- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (JustAskin @ Jan. 29 2010,05:06) Elizabeth,
psst…I shall say this only once and very quietly so noone else hears: “Lucifer” is not Satan!
Look it up? look up “Jesus” and “Morning Star” and “Lucifer” together!
psssst, AskinI will only post this once.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
If this was not Lucifer, then who was it?
Georg
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 29 2010,09:10) Hi ASH,
Wisdom is of God not men.
The prophets sought understandings but never found them[1Peter1] so what of these so-called sages?
Who said Wisdom is of men? I certainly did not.1 Peter 1 does not say that. It says about the prophets seeking the answers to timing, circumstances, results concerning salvation. It also states that they did in fact find and understand what was revealed to them and that even angels look into these. Nothing in that passage is speaking about anything within this topic.
Yeshua did clearly instruct us to do and observe what ever they teach us to do. So what of these so-called Sages? Well…. Yeshua certainly gave credibility to their authority. So much more so is it a commandment in the Torah to do and observe what ever these so-called Sages teach us. And this was a commandment from G-d Himself. Surely if G-d and Messiah both state that these so-called Sages are not so-called afterall… we should not be attempting to downplay or belittle them or disrespect them.
First Chapter of Job talks about Satan, read all.
Math. 16:34about Satan testing Jesus.
Luke 10:18 “I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening.
Isaiah 14:3-20about the morning star(Lucifer) fallen from Heaven.Jude 1:6 Angels that left their first estate, who are in everlasting darkness(chains)
Why is it so hard to understand that Lucifer first was a beautiful Archangel. It Says until iniquity was found in Him. When God by Jesus created the Angels they were good. And IMO that Lucifer was put on earth to teach Angels and then He became vain and wanted to through God of His Throne and become God Himself. I don't believe that God created this earth as a dark and void place. Would the Angels shout for joy over that? Not in my opinion. God recreated this earth and Satan was already in Paradise when Adam and Eve were created. God wanted to test us too, and He did and still does. Is Satan not considered the God of this World? Of course there is no Scripture that shows it, but using common sense. Again the Question exist why did God create a dark and void earth? And why did the Angels shouted for joy over a dark and void earth? One day we will know for sure, until then we are only using our common sense. We do know that Satan does exist. He is not just in our minds. He tested Jesus too. The worst of the Angels that became Demons are in chains being kept for the time of punishment for all Human kind.
Peace and Love Ireneashermoshehthreepointonefour,
I am not all that trustworthy of what is called “science” as it is subject to change as we learn more. To declare anything as certain in it is risky.
I will state this and that is that with God a thousand years is a day a day is as a thousand years.
In short God took a period of time and called it a day.
For all I know he could have took a period of time and called it a morning even though it included many mornings according to our sense of time. That is his prerogative.
I am not sure it is worth arguing about.
Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 29 2010,17:21) hi georg what make you think and believe that licifer and satan are the same ones?
????
terrariccaLuk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Isa 14:12 ¶ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
That's why!
Elizabeth,
Hi, The passage in Isaiah is relating the Morning Star (The brightest Star in the dawn morning) to the name 'Lucifer' which means 'Light bringer' as you pointed out.
The name in an analogy can't be “tied” to the thing it is analogous to – as it could relate to many other similees.
In the case of Luke, the morning star IS Satan, but at another, in Revelation for instance, it is Jesus who is the Light Bringer – the Morning Star.
The Morning Star is a beautiful Star shining in the midst of the dawn sky (the dawn of creation?) and this is analogous to Satan before he sinned.
The story in Isaiah is about a King who fell from grace (Like the Morning Star falling when the DayStar – the Sun) rises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#The_Morning_Star_in_Isaiah_14:12 :
“The passage refers to the king of Babylon, a man who seemed all-powerful, but who has been brought down to the abode of the dead (“Sheol”). Isaiah promises that the Israelites will be freed and will then be able to use in a taunting song against their oppressor the image of the Morning Star, which rises at dawn as the brightest of the stars, outshining Jupiter and Saturn, but lasting only until the sun appears. This image was used in an old popular Canaanite story that the Morning Star tried to rise high above the clouds and establish himself on the mountain where the gods assembled, in the far north, but was cast down into the underworld.[6][11]”It is absolutely reasonable to believe that 'Lucifer' is Satan's name if you only read Isaiah (and I used to do that) but then you become tangle if you read Revelation where Jesus is now the day Star – and patently does NOT fall from heaven – how do you align and equate the two differing descriptions?
The answer is by proper understanding of analogies and what they relate to in each and every re-use.
Jonah in the belly of the great fish is analogous to Jesus in the grave – does that mean that the grave is ike the belly of a great fish?
Jesus, it is said, would be called “The Mighty God”. But no wherein the Scriptures is this actually used – because it is an analogy – it means he will be like “The Mighty God” – but not THE MIGHTY GOD.
Similarly:
Satan, was LIKE the Morning Star – but fell to earth, fell from grace.
But now:
Jesus is LIKE the Morning Star – but will not fall to earth, fall from grace.Now, because Jesus will never fall from grace he will continue forever to BE “The Morning Star”
So “Lucifer” (the Morning Star, the light bringer/bearer) cannot be THE NAME of Satan.
oops..
Quote It is absolutely reasonable to believe that 'Lucifer' is Satan's name if you only read Isaiah (and I used to do that) but then you become tangle if you read Revelation where Jesus is now the MORNING Star – and patently does NOT fall from heaven – how do you align and equate the two differing descriptions? Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 29 2010,21:42) ashermoshehthreepointonefour, I am not all that trustworthy of what is called “science” as it is subject to change as we learn more. To declare anything as certain in it is risky.
I will state this and that is that with God a thousand years is a day a day is as a thousand years.
In short God took a period of time and called it a day.
For all I know he could have took a period of time and called it a morning even though it included many mornings according to our sense of time. That is his prerogative.
I am not sure it is worth arguing about.
HI there…Science does not disprove G-d, it only explains the phsyical universe. Knowledge of this world is not a bad thing. What is interesting is, thousands of years ago prior to modern science, these revelations were obtained… and today modern science is coming to the same conclusions. There are no coincidences.
If the scriptures indicate that time is different for G-d in relation to us, this shows that the scientific findings of time is not all that far off.
I dont think this is an argument, it is showing how amazing G-d really is. I dont understand why there is offense taken from this thread, when all it does is magnify the Word of G-d.
hi
in the case of Nebuchadnezzar it is true he thought that he was the power behind his success,but God show him he was not, by making him eat grass with the animals.in the case of Satan he envy to be like the morning star who was Christ he knew he could never be God ,but he was lower in rang than the WORD who became Christ then the opportunity came wen Christ was made man Satan took this to try to corrupt him so he could take his heavenly position this failed
after his dead on the stake ,Satan had now failed and was cast down to the earth area,receiving the same treatment than men.(just as nebu. was lowered to the animal kingdom,so was Satan was lower down to men level)ashermoshehthreepointonefour wrote:
Quote Science does not disprove G-d, it only explains the physical universe.
In doing so it assumes God either does not exist or is irrelevant. In other words it embraces and atheist or agnostic view of the universe.
Since it disregards God and those things relating to him it fails to take into account all data. Blinding yourself to some of the data leads to erroneous conclusions.
In a trial you realize that the accused may have been framed for the crime he is accused of doing. What if Satan corrupts the evidence that scientist are using. Scientist disregard Satan's effect and therefore would not look at that possibility.
That is just one example.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 30 2010,04:54) ashermoshehthreepointonefour wrote: Quote Science does not disprove G-d, it only explains the physical universe.
In doing so it assumes God either does not exist or is irrelevant. In other words it embraces and atheist or agnostic view of the universe.
Since it disregards God and those things relating to him it fails to take into account all data. Blinding yourself to some of the data leads to erroneous conclusions.
In a trial you realize that the accused may have been framed for the crime he is accused of doing. What if Satan corrupts the evidence that scientist are using. Scientist disregard Satan's effect and therefore would not look at that possibility.
That is just one example.
Science does not assume G-d exists or doesnt exist, science is solely a method of observation by an observer (man), measuring and calculation. It is not a doctrine of spirituality. Science is a blanket name for many things, mathematics, physics, astronomy, etc etc… to say that these things are false when it is clear that they are not would be silly dont you think? Did G-d not create using math, physics, etc etc? Modern science such as quantum physics, string theory etc etc do in fact point in the direction of showing that G-d does exist, that there is a spiritual world. There are many scientists who believe in G-d.
Agnostic views simply state that there is a G-d, but that the agnostic doesnt follow a specific religious system.
Atheism, doesnt believe at all. But when an atheist looks at science, all they see are the physical world being explained. The Spiritual person who looks into science for the sake of unwravelling the physical world that G-d created.
There have been many Rabbis who were scientifically inclined, and they did not budge from their faith or belief in G-d, it only enhanced their ability to help people with health, understand the physical aspect of the world, etc etc… and they were able to do these things long before modern science.
Science does not disregard G-d, there are people who look at science but do not include G-d because they already disregard G-d. We cant blame science for man's thinking. Because there are many who look at science and include G-d because they already believe in G-d.
When the Bible reveals scientific truths that are verifiable does that mean that science has disregarded G-d or that science can reveal G-d if one applies it in the proper way? To say that these claims are erroneous when these teachings line up to what modern science has already shown how can we dismiss that as coincidence?
I dont see how the 6 days of Creation and the scientific data lining up to what Sages said thousands of years ago could possibly be a Satan ploy when all it does is magnify G-d and the work that He did.
Quote (Elizabeth @ Jan. 30 2010,00:30) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 29 2010,17:21) hi georg what make you think and believe that licifer and satan are the same ones?
????
terrariccaLuk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Isa 14:12 ¶ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
That's why!
Hi Irene,You have the enemy pegged quite right!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (ashermoshehthreepointonefour @ Jan. 29 2010,09:00) the topic of this thread
Hi Asher,I have a few questions for you. Could you respond to these questions?
How does the expansion of space equate to the slowing of time? And if so how can it be calculated?
What is this word [kElah] and to what does it refer to?
Ed J
Quote (JustAskin @ Jan. 30 2010,01:35) Elizabeth, Hi, The passage in Isaiah is relating the Morning Star (The brightest Star in the dawn morning) to the name 'Lucifer' which means 'Light bringer' as you pointed out.
The name in an analogy can't be “tied” to the thing it is analogous to – as it could relate to many other similees.
In the case of Luke, the morning star IS Satan, but at another, in Revelation for instance, it is Jesus who is the Light Bringer – the Morning Star.
The Morning Star is a beautiful Star shining in the midst of the dawn sky (the dawn of creation?) and this is analogous to Satan before he sinned.
The story in Isaiah is about a King who fell from grace (Like the Morning Star falling when the DayStar – the Sun) rises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#The_Morning_Star_in_Isaiah_14:12 :
“The passage refers to the king of Babylon, a man who seemed all-powerful, but who has been brought down to the abode of the dead (“Sheol”). Isaiah promises that the Israelites will be freed and will then be able to use in a taunting song against their oppressor the image of the Morning Star, which rises at dawn as the brightest of the stars, outshining Jupiter and Saturn, but lasting only until the sun appears. This image was used in an old popular Canaanite story that the Morning Star tried to rise high above the clouds and establish himself on the mountain where the gods assembled, in the far north, but was cast down into the underworld.[6][11]”It is absolutely reasonable to believe that 'Lucifer' is Satan's name if you only read Isaiah (and I used to do that) but then you become tangle if you read Revelation where Jesus is now the day Star – and patently does NOT fall from heaven – how do you align and equate the two differing descriptions?
The answer is by proper understanding of analogies and what they relate to in each and every re-use.
Jonah in the belly of the great fish is analogous to Jesus in the grave – does that mean that the grave is ike the belly of a great fish?
Jesus, it is said, would be called “The Mighty God”. But no wherein the Scriptures is this actually used – because it is an analogy – it means he will be like “The Mighty God” – but not THE MIGHTY GOD.
Similarly:
Satan, was LIKE the Morning Star – but fell to earth, fell from grace.
But now:
Jesus is LIKE the Morning Star – but will not fall to earth, fall from grace.Now, because Jesus will never fall from grace he will continue forever to BE “The Morning Star”
So “Lucifer” (the Morning Star, the light bringer/bearer) cannot be THE NAME of Satan.
AskinYou are not to far off with your analogy; I believe the bright morning star is the sun because the sun brings us light every morning as all other stars fade away.
Jesus compared light to truth as he was and is the one that brings us the truth; so is water, compared to truth as he told the woman by the well, had she ask him for a drink he would have given her water and she would not thirst again.
Just as Jesus brought us the light/truth, so was Lucifer put in charge of the angels to teach them God's way, the truth.
God compared Lucifer to the king of Babylon in Isaiah, and in Ezekiel to the king of Tyre.Eze 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.Do you really think these scriptures talk about a human being?
God chose these two kingdom because they were full of pride and self confidence, just as Lucifer, but as v. 15 tells us; until iniquity was found in him, that is when he became Satan the devil. In his pride and arrogance he ascended up to heaven, that is what you read in Isaiah.
Satan is no longer Lucifer, but for a while he was.Georg
Ashermoshehthreepointonefour wrote:
Quote Science does not assume G-d exists or doesn’t exist, science is solely a method of observation by an observer (man), measuring and calculation. It is not a doctrine of spirituality. Science is a blanket name for many things, mathematics, physics, astronomy, etc etc… to say that these things are false when it is clear that they are not would be silly don’t you think? Did G-d not create using math, physics, etc etc?
I am sorry to point out that you are listening to propaganda. You should instead practice thinking for yourself. God either exists or he does not. If he exists then he has an effect on man’s observations. If he has an effect then it is foolish to discount that effect in your observations. I know God effects astronomy, physics, and other such sciences. I see mathematics more like logical reasoning and thus a tool like fire.
The laws of physics are God laws. The same may be true of mathematics. In studying physics, biology, astronomy, we can learn more about God.The relationship between science and religion is a debatable subject. You seem to fall for the party line which states they are independent while I maintain that they are integrated. I have looked deeper into biology so I am more aware of the integration in that field as well as the battle that takes place between Satan and God.
Ashermoshehthreepointonefour wrote:
Quote Modern science such as quantum physics, string theory etc etc do in fact point in the direction of showing that G-d does exist, that there is a spiritual world. There are many scientists who believe in G-d.
Please! Some of that seems to be outright fraud. I have looked into the formation of the Solar System and a fair share of the claims of so called scientists are bogus. A contracting solar system does not even obey the idea gas laws. The idea that the universe is expanding means that the media upon what the universe is set is getting stretched though matter itself is not. So I ask you to place a piece of felt on a balloon then blow up the balloon. The surface of the balloon expands but the piece of felt does not. If this is the case then how does the big bang happen. The gravity of a singularity the size of a black hole would lead to an escape velocity that exceeds the speed of light. It might emit gamma rays and cosmic rays much like normal black holes do. If it does then they might become elements over time. I don’t know that such as ever been observed.
What scientist do is spin to explain what they observe. That spin is speculation.
Ashermoshehthreepointonefour wrote:
Quote I don’t see how the 6 days of Creation and the scientific data lining up to what Sages said thousands of years ago could possibly be a Satan ploy when all it does is magnify G-d and the work that He did.
Then you underestimate Satan who is practically immortal and well able to plan ahead.
Our radiometric dating method work on the principal of randomness. What if they are not random but are rather controlled? The controller can then dictate what date any date will appear to be despite its actual date. If you believe in God then you know he is the controller. If you believe in Satan then you know that he devises schemes to lead people astray. Satan can well go to God and ask his permission to interfere with the apparent dates of radiometric dating. He has also deceived many sages in the past.
hi asher
it is seen as men views the scriptures are recognized to be from God, if we accept the wise men (non biblical)this could lead us far away into the devils trap,and become entangled with all sort of philosophy in men view and be dragged away from God and Christ sacrifice and so everlasting liveElizabeth,
Hi, my only point is that 'Lucifer' is NOT Satan's name.That it came into traditional use through misunderstanding.
That, once aware of this error, we should not continue in that error.
(By the way, the 'psst…, I shall say this only once…' is from a very funny comedy show and it was unfair to use where others may not realise its meaning. Sorry!)
JA………You have it right the word Lucifer simply means (rising star). We still use that term today , we say he is a rising star. That word has nothing to do with (the Word Satan) or Adversary as scripture uses it. Those words were for the KING of TYER and nothing else, as scripture say it was. But those who preach the doctrines about devils and demons grab it and try to work it into their religious conceptions. But scripture confirms none of it. INO
peace and love……………gene
Gene,
This is all amazing. I had simply meant to say 'Please be aware that the use of the name 'Lucifer' for Satan is incorrect', and that lead to a protracted discussion that demonstrates how easy it is for even the simplest of 'reality' can be misunderstood/misinterpreted or maintained in as something else in error.When I was made aware of my error I immediately changed and accepted the truth – and maintain that truth now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
