Are Jesus And Lucifer The Same Thing?

[InkL0sed]

And this is why the study of dead languages is useful.

[PLAYER57832]

Christ is the son of God and lucifer is a fallen angel ... tradition has it that he tried to challange God for control and was defeated.

There is no real discussion here.

Then you agree that Jesus and Lucifer are the same thing?

No.

[daddy1gringo]

King Nebuchadnezzar is being described in Isaiah as the son of the dawn and the morning star, which is translated in some versions as Lucifer, from what I understand. So quite literally Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar can not possibly be the same person, but why then would Jesus call himself the Morning Star when that same term was definitely known to refer to Nebuchadnezzar?

You still don't get it. Please read again what I wrote. Neither satan nor Nebuchadnezzar was called the "morning star." The New International Version of the Bible, which is the only thing that translates "hay-lale" as "morning star" wasn't published until 1973. "Hay-lale" is Hebrew for "(the) shining (one)". The name "Lucifer" is a translation of that from the Latin Bible used by the priests in the middle ages, and was kept in the King James Bible in 1611. Nothing that either Jesus (or John, the author of Revelation) would have read uses the term "morning star".

I think I get the message, the bible must always be taken literaly unless it contradicts itself hopelessly, then its OBVIOUSLY a mistranslation or a metaphor or of course that old favoirite ; ' The bible is the word of God, who are we to question the omnipotent one '

To get that from what I wrote, you obviously didn't understand it.

I have a question for MeDeFe, Guiscard or any of the other intelligent atheists out there: Did you get what Froggy got from what I wrote?

[joecoolfrog]

King Nebuchadnezzar is being described in Isaiah as the son of the dawn and the morning star, which is translated in some versions as Lucifer, from what I understand. So quite literally Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar can not possibly be the same person, but why then would Jesus call himself the Morning Star when that same term was definitely known to refer to Nebuchadnezzar?

You still don't get it. Please read again what I wrote. Neither satan nor Nebuchadnezzar was called the "morning star." The New International Version of the Bible, which is the only thing that translates "hay-lale" as "morning star" wasn't published until 1973. "Hay-lale" is Hebrew for "(the) shining (one)". The name "Lucifer" is a translation of that from the Latin Bible used by the priests in the middle ages, and was kept in the King James Bible in 1611. Nothing that either Jesus (or John, the author of Revelation) would have read uses the term "morning star".

I think I get the message, the bible must always be taken literaly unless it contradicts itself hopelessly, then its OBVIOUSLY a mistranslation or a metaphor or of course that old favoirite ; ' The bible is the word of God, who are we to question the omnipotent one '

To get that from what I wrote, you obviously didn't understand it.

I have a question for MeDeFe, Guiscard or any of the other intelligent atheists out there: Did you get what Froggy got from what I wrote?

I didnt get it explicitely from your last post, just a general observation
If you disagree then how do YOU explain away scriptural contradictions ?

[daddy1gringo]

I think I get the message,

Yes you are saying that you got that from this.

the bible must always be taken literaly unless it contradicts itself hopelessly, then its OBVIOUSLY a mistranslation or a metaphor or of course that old favoirite ; ' The bible is the word of God, who are we to question the omnipotent one '

To get that from what I wrote, you obviously didn't understand it.

I have a question for MeDeFe, Guiscard or any of the other intelligent atheists out there: Did you get what Froggy got from what I wrote?

I didnt get it explicitely from your last post, just a general observation

so you recognize that there is no "contradiction" here to "explain away", just DaGip mistaking a loose English translation for what the Bible actually says, right?

If you disagree then how do YOU explain away scriptural contradictions ?

Of course, wording the question that way is begging the question: that there is one way that I "explain away" whatever issues you are talking about. It's a myth, only believed because it gets repeated so often that "the Bible is full of contradictions." Naturally in a work so big, covering so many subjects and circumstances there are going to be some things hard to understand or aparently contradictory, though these are much fewer than mythology makes them. I've been talking about this for a long time, and honestly, most of the issues people bring up are ridiculous, and with a little common sense you can see that there is no contradiction at all. Others are legitimate questions, but it only requires understanding of the context or of the nuances of the languages involved.

[comic boy]

'' Many of the things people bring up are ridiculous ''
Would that be as ridiculous as believing in talking snakes, or that the entire human race is the result of a relationship between a man and one of his ribs
There are actually dozens of contradictions in the bible and yes they may well be explained
by context or poor translation and yet this seems not to matter one whit to those fundamentalists who happily quote lines out of context and insist on taking certain passages literaly. Dishonesty and hypocrisy are the 2 words that spring to mind along with the old adage ' do not what I do but what I say '

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

And remember this is the modern day bible which contains hand picked material only ( about 100 gospels were ignored ) and has been checked and edited over and over again.
Literal truth...hee hee hee

[DirtyDishSoap]

Must be running out of things to talk about

[DaGip]

Must be running out of things to talk about

Not really. I was just curious if people read the scriptures the same way that I did. I was under the notion that Jesus and Lucifer were one and the same. Both of which were harbingers of the greater glory of the inevitable dawn. Both of which were sons of God and therefore must be brothers, and they could very well love each other, like Esau and Jacob. Esau could be like Lucifer and Jacob would be more like Jesus.

[daddy1gringo]

'' Many of the things people bring up are ridiculous ''
Would that be as ridiculous as believing in talking snakes, or that the entire human race is the result of a relationship between a man and one of his ribs

This is a good example of what I am talking about. Let's follow the "logic". "Because the Bible includes many things that are supernatural, that don't occur naturally or in our normal experience, it is obviouly untrue." Think about that. If there is a God, who created and transcends the universe we know, and if He were going to have a book written containing His acts and message to humans, it is logical to assume that it would contain such things, and illogical to assume that it would not. This basically ammouts to saying "The only way I could believe in God is if he were not really God," which is of course logically absurd.

There are actually dozens of contradictions in the bible and yes they may well be explained by context or poor translation and yet this seems not to matter one whit to those fundamentalists who happily quote lines out of context and insist on taking certain passages literaly. Dishonesty and hypocrisy are the 2 words that spring to mind along with the old adage ' do not what I do but what I say '

Look at what you are saying here. It ammounts to "It may be true that there are no actual contradictions, because all of the aparent or supposed contradictions have a perfectly logical explanation, but I'm still mad at some hypocrites that I've encountered."

To that I answer that yes, it is human nature to manipulate things to one's own advantage and to another's hurt, and there is no shortage of people who make a practice of that and hide behind God, though you must admit there are many who do so and have nothing to do with Him. I can only add that I probably know a great many more Christians than you do, and though there are all kinds, in general the stronger their actual belief in Jesus, the stronger their commitment to integrity and to serving others even to their own hurt.

I'll "put my money where my mouth is" I extend you an invitation to you to come and stay with me and my family for a period of time. Though we are far from perfect, you will find Christians who live what we preach and have a relationship of love and respect.

As for the link, yes it states all the old questions. The interesting thing is that it lists categories of the explanations. The author seems to think that if you can state your opponent's case, you have thereby refuted it.

And remember this is the modern day bible which contains hand picked material only ( about 100 gospels were ignored ) and has been checked and edited over and over again.

This is another example of the mythology, accepted by blind faith, simply beause it is repeated so much. If you actually know anything about the history or historiography involved, it's absolutely insupportable.

First with regard to the idea that the Bible is "edited over and over again" To make a long story short, we have copies of pretty much all of the Bible from before the supposed "editing" took place. Any changes anyone wanted to try to make can be checked against them and found false.

Next, with regard to the "Gospels" that were "ignored", I realize that Dan Brown has become the suppository of wisdom on all things Biblical and spiritual, but do you actually know anything about these Gnostic Gospels, or about the council where the Bible we know was cannonized?

Once again, books could be written on the details, but the council made their decisions by legitimate standards. It is abundantly clear that there are certain writings that were regarded as "Holy Scripture" by those who actually learned from Jesus and from those immediate followers. It is also clear, and admitted even by those who try to claim that the "other gospels" are just as legitimate, that they were not even written until many years later.

They also present a "God" and a "Jesus" very different from the ones of the actual Gospels. For example the "God" of these Gnostic Gospels is so stuck up that he would never have created this imperfect world with scumbags like you and me in it, or had anything to do with it. That is very different the God of the Gospels. My God weeps over his children, He became one of us, got his feet dirty, went to the outcasts, and died a criminal's death.

[comic boy]

Very well put Gringo though of course evasive and answering nothing, has it occured to you that those Gospels that were supressed may of painted the truer picture of the character of Jesus. The Messianic tradition held that the Saviour would be a warrior not some hippy harping on about love, the church cared foremost about image not truth and choose the writings that best served its agenda. As for the editing, the last of the gospels was written around 150 AD and the earliest new testament in existence dates from AD350, thats 200 years to get everything into shape . Yet Corrections and ammendments were still being made to the Codex Sinaiticus in the 7th century, strange that the ' truth ' becomes more apparent as time goes by
Incidently im sure the Frog will be happy to extend an invitation for you to visit us, we are also not perfect but will keep the baby eating and fornication with goats to a minimum.

[Juan_Bottom]

Incidently im sure the Frog will be happy to extend an invitation for you to visit us, we are also not perfect but will keep the baby eating and fornication with goats to a minimum.

You should start a clan. You'll have the best sig ever.