Lucifer, the Man. (Jesus, Earth, Kingdom, tradition, soul)

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by Random

The Bible does not support that equation, and traditions based upon popular misconceptions, however popular and binding the might be psychologically, should be scrapped if one believes in @ least attempting to transmit the truth.

Why is tradition more absurd than Holy Books?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Frank Castle

"Prometheus," the Titans, the Nephilim's, yes the Giants but how? Fallen Angels and earthly women, you must elaborate?

It is, frankly, too in-depth to get into here. Check out the Book of Enoch. Try to discern how this relates to the Greek, Sumerian and Babylonian Myths, follow the lead from OT to New and you will get there. It's not easy, but worth it. You're essentially right, remember that; Lucifer was a human male.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Darkness

Why is tradition more absurd than Holy Books?

Good question. I suppose that they're not to people on the ground (so to speak), but the idea is supposed to be that the books are Authoritative. And the books don't support the combination of "Lucifer" and "Satan" as the same being/entity. That's because it is made clear Isaiah's criticisms of Lucifer were aimed @ a human, the Babylonian king of his time, not a supernatural being or fallen angel.

[Frank Castle]

Originally Posted by Random

It is, frankly, too in-depth to get into here. Check out the Book of Enoch. Try to discern how this relates to the Greek, Sumerian and Babylonian Myths, follow the lead from OT to New and you will get there. It's not easy, but worth it. You're essentially right, remember that; Lucifer was a human male.

Greek Gods, like Zeus, and his father Cronus, and Aphrodite, Ares, Hermes, yes I know of scriptures in the secrets of Enoch that resembles these names.

But you must give me alittle more, Random.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Frank Castle

But you must give me a little more, Random.

I can't. People here already think I'm confused and confusing, and I'll only get confused myself trying to show you and everyone else how not-confused/confusing it and me are. I have the information, but not the communication skills - classic bad combo.

Anyway, if you know the secrets of Enoch, you should be away in a hack with the whole Luci-fer thing. The symbolism of the figure as the male Venus (lover of Venus?) is very important, the link to Rome thru the gods too. You're nearly there, I'd guess...

Keep going. I can only give encouragement @ this stage, sorry if that's isn't enough.

[Frank Castle]

Originally Posted by Random

I can't. People here already think I'm confused and confusing, and I'll only get confused myself trying to show you and everyone else how not-confused/confusing it and me are. I have the information, but not the communication skills - classic bad combo.

Yes, it is alittle confusing trying not to be confused, knowing that it would be confusing for you trying to communicate without being confused.

The following are verses from the book of Secrets; On the first uppermost circle I placed the stars, Kruno, and on the second Aphrodit, on the third Aris, on the fifth Zoues, on the sixth Ermis.

They do sound extremely simlar, albeit the spelling, but it still doesn't bring us closer to who Lucifer was in scriptural history!

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Random

If Lucifer were a title for an old matriarchal superhero, this might make sense. If that title had been adopted by pagan kings, such as of Babylonia, who were considered by their people incarnations of the god, it would make even more sense. But...I digress. Remember, the Jewish religion, Scripturally, was Babylonian; that's where the Talmud comes from, created there by exiles. And "Babylon" is also code for a mystery religion itself, so...

It makes sense if the Jews, stewing in their resentful juices in Babylon and having been exposed to Babylonian customs, used a Babylonian term to refer to a Babylonian king. The word "Lucifer" simply means "son of light" or "bright star". Rhetorically, and in the context of the passage, it seems to be doing what I said it was doing.

The Jewish religion was entirely distinct from the Babylonian. When they went to Babylon as exiles, the Jews didn't happily adopt the religion of their oppressors. They may have used the religious language of that rival religion, but that doesn't mean that their religion was based on that rival. It's frequently the case that rival religions use each other's language to subvert the rival, not accommodate to it. And I'd argue that's what's happening in this case.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by Random

Good question. I suppose that they're not to people on the ground (so to speak), but the idea is supposed to be that the books are Authoritative. And the books don't support the combination of "Lucifer" and "Satan" as the same being/entity. That's because it is made clear Isaiah's criticisms of Lucifer were aimed @ a human, the Babylonian king of his time, not a supernatural being or fallen angel.

Tradition has given us many great mythologies. The rich demonology of Christianity is the perfect example or the majesty of the Catholic Mass.

[Sk8Joyful]

Lucifer, the Man.

Originally Posted by Frank Castle

But Jesus is well known, so obviously it is someone else, but who?

Lucifer was just a man, no Angel nor Satan, still who was he, those who seek truth,
help me seek this one.

Lucifer is an angel.