/ub/ - Überhengst

A German cartoon: "If Adam and Even were East Asians 😉 and the snake said “Try this apple….”

>>4524
Based?

>>4525
God approves it.

You know, I've been thinking, with the rapture seemingly rapidly approaching...
the west (USA, general area) is not really mentioned in revelations at all, not even indirectly to my knowledge. There are still things said that apply globally, such as the various curses and such that affect all seas, land, and various other things.
One of those things mentioned early on in the book of revelations is famine, war, and death (1/4 of the global population specifically mentioned) from one of the 7 seals broken by Jesus.
I'm wondering if 'the west' isn't mentioned because it will be so far gone in recession that there is nothing it can do.

The other thing that I sometimes entertain the thought of is Texas pulls out of the USA union with some other states, and becomes one of the two countries that the antichrist obliterates early on in his reign. Though at the rate things are going, that's going to be poland and hungary... maybe. Unless those are still counted as one country under the EU, with the EU being defined as one of the 10 kings giving the antichrist power.

I don't know. Things are moving so fast its difficult to try to guess at whats going to happen in the near future should the rapture happen right now.

>>4545
>rapture
That's a false doctrine coming from the (((judeo-evangelic))) wing of Christianity.
Just saying.

>>4545
>rapture
You may want to do a further reading.
https://www.bible.ca/rapture.htm

>>4546
>>4547
Incorrect. This is a biblical position that is backed by direct Scriptural references. We can see references to this in 1 Thessalonians 4:13
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

There is a literal going up into the air, what we understand with the terminology of rapture. This is further reinforced in Revelation 14:14-16, a reaping of the harvest of the earth, what Christ refers to in Matthew 13:37-43
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world*; the good seed are* the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil*; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And again in Matthew 9:36-38
36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted*, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. 37 Then saith he unto his disciples,The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; 38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

I've been thinking, in revelations and daniel, there are 10 "kings" that give power to the antichrist. What if those kings are actually CEOs? A CEO is probably closer to the kind of rule a king had back in the day anyway.

Any thoughts on this?

>>4558
Allow me to suggest that it more likely refers to bloodlines/families than CEOs, as that would include CEOs as well

>>4558
I would say so, and they are much more relevant than heads of state (at least most of them) who are puppets and switched out frequently. Bill Clinton is no longer relevant, but Bill Gates still is, even if he isn't technically the CEO of Microsoft.

>>4560
right... that's why I was thinking about it and said something "you know, this kinda makes more sense in today's climate". The uprooting of three kings could simply mean trade agreement levies against three large companies to the degree that they wither and die.

One of the things that is going to happen is God is going to utterly smite and destroy a central trading city used by the entire world. If USA is so far gone in recession like its shaping up to be, then what is left that can be considered a central trading hub for the world?
Dubai? It is already considered the richest city in the world. I don't know how much general trade goes on there though, or if things are moving in that direction for Dubai.
Right now I would still consider it to be new york simply because of the stonk exchange. However markets are getting ready to implode because of the impending collapse of the USD and government lockdowns over a fake virus.
Are there lots of people in Dubai doing crypto currency trading?

Remember, the tribulation only lasts 7 years. If USA collapses economically and puts the global trade focus on the middle east (or somewhere else), it would be much longer than 7 years to rebuild what was lost.

https://youtube.com/shorts/lJLX__XH6Mw?feature=share [Embed]
Please appreciate that this is not intended to be contentious. Please also appreciate that I agree that one can/should readily dismiss the orator personally for,... well its literally written on his face.
If it helps, dont even look at him when he speaks, the point is what he says.

>>4772
I'm confused, and I watched it twice. Is he trying to say that satan is not in the bible and instead they "translated" it to satan because of some person with the same name the translators didn't like?
Regardless, this guy was using google translate to base everything he says off of. Google is pretty verifiably not trustworthy for anything, forming search results/words/news/translations in such a way that they can mold public opinion.

As a final note, that guy in the video has so many tattoos, and the way he talks, that it looks like he would rather talk with his body rather than mouth. Probably why its difficult to follow.

>>4773
No. What he is saying is that Lucifer is never correlated with Satan at all, except through a political ploy by the person who transliterated the bible into latin, to undermine his rival at the time. The word Lucifer means bringer of light. It was translated that way because at the time the translator was competing with an individual NAMED Lucifer. So to subtly malign him in the translation, he translated the term Son of Morning into Bringer of Light.

The distinction is this.
Prior to the translation, the name lucifer exclusively meant Bringer of Light, and in a historical context Lucifer was exclusively reserved for the 'pursuit of enlightenment' in a very eastern traditional sense.
AFTER the translation, there was that definition AND Lucofer was correlated with the concept of 'the adversary'. It wasnt a true and accurate translation, it was political expedience.

>>4774
Then he clearly does not know of the more accurately translated versions. New American Standard Bible is the most technically accurate English version available.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB1995/#booklist
They started clean-slate with the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Its not as common probably because its too technically accurate for most people, so instead a fluffy "god" is invented and perpetrated using "translations" like the new living translation.

>>4776
To that point

>>4777
What Im getting at while checking my trip 7s is that Lucifer is/was NOT the name of the fallen angel archetype, and that it was applied to was of artifice.

>>4776
>>4777
>>4778
NAS Bible deletes biblical text and uses poor translations from time to time. For instance, it deletes mention of an angelic interaction in John 5:4. So no, just because another translation makes no mention of Lucifer, light bearer, morning star, the angel of light, that doesn't mean you have proof there was no connection in history to this name.

We furthermore can reference other passages to understand this is indeed the name being referred to beyond one verse you have picked out. For instance:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Directly calling Satan an angel of light, connecting to the morning star reference, Lucifer being the Hebrew naming convention translated into English for that title, just as Jesus is the naming convention of God saves us, translated into English. Yet there is more that directly connects:

Revelation 12:7-11
And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

This directly connects to Isaiah 14:12-15
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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Now, Isaiah is telling this in a proverb against the king of Babylon. The NAS is trying to give the king the title of morning star and say it is divorced from any reverence to Lucifer and Satan as an entity, but rather, it makes no sense in that way, because it references things only Satan would do, weaken the nations, arise and be like the most High, the king is being talked to in a way that is referring to who possesses him and who he worships. It further connects to the fallen nature of Satan, the only one that would have been in heaven to cut down to the ground, as we know in Luke 10:18:
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Finally, we get to the root of this. We see the true morning star referenced in Revelation 22:16
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.

Jesus is the true morning star, the one that overcomes the one cut from heaven, the one that claims the title, the one that weakens the nations, the one that wants all to worship him over the Creator, the one that cannot accept Christ.

1 John 4:1-5
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

This again connects to the one that is not in heaven, cast out, fallen, and is in the earth, who will not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and died to free us of all transgressions, who will claim the throne on earth as the spirit of the antichrist. This is what it means when we say Lucifer is Satan. He is the fallen angel, the once morning star, the star that will try to overcome the true morning star in our hearts, Jesus Christ.

>>4781
Sorry I missed this one. Lots to go through.
>NAS Bible deletes biblical text and uses poor translations from time to time.
I'll come back to this one, but for clarity you literally just cast dount on the 3ntire translation.
>So no, just because another translation makes no mention of Lucifer, light bearer, morning star, the angel of light, that doesn't mean you have proof there was no connection in history to this name
To the contrary, we're not talking about a casual ommission, we're talking about - as you stated - the most authentic translation available, that deliberately omits any reference to Lucifer. This 'suggests' that modern translators recognized the use of Lucifer was incorrect, and deliberatrly translated it otherwise.
>Directly calling Satan an angel of light, connecting to the morning star reference, Lucifer being the Hebrew naming convention translated into English for that title
Uhm, Lucifer is derived from latin, not hebrew. Specifically - as indicate in other thread(s) the word Lucifer is derived of a mistranslation for the greek/hebrew term(s) Son of Morning, bearing a resemblance to 'Lucifer' only to the political expedience of the translator, and not intellectual authenticity.
Moreover, it references 'Satan' transformed into an angel of light, as opposed to BEING one.
Unless thats suggesting that after 'the fall' Satan BECAME an angel, that doesnt help your argument.
Additionally, Ill throw out the fact that Christian scholars are shit at interpreting the old testament (for all their faults, thats something the jews have on lockdown), but thats more of an aside.
>revelations
Okay, we're gonna have fun with this one, but Ill start with the assertions.
>O Lucifer, son of the morning!
And yet, thats literally not what it says. This is what Im getting at in the first quotation, you're trying to have it both ways. Either the source is authoritative or it isnt. You dont get to pick and choose whether its accurate or not, nor insert what 'you're sure'was supposed to go there - in defiance of the authority (trade-wise) of the contemporary translators. One must assume that either A. the translators were not sufficiently competent, or those glaring ommissions were deliberate and with cause.
>The NAS is trying to give the king the title of morning star
Incorrect. As has also been referenced, Lucifer is a title of enlightenment not a name.
What this means is that Isaiah is rebuking the king (and company) for daring to attempt such a title in opposition to the word's meaning, for all the listed reasons.
Hes not calling him Lucifer, hes explaining why the term Lucifer is.not appropriate. Remember, they didnt write down the contemporaneous meanings because they were 'the only' meanings they were familiar with, and so to them doing so would be redundant. Ergo, you cant go into all this assuming the modern meaning of words, you have to read from the sources.
>I Jesus
Really? You really think thats what was said?
>Jesus is the true morning star,
You were so close! Jesus is the Lucifer! The light bearer! The resplendent amidst darkness and ignorance! The unstoppable force! (btw, the immovable object is entropy)
This is why Isaiah rebuked the king, because they were fixing to call him by a title only reserved (authentically) for the most high, which the king was not. To read this passage and try to assume that Lucifer as a concept is bad, and then read the term being -accurately! - applied to Jesus is ansurdly contradictory.
Why? Because, while Lucifer is a title rightly reserved for Jesus, it was (again that word) contemporaneously applied to advanced teachers, philosophers, builders, etc. Kind of like how theres a dime a dozen gurus out there who are described by their followers as enlightened. This is not the fault of the word, this is the fault of the people using it in ignorance.
Remember my rant about people being ignorant of the very words they use? Its noy just a modern problem
>antichrist
Now we're getting somewhere. Are you of the assumption that 'antichrist' refers to an individual? Not a great plan.
In that Christ - derived of Christos - refers to the state of enlightenment, what do you think the antithesis means?
Obviously it refers to a state of ignorance. That is why its 'spirit of antichrist', and not 'of THE antichrist'. Additionally, spirit had many connotations for the time, including 'willful'.
Long story short, that section refers to people being willfully ignorant, NOT following a particular entity called 'the antichrist'.
>This again connects to the one that is not in heaven, cast out, fallen, and is in the earth,
Uhm, where does it say that? It literally doesnt, not even implicitly.
>who will not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and died to free us of all transgressions
Nor that. Thats a conclusion reached and purported by orthodoxy, and doesnt appear in the selected.section. Isaiah had plenty to say, no need to put words into his.mouth.
>who will claim the throne on earth as the spirit of the antichris
Incorrect, as I have indicated.
<who will attempt to falsely claim the throne on earth through willful ignorance
Ftfy
>This is what it means when we say Lucifer is Satan
>we
Slips aside, this is why Im going through lengths to.convey to you that Lucifer is a word/title/concept, not a name. Satan is wrong too (its Yyaldabaoth) but it will suffice, given the extraordinary amount of research it takes to unearth the name and meaning. So we'll go with Satan.
Notice I dont contest there being an adversary, a fallen angel, etc ad nauseum? Thats because its incontravertable. Sidenote reminder: I have told (you) specifically on countless occasions that there is no 'the' devil, that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal. But anyway.
My whole point has been and is to indicate that 'Lucifer' is not:
- Satan
- A specific entity
- A/the antichrist

It IS in fact
- An archetype
- A title
- A commonly used term given the timefram3

>>4832
>Really? You really think that's what was said?
I copied it directly from the text, so yes, Jesus is speaking in that line and is saying His name, Jesus, while using the pronoun "I". I don't understand this objection.
>Jesus is the Lucifer!
I thought Lucifer isn't a term that exists in the Bible though, with the true translation or something... I'm not sure which is the true translation if you both will agree that I have cast doubt on the translation you showed me and deny it was wrong. If it is correct, then we can't begin to use Lucifer as a term for Christ because that term was not used in the Bible, or we are affixing a term that is not used in the text...

Unless I am correct that Lucifer does mean "son of the dawn", followed up in that translation by star of the morning... which means that it is exchangeable in this text and is not inaccurate.

>Are you of the assumption that 'antichrist' refers to an individual?
No. If you bothered to read any of my other posts, I have expressly said that there are layers to the antichrist system, the primary revealed in Revelation as a sort of super nation, seven heads and ten horns, the ten horns referring to ten kings, three of which are usurped in the text, giving way to one, which is the typically understood figurehead of the antichrist system, the widely known as the antichrist, which is why there is confusion.

>we
>Slips aside
No slip is present either way. I meant in writing as a collective we for Christians that describe Lucifer. It also counts due to the fact that all Christians house the Holy Spirit within, which means regardless of the angle, that is the truth.

>there is no 'the' devil
The Bible points out several devils, also stated as being demons, but only attributes one the name Satan and says he is the devil. When you say you are reporting to the boss, you must be denying that your boss has a boss who has a boss, as the chain of command goes up.

No, rather there is a specified one being referred to, which is the fallen one that convinced all others to rebel.

>Uhm, where does it say that?
Did you read the text I provided? It is in the very text you brought up that you claim proves that Lucifer both doesn't exist in the text and is actually good and Christ at the same time. I will quote again.
"This directly connects to Isaiah 14:12-15
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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

How you are fallen. This is the fallen one, as Christ said, seen cast down like lightning, as I have already mentioned in the provided texts.

>Lucifer is a title of enlightenment, not a name
I already said that it was a title, which you quoted. However, you suggest that the title is incorrect, while also saying the title doesn't exist in the text. If the term Lucifer does exist, then your argument holds more weight because you can argue that the writer is saying he holds the title incorrectly.

But let's not forget "This 'suggests' that modern translators recognized the use of Lucifer was incorrect, and deliberately translated it otherwise." and >>4777
Which means you believe Lucifer was not in the text at all, meaning the argument the title was taken wrongly is abused, because the title is not present according to you. So, the argument must default to the content to determine what even is being talked about. We know he is talking to a king, which in not liked. So, if the text is referring only to him, and the title does not fit or exist, then why would the text give him the title while referring to the same falling as every other mention of Satan?

The most simple answer is that the author is calling the man one of the devils, possessed most likely, or at the very least claiming him to be. This would match the declaration against him, not giving him any worthy title, working as a parallel that the people understand, a fallen one like this son of the morning, morning star. Since when does the morning star fall? Would that not immediately break the metaphor? The mark of this insult is parallel.

>it references Satan transformed into an angel of light, as opposed to BEING one
Then it makes all the more sense for you to accept the adversary would take the title of enlightened one, which matched with a bright and morning star in this passage, if he is the great deceiver and enemy. Why would he not take to that immediately? He wants to be God and Jesus. Why would this title be sacred and cannot be in the hands of the biggest force against humanity? I am suggesting that this title was always his and his fall is what made that title ironic.

>that is why is it 'spirit of antichrist' and not 'of THE antichrist'
Correct, that is why when this head of the system I have already referred to in my various other posts comes, he will be the antichrist among antichrists, the boss among bosses. That is what "the" keeps referring to.
>NOT following a particular entity
2 Thessalonians 2:7-12
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with brightness of his coming. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

>>4833
Yes, there will be an entity at the head, a spokesman for Satan.

>Obviously it refers to a state of ignorance.
As you can see, that is only part of the equation.

>I'll throw out the fact that Christian scholars are shit at interpreting the Old Testament
You are making it too easy. This refutes your whole claim that there can be a more accurate Bible translation, especially in the modern era, as they clearly just don't understand what words to put there. They left out Lucifer by accident by your own logic.

>This is what I'm getting at in the first quotation, you're trying to have it both ways.
As are you, as something can't not exist in the text but also be a proof that Lucifer means Jesus. You have helped me see though that son of dawn, which is what they replaced Lucifer with, helps tie down even more positively that it must be what Lucifer means, which makes double sense as the angel was named that as he has to do with the dawn light,
combined with what we know from your push that it is enlightenment, means that Lucifer is indeed the self given title to the one that I have connected as the main human antagonist. And since that title was attached right by "the star of the morning", we have a best title for Satan: morning star, fallen one.

>Uhm, Lucifer is derived from latin, not hebrew.
Greek as well it seems. Copied from a wiki, so not fully accurate, but there is quite a bit of evidence that seems to support each other:
"In the Book of Isaiah, chapter 14, the king of Babylon is condemned in a prophetic vision by the prophet Isaiah and is called [hebrew] (Helel ben Shachar, Hebrew for "shining one, son of the morning"), who is addressed as [hebrew] (Hêlêl ben Šāḥar), The title "Helel ben Shahar" refers to the planet Venus as the morning star, and that is how the Hebrew word is usually interpreted. The Hebrew word transliterated as Hêlêl or Heylel, occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint renders [hebrew] in Greek as Ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), "bringer of dawn", the Ancient Greek name for the morning star. Similarly the Vulgate renders [hebrew] in Latin as Lucifer, the name in that language for the morning star. According to the King James Bible-based Strong's Concordance, the original Hebrew word means "shining one, light-bearer", and the English translation given in the King James text is the Latin name for the planet Venus, "Lucifer", as it was already in the Wycliffe Bible.

However, the translation of [hebrew] as "Lucifer" has been abandoned in modern English translations of Isaiah 14:12. Present-day translations render [hebrew] as "morning star" (New International Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, Complete Jewish Bible), "daystar" (New Jerusalem Bible, The Message), "Day Star" (New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version), "shining one" (New Life Version, New World Translation, JPS Tanakh), or "shining star" (New Living Translation).

Which fits the Greek/Latin translation that Lucifer was pulled from to make the early translations, which older Hebrew versions don't have because there was no title for son of dawn. Now we have even more assured proof that we are on track. There is a strong connection with Lucifer, the morning star, and Satan.

>Nor that. Thats a conclusion reached and purported by orthodoxy, and doesn't appear in the selected section. Isaiah had plenty to say, no need to put words into his mouth.
Correct, not in that text, but in the others I have shown, I have definitely made the case that Satan is connected to the spirit of antichrist, which will not confess Christ. So to say otherwise is disingenuous.

>Notice I don't contest there being an adversary, a fallen angel, etc. ad nauseum?
But he just can't have the title that he is known to possess?

>Satan is wrong too (its Yyaldabaoth) but it will suffice
Technically Jesus is wrong too, but it is the translated name. We use translated names to help us communicate. It is helpful when dealing with names of people from thousands of years ago in a dead tongue.

>Why? Because, while Lucifer is a title rightly reserved for Jesus it was (again that word) contemporaneously applied to advanced teachers, philosophers, builders, etc. Kind of like how there's a dime a dozen gurus out there who are described by their followers as enlightened. This is not the fault of the word, this is the fault of the people using it in ignorance.
And this is the major problem and why people hate that name tied to Jesus, as He is no mere philosopher, teacher, or builder. He is God incarnate. To say otherwise is to reject the foundations of the faith, for the death of a man, no matter how great, saves no one. If He does not atone, then there is no point to worship Him. If He did not raise from the dead, then neither will we. Then what are you left with? Utter uselessness. To deny the divinity and works of Christ is to deny the existence of the whole, because there is nothing to be gained from the words of a dead deity, for we serve the true and living God.

I suppose it is hard to understand, but you are suggesting that Jesus is simply wise is the foundational problem and why there is a massive battle we are having in the first place. If you are correct, then why do you fight for this title? What is the point of a Lucifer if there is no Christ? What is the point in knowledge if there is no life beyond this? What is the point in seeking the best when the worst is all that shall be rewarded in life?

>>4834
Apparently the hebrew I tried to reference is seen by the spam filter as me attempting Zaldo text

>>4834
>You were so close! Jesus is the Lucifer! The light bearer! The resplendent amidst darkness and ignorance! The unstoppable force! (btw, the immovable object is entropy)
There are diametrically opposing world views and are incompatible, which is perhaps why you care at all what this old book says about a title that you believe isn't even in it. Otherwise, if you truly believed it was all just different interpretations of the same truth, you would just accept it as one way of looking at it. But it is true, and you fight for the use and honor of a word that is meaningless to anyone other than the religiously studied.

Jesus isn't the light bearer. He is the light, the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come before the Father but through Him. He doesn't fight ignorance, though it is a product of those that refuse to follow the light, He has come to seek and to save that which is lost.

Isaiah 53:6-12
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death: because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief; when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

This means that Christ deserved royalty, but took a lowly life, declared who He was, and was killed for it, all according to the plan. For He didn't die just to say something smart. He didn't die to have people reach enlightenment. He died so all can be guiltless before God and enter into His presence. This is the fundamental reason Luciferianism cannot be supported, as a smart man, a good man, and a charitable man will all go to the same place, the grave. After that is the judgement. If you believe in no afterlife, then enlightenment is of little value. If there is, then does that enlightenment grant you access? Is it a scale of arbitrary weight of good to access? Or is it the truth, that no one gets in without sending the innocent to die willingly to cover their sin, as the weight of one sin alone tips the scales, of which all are guilty? And since all are guilty, that means no one can die for another to get in, save there was someone that was sent that was innocent. This is Jesus, Son of God, the Word made flesh, the anointed one promised to take the sin of the world away.

And now all may enter heaven. They only need to believe.

I probably didn't reply to each point and I probably didn't make everything super clear, but it is late and I got more things to do. I'll tack on some more if I look back and facepalm at something obvious I missed.

>>4774
the correllation of "shining one, son of morning" is in the original text directly though. The guy in the video isn't using the right reference tools, picrel has the strong's entry for that word that he had google translated to "greatly praised".

on brief searching, the latin "lucifer" appears to refer to venus (the morning star) in the same way this passage seems to.

The interesting thing to me though is that Jesus says he is the bright morning star in revelation (greek picrel). It's not clear to me what the meaning is between the contrasting uses of the similar imagery.

Aside from the translation stuff, what exactly are you trying to say about that name and its connotations? You mentioned it's pursuit of enlightenment as in eastern traditions? I don't understand how that's related to the Word at all. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that stuff?

Can you explain Deuteronomy 25:11-12

>>4838
It is self-explanatory. It is one of the laws. Very specific, but nothing further to explain.

>>4837
What are you referring to as 'the original texts', and why arent translations being derived from that?
>the guy isnt using the right reference tools
Back at you
>Venus
Yea! So glad you mentioned it! Strange correlation, you might think. The Star of the Morning just happens to be the Greco-Roman deity of femininity.
Who was cast (down) from the divine trinity.
Ill avoid getting sidetracked with that tangent, but yes; Lucifer (as the son of morning and NOT 'the adversary') is literally referencing the otherwise wrongfully cadtigated and defamed divine feminine aspect.
>can you elaborate
Of course, Ive alreafy begun. It will take me some time however. I mean, its well enough for me to reference my findings, but thats little use to the observer.

But to simply summarize.

Long before Christianity, many of the practices and teachings of Christianity went by the term that was applicable at the time. This term (through translations from okder dialects and traditions) was Luciferianism, or the tradition that sought and exhalted Lucifer, the bearer of knowledge/wisdom, resplendent light, etc. Aside from specofic details, Christianity is the younger 'brother' of Luciferianism, and when the Bible is adequately decoded (its an occult text with encrypted text, like/recognize it or not) they work seamlessly and in harmony.
The problem is that evil and avaricious individuals have been given carte blanche over Christendom, and have done of/with it what they will.
The God-figure in thebgarden of Eden was/is not God.
THATS Yyaldabaofh, who commanded that humanity stagnate in ignorance (literally forbidden to partake in the fruit of knowledge).
Lucifer/Jesus WAS the serpent that emancipated them through Eve (funny how much creation the female is respknsible for, and yet omitted from Christian recognition).
Ill come back to/for the rest.

>>4840
I go by the Bible directly, and it says who the Creator is and who my Savior is quite clearly. luci aint it bro
Proverbs 1:7a
יראת יהוה ראשית דעת

>>4841
Thank you for openly admitting that your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book, a veritably new fan-fiction based on far older (and more pure) traditions. Congratulations, you have chosen willful ignorance (read: literally the spirit of the antichrist).

>>4842
>Thank you for openly admitting that your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book,
Yup. It is not about reason, but faith.

A quick addendum:
My point is and has been to emphasize that 'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia, however the fact remains that 'Jesus' is the name given to (the) Lucifer by Judeo-Christendom.

>>4843
>ignorance is faith
Textbook antichristian

>>4845
>ignorance
Well, you are proposing "illuminism" aka "enlightment which means you consider that christians are in the darkness. It is your opinion.
On the other hoof, the consequences of that moral relativism brought by the "renaissance" are in full display today. So I will pass.

>>4844
>My point is and has been to emphasize that 'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype
According to the Bible that won't fly.

>>4844
>Judeo-Christendom
Huh? Do you know that Judeo is the anti-thesis of Christendom.
Judeo is defined by the rejection of Christ, so it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>4846
Enlightenment is what Christos meant. The Christ is the person who had achieved Christos.
>which means you consider that christians are in the darkness
Do I? Whether a person is of the antichrist (willfully ignorant) is specific to the individual. I consider individuals who are Christian and willfully ignorant just as much of the antichrist as non Christians who do likewise. Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry, idgaf what flavor a person calls themselves.
>the rennaissance
Such as?
>>4847
As I said, willful ignorance, which is of the antichrost.

>>4848
Whered the Old Testament come from bucko?

>>4850
>>4844
>Bucko
>Judeo-Christian
Hello jordan peterson.

>>4849
>Enlightenment is what Christos meant.
Nope, it refers a historical period after the middle ages.

>the rennaissance
>Such as?
Get a book about general history. It has no point to engage with you if you are at k-12 level.

>>4851
No retort but Ad Hominem? Cant say the jews eh? Cant acknowledge that the old testament is the exact same book as the Torah? Cant acknowledge that Christendom is inexorably tied to Judaism?
>>4852
>Nope, it refers a historical period after the middle ages.
<Enlightenment as a concept has ONLY existed in the last 600 years. NO ONE EVER has had such a tradition in all of history. No civilizations, cultures, or groups EVER pursued enlightenment - nevermind all the etymological origins of words - outside the 16th century
o_o
>>4852
>resorts to insults
I see, you're so dogmatic that you'd rather engage in insults rather than validate one of the vaguest statements ITT. Very anti-Christian of you.

>>4853
You can do better. I'm confident in your eloquence.

>>4854
You're right I could but pearls before swine, after all.

>>4842
>your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book
precisely. otherwise, I would not be adhering to Christ, who is the revealed Word.

cryptic knowledge is a false idol. I'm not even sure what you're seeking by "enlightenment". in any case, you're advocating for the dissolution of what anchors Christianity, turning it instead into a formless and shifting eastern mysticism blob.
I've felt the pull of it before, and it's the junk food of spirituality. Much of the Bible feels "mundane" and "boring" rather than giving dopamine highs by reading it, but when you spend actual time reading it then it's powerful and active in and through you. This contrasts with mysticism of many kinds, which feel like a dopamine rush as you seek things, but despite spending lots of time and getting high off it, there's really no substance to it practically. Same difference between eating healthy meals vs eating junk food as your only food.

>>4860
Before we continue, what orthodoxy and/or denomination to you prescribe to?
>cryptic knowledge
Theres nothing cryptic about it, if one has done their homework
>you're advocating for the dissolution of what anchors Christianity
Wrong again, Im advocating for the dissolution of the authoritarian devotion to a fable that was intended to convey meaning before it was wrested and corrupted into a tyrrannical doctrine of 'believe and do what you're told', as has happened with Christianity (not exclusively).
>Much of the Bible feels "mundane" and "boring" rather than giving dopamine highs by reading it
Sorry, but thats simply not true, at least in my experience. Just because interpret the word differently than you doesnt mean I dont respect the work. What I DONT resprect is the blind and fanatical devotion that has developed generationally, which could only occurr once the masses have been so far removed from the meanings and concepts that what is false is readily purported as true.
I know all about the 'religious experience', its one of my favorite states to experience. The problem is, religious experiences can be induced and people can be conditioned to believe and feel gratified in the pursuit of ideas that are patently false, and the ignorance of history (or anything, if it contests the rather infantile level of due diligence applied in critical analysis) is observably and conclusively anti-Jesus.
>This contrasts with mysticism of many kinds, which feel like a dopamine rush as you seek things
Then you were doing it wrong, because metaphysics is anything BUT exciting and dopamine-inducing. Its like reading an encyclopedia. One doesnt do it because its fun, exciting, or dopamine-stimulating, one does it because it leads to a greater level of comprehension and understanding. Metaphysics is pretty boring tbh, but the ends are worth the effort.
>Healthy food vs. junk food
Good choice of metaphor, but not for the reasons you suggest.
Which is more 'junk food'?
In one practice, one does what they are told, 'eats' what they are told to 'eat', and spends their life a supplicant.
In another, one realizes that they are responsible for their own actions beyond the dictates of men or books (read: learns to self regulate, independently), and 'eats' progressively healthier as they come to comprehend better ingredients, different ways of preparing the food, etc, while also developing their skills of preparing said food.
One practice involves stagnation and arrested development (read: increasing entropy) and one involves emergence and self actualization (read: increasing affinity).

>>4861
sorry, I just don't see it that way. I do obey Jesus, who is in direct authority over me. I see no problem with that. It is precisely the arrogance written about for the shining star of morning passage which seeks to elevate the individual to an equal authority as God. It's a self-idolatry trap.

>>4864
And you're entitled to that position.
On the contrary, I exalt Jesus/Lucifer as the source of my emergence. However, I dont do what men tell me I 'must'.