The Christians are wrong about a number of things, including all delusional so-called prophecy in Revelation, which Jesus have not fulfilled. How long do you wait? One thousand years had passed, no promise of apocalypse, no return of Jesus and his 1000 years reign. When the Black Death devastated much of Europe's population, they had assumed it was that apocalypse. Then it was World War I, but another false alarm. The alignment of planet, yet again, another false alarm, by Christian doomsdayers. And in the year 2000 have passed, and still no sign of Jesus or apocalypse. Do you think it will happen in 2012, like in the Mayan calendar calculated? Or how about 2034? How many more thousand of years do Christians have to wait, before they realise they made complete fools of themselves with their doomsday.

Fulfillment, my a##. You need to serious recheck your equation every hundred of years, because you all keep getting wrong.

To tell you the truth, as angry as this makes me and the 1000 arguments I could put against it, I am simply not debating this any further.
Are you Judaic or Christian? Unless you are one of the two, you are just a smiling troublemaker.

 

[David69]

2. By calling Lucifer the Morning Star, you are saying he is also Jesus(Rev 22:16). Now unless you want to start calling Jesus the Devil, I think you had better do some more research.

urm, It might sound strange but lucifer and jesus are one!!! Lucifer is Gods proudest creation, he is not the devil but the angel of light! theres too much taken literally, its not meant to be. Jesus and lucifer are the bright morning star!
when jesus was tempted 3 times by lucifer, it was jesus own subconscious he was dealing with. Lucifer is the subconscious of man, the great communication!

engish gematria:
Lucifer= 444Jesus=444
Jesus lucifer= 888
Mashiach or jesus second coming if u like: Mashiach ----- ---- = 888
I bet mashiach =888

 

[David69]

Jesus didn't complete anything, according to the Judaic prophecy of the messiah. He wasn't king, he didn't lead the Jews or Israelites freedom against enemy nation, nor rule in the time of peace.

What prophecy did he fulfill?

The only time he was call a king, was when he was crucified. That's hardly fulfilling a prophecy. Where is the promised peace? A generation after his death, the temple had fallen, due to Jewish rebellion against Rome, not because of any fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus.

The concept of kingdom of heaven is foreign to Judaism. The Christians are wrong about a number of things, including all delusional so-called prophecy in Revelation, which Jesus have not fulfilled. How long do you wait? One thousand years had passed, no promise of apocalypse, no return of Jesus and his 1000 years reign. When the Black Death devastated much of Europe's population, they had assumed it was that apocalypse. Then it was World War I, but another false alarm. The alignment of planet, yet again, another false alarm, by Christian doomsdayers. And in the year 2000 have passed, and still no sign of Jesus or apocalypse. Do you think it will happen in 2012, like in the Mayan calendar calculated? Or how about 2034? How many more thousand of years do Christians have to wait, before they realise they made complete fools of themselves with their doomsday.

Fulfillment, my a##. You need to serious recheck your equation every hundred of years, because you all keep getting wrong.

Jesus never claimed to be mashiach!!!! But he warned of his second coming!
"I send forth my angel... I am the root and offspring of DAVID... we are one! The eagle landing in 69 was a sign that Mashiach/anointed one had arrived!

he will make himself known to the world just after the great communication!
look around israel, civil unrest, evil dictators being wrid of and theres a chain reaction. The Jews need to vote for peace before the end of next year instead of firering missiles at there neighbours. The age is now!

 

[gnostic]

To tell you the truth, as angry as this makes me and the 1000 arguments I could put against it, I am simply not debating this any further.
Are you Judaic or Christian? Unless you are one of the two, you are just a smiling troublemaker.

I've heard so many Christian interpretations of Jesus being a messiah, his return and the apocalypse that I must say that I am not impressed by Christian interpretation. Just as I am equally not impressed by Christian interpretation of Lucifer/Satan.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, I am aware that the astronomical phenomena of the morning star and evening star being one-and-the-same planet, Venus. Venus as the evening star, Hesperus, is the first to appear at dusk, just as the morning star is the last to fade from view.

Now, I have not read all the literature, so I could be mistaken with this assumption. But as far as I know (meaning, all the ones I've read), the ancient astronomers in Greece, Egypt and Middle East believe they are not the same planet.

Have you read differently? If you have, then please supply the sources, because I really like to know.

The ancient Babylonian records 1600BC show that they knew that the morning star and the evening star was the same 'star'...

In the 18th century BC, the Old Babylonian period, Hammurabi conquered the Fertile Crescent. From his capital in Babylon, Hammurabi ruled an empire stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. With a code of law inscribed on a black basalt pillar 8 feet high, Hammurabi imposed order throughout the realm.

Kidinnu: Scribes searching for the laws of the heavens discovered that Venus, the image of Ishtar, the queen of heaven, never moves far from the Sun. First Venus appears on one side of the Sun, and then on the other. When Venus appears east of the Sun, it is the evening star, setting in the west just after sunset. When Venus appears west of the Sun, it is the morning star, rising in the east before sunrise.

Old Babylonian period, 1800-1600

Fwiw the Mayans were also aware..

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Among other things, how dare Jesus say he was a God on earth? only the Roman King was God of the land. (or how dare people say Jesus was God's chosen leader for Israel? It's weakness was thoroughly conquered by Rome.) What would our government do if someone was said to be God's chosen ruler for America and he began to amass more and more followers, and all you had to do to prevent a civil war was nip it in the bud?
'

That would not have been so as Jesus wouldn't let things lead to that. When he was captured, he made his followers step down and let them take him.

Whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

None of that matters anyways because it happened the way it was supposed to happen. God foresaw everything, no doubt. He's God.

One thing that gets me is that if Jesus did not fulfill these prophesies like so, then how did he amass so many followers in the first place, Jews no less?
Even King Herod wanted to find and kill Jesus soon after his birth in fear that he would become king.
And he was Jewish.

I'm amazed that a mere blasphemer can make all these things happen..

 

[gnostic]

Even King Herod wanted to find and kill Jesus soon after his birth in fear that he would become king.

One thing that gets me is that if Jesus did not fulfill these prophesies like so, then how did he amass so many followers in the first place, Jews no less?
Even King Herod wanted to find and kill Jesus soon after his birth in fear that he would become king.

Sums1Gruj, I would like to point out that there are 2 different Jesus' birth myths.

Luke make no mention of any that Matthew say. And certainly nothing about the problem with Herod the Great, and no mention of Joseph taking his wife and son to Egypt. Nor do Luke's mention star or the 3 magi. And Luke is even less believable with the procession of angels in heaven in front of bunch of shepherds. They can't be both right.

Apart from Matthew's version of Jesus' birth, there is no historical evidence that Herod done such thing. If such thing had happened at Bethlehem, don't you historians, like Flavius Josephus, who recorded all sorts of scandals and murders in Herod's reign, Josephus would have at least mention the massacre? And I can think of dozens of other reason, this event didn't happen.

But no, both versions were invented.

And he was Jewish.

And what do that prove. Herod being Jewish prove nothing about Jesus' birth story.

 

[gnostic]

The ancient Babylonian records 1600BC show that they knew that the morning star and the evening star was the same 'star'...

Thank you, ben.

I don't often deal with iconography or imagery, mainly because I hopeless with image symbols, and it is even harder to decipher or interpret. So, mostly I deal with literature, particularly mythological literature.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And what do that prove. Herod being Jewish prove nothing about Jesus' birth story.

It's ridiculous, if you ask me, that you speak so lightly of such accounts without looking at the obvious: King Herod probably didn't know of Jesus' birth as soon as they went to Bethlehem. Also, what makes you think Herod wouldn't try to keep the act of trying to to kill the Messiah a secret? Surely, he would have feared a massive Jewish uprising. And the technicalities you speak of in the NT.. you do know that they were not all together through the entirety of these events, right? They testify according to what they witnessed and by what they shared with each other.
These things heavily burden your claims.

If he was a Jewish king, then that's a nice, ripe motive right there. The fact that he carried so much infamy just reinforces the idea.

 

[gnostic]

Also, what makes you think Herod wouldn't try to keep the act of trying to to kill the Messiah a secret?

Have you read the history of Herod the Great. It is filled with assassinations and scandals, which I don't think would bother Herod in the slightest to have children murdered.

And if it was a big secret, then how would the people of Bethlehem not know of it, if their sons were murdered. And more importantly, if it was a big secret as you would say, then how could Matthew possibly know if he has never been in the court of Herod because he was probably not even born at the time it did happen.

Unlike Matthew, Flavius Josephus had much more access to materials, then Matthew. He was a priest before revolt. And in the Jewish revolt, he was one of the leaders. He became friend of Titus, after his surrender, who later became emperor.

Who do you think could access more materials from temple or palace? Matthew or Josephus?

The main source of materials about Herod's life, come from Flavius Josephus, not Matthew. Even then, I like Josephus as far as I can throw him.

As to massive uprising, I say that's rubbish, because he was already not a popular king, and he had backing of the Roman leaders, Mark Antonius and Octavian, the later became emperor Augustus. Herod had no fear of such uprising when he was "friend of Rome" and Rome's client king.

Please, sums1gruj. You not thinking logically.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Have you read the history of Herod the Great. It is filled with assassinations and scandals, which I don't think would bother Herod in the slightest to have children murdered.

And if it was a big secret, then how would the people of Bethlehem not know of it, if their sons were murdered. And more importantly, if it was a big secret as you would say, then how could Matthew possibly know if he has never been in the court of Herod because he was probably not even born at the time it did happen.

Unlike Matthew, Flavius Josephus had much more access to materials, then Matthew. He was a priest before revolt. And in the Jewish revolt, he was one of the leaders. He became friend of Titus, after his surrender, who later became emperor.

Who do you think could access more materials from temple or palace? Matthew or Josephus?

The main source of materials about Herod's life, come from Flavius Josephus, not Matthew. Even then, I like Josephus as far as I can throw him.

As to massive uprising, I say that's rubbish, because he was already not a popular king, and he had backing of the Roman leaders, Mark Antonius and Octavian, the later became emperor Augustus. Herod had no fear of such uprising when he was "friend of Rome" and Rome's client king.

Please, sums1gruj. You not thinking logically.

Bethlehem is popular for it being the first establishment of Jesus. During that time, it was nothing more than a small village in the middle of nowhere. Herod could have easily done as he pleased and dismissed it as lies.
Also, with this being the case, Josephus probably would not know or even cared of such a scandal taking place.
Herod would have been cautious before killing the Messiah, as an uprising is an understatement. He was Jewish, after all, and would be playing with fire.

Look at how powerful America is, and yet twin towers come crashing down, presidents get assassinated, etc.
It's wishful thinking to assume that a king would be that reckless to act on impulse on something so dire. He planned it out.

But to sum it up even more, because he was in with Rome, he had to consider them to. Even when Jews were trying to persecute Jesus, Romans had to follow their demands as an uprising would occur otherwise.

What I see in your argument is a big denial complex. Because it wasn't exquisitely documented, it didn't happen.
With this logic, what's to say anything in the holy texts is true?

The point is, I have explained in every way how it could have realistically happened, and it will be denied simply because Jews refuse Jesus.
The irony is that prophecy never really turns out the way one expects it, and because it didn't happen exactly the way they wanted it to, they didn't even so much as consider him period.
In other words, there is a reason why Moses is considered to be the meekest man ever to walk Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Bethlehem is popular for it being the first establishment of Jesus. During that time, it was nothing more than a small village in the middle of nowhere. Herod could have easily done as he pleased and dismissed it as lies.
Also, with this being the case, Josephus probably would not know or even cared of such a scandal taking place.

Don't care about the scandal? Now I know you haven't read any of Josephus' works. He loved the scandals. Why do you think devoted so much pages on Herod.

You seriously should know more about the history of that period, because you're sounding more ignorant the more ideas your posts. First your ignorance about the Jewish stance on angels, and now this about Herod. You had stated you wanted to be enlightened in the OP, but apparently that a lie.

And you contradict yourself and didn't answer my question. How could possibly someone like Matthew know Herod's darkest secret of bethlehem why there are no records of it?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And you contradict yourself and didn't answer my question. How could possibly someone like Matthew know Herod's darkest secret of bethlehem why there are no records of it?

Because he was told. He was of the 12, you know.

I wanted to be enlightened, yes. But if I knew it meant being ran over by Jews for my belief than I would have never made this thread to begin with.

I admitted that I didn't know this thread was a splitting topic, and that I would no longer post after I saw it getting heated between me and rackel.
But you took my kindness for weakness, and now you've forced my hand.

You're just a wordsmith knee deep in affairs you have no real business in. When I say that Josephus wouldn't care, I meant that Herod wouldn't be doing anything out of the ordinary.
In which case, he would care if he was trying to kill the Messiah, which is what I have been trying to get you to wrap your head around the whole time.
Way to play semantics on beliefs like a typical atheist would. Maybe you should drop your gnostic title.
The only ignorant thing is you backing a stubborn race who accuses all who disagree with them on something as being anti-semetic. So far I have been called ignorant, a 'typical Christian', and an alleged accuser of blood libel,,
Nice try gnostic but I think I can decide who the 'typical' ones are here. I guess they just wrote white lies in their testament so immediately after they were done everyone could see it. Right.

 

[gnostic]

I wanted to be enlightened, yes. But if I knew it meant being ran over by Jews for my belief than I would have never made this thread to begin with.

Way to play semantics on beliefs like a typical atheist would. Maybe you should drop your gnostic title.
The only ignorant thing is you backing a stubborn race who accuses all who disagree with them on something as being anti-semetic. So far I have been called ignorant, a 'typical Christian', and an alleged accuser of blood libel,,
Nice try gnostic but I think I can decide who the 'typical' ones are here.

I'm not a Jew, religiously or by blood. And I am not atheist. I am agnostic. My avatar or name as gnostic, comes from not being able to use the name agnostic, in another forum, so when I became member here, I decided to keep the name.

Growing up, I lived around people that were mostly Christian, so I know what Christians believed in. I have actually believed in Christian interpretation of the bible to be the correct one, because that was the way I was taught in my late teen, so no thinking was involved. It is only when I re-read some of the bible again in the last 8 years, that I understand that I have been reading it wrong. My interest in religion only return when I return to my main passion: mythology.

I see religions as mostly myth, legend or folklore. My renewed interest in myth, and reading ancient mythological literature made me understand religion more than when i was in my late teen and early 20s, about 20 years ago.

What about you?

You had your religion as agnostic when you 1st posted this thread, but you never did sound agnostic. How do one change from agnostic to christian in a matter of few days?

I read the texts as they are, without Christian coloring. I see you distorting the text with the same Christian bias that i have seen from others (particularly ones that the bible literally).

I saw you continuing ignoring that Lucifer was never a name for angel in the bible, until Jerome chose to translate the morning star in Isaiah 14:12 to this name, almost a thousand year later, a perfect example of such distortion by a Christian. Can not you see why I am so unforgiving with Christian interpretation?

Almost 2000 years have pasted since Jesus, and the church still have the tendency to distort everything they touch.

As to backing Jews. I still disagree with some Jews over certain parts of the Hebrew bible, but I agree with them over the some of the issues of angels, particularly Satan (not Lucifer). Even the Christian scripture never name Satan Lucifer.