John 14:7, Jesus associates Himself with the Pater, 'father', and says He's the manifestation

[blü 2]

Metaphor or Literal - what do you think?

Isaiah 14:12-15 New King James Version (NKJV)
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

If you look at Isaiah 14:4 you'll see that it gives instructions for the correct use of these verses. That is, it says,
"You will take up this taunt against the King of Babylon". It's simply a gloat against someone you don't like, who's come to grief. Michael Cohen might suit as a parallel.

Ezekiel 28:14-16 New King James Version (NKJV)
“You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

“By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.

Same thing: For the instructions, consult Ezekiel 18:1 ─ "Say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord". Think of razzing, say, Paul Manafort.

 

[MJFlores]

If you look at Isaiah 14:4 you'll see that it gives instructions for the correct use of these verses. That is, it says,
"You will take up this taunt against the King of Babylon". It's simply a gloat against someone you don't like, who's come to grief. Michael Cohen might suit as a parallel.

Same thing: For the instructions, consult Ezekiel 18:1 ─ "Say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord". Think of razzing, say, Paul Manafort.

Hmmm....King of Babaylon named Lucifer?

I'm lost and you got me in a box here. Maybe I need Michael John Avenatti services?

 

[Desert Snake]

Metaphor or Literal - what do you think?

Isaiah 14:12-15 New King James Version (NKJV)
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my

If you look at Isaiah 14:4 you'll see that it gives instructions for the correct use of these verses. That is, it says,
"You will take up this taunt against the King of Babylon". It's simply a gloat against someone you don't like, who's come to grief. Michael Cohen might suit as a parallel.

Same thing: For the instructions, consult Ezekiel 18:1 ─ "Say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord". Think of razzing, say, Paul Manafort.

This type of usage parallels something I've noted in actuality, though it's more serious than just a remark.

 

[blü 2]

Hmmm....King of Babaylon named Lucifer?

I'm lost and you got me in a box here. Maybe I need Michael John Avenatti services?

The taunt is that the king of Babylon (probably Nebuchadnezzar) was so filled with pride that he would liken himself to the morning star ('the day star' in the Hebrew), and his fall was correspondingly from very high right to the ground.

The Septuagint translates it by the Greek name for Venus as the morning star, Phosphorous, literally, 'bringer of light', and the Vulgate renders that by its Latin equivalent, Lucifer, also meaning 'bringer of light'. Jesus is called 'Lucifer' in the Vulgate at Revelation 22:16.

 

[blü 2]

This type of usage parallels something I've noted in actuality, though it's more serious than just a remark.

It's a big gloat.

By the way, I trust you got some benefit from those bible quotes of Jesus saying he's not God, and Paul saying Jesus is not God?

 

[Desert Snake]

The Septuagint translates it by the Greek name for Venus as the morning star, Phosphorous, literally, 'bringer of light', and the Vulgate renders that by its Latin equivalent, Lucifer, also meaning 'bringer of light'. Jesus is called 'Lucifer' in the Vulgate at Revelation 22:16.

You also have 'son of Lucifer', for Jesus, though. [In the latin spiel,

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a big gloat.

By the way, I trust you got some benefit from those bible quotes of Jesus saying he's not God, and Paul saying Jesus is not God?

It seems to me like there is more than one usage, or idea. Lucifer as a fallen angel is just noted as a being with his own kingdom, so forth, then the more serious association, which can mean demon worship in the worst sense, so forth. Same words used, not really the same idea.

 

[MJFlores]

The taunt is that the king of Babylon (probably Nebuchadnezzar) was so filled with pride that he would liken himself to the morning star ('the day star' in the Hebrew), and his fall was correspondingly from very high right to the ground.

The Septuagint translates it by the Greek name for Venus as the morning star, Phosphorous, literally, 'bringer of light', and the Vulgate renders that by its Latin equivalent, Lucifer, also meaning 'bringer of light'. Jesus is called 'Lucifer' in the Vulgate at Revelation 22:16.

I know Lucifer was the name of Satan before the fall
Perhaps some of the verses in Isa 14 belongs to the King of Babylon
particularly no. 3-11

But the thought shifted to Lucifer on 12-15

If the King of Babylon have an alias like Lucifer then I would have to concede

What does Lucifer's name mean?
A name, traditional in Christianity, for the leader of the devils, an angel who was cast from heaven into hell because he rebelled against God. Lucifer is usually identified with Satan. The name Lucifer, which means “bearer of light” or “morning star,” refers to his former splendor as the greatest of the angels.
the definition of lucifer

 

[blü 2]

It seems to me like there is more than one usage, or idea. Lucifer as a fallen angel is just noted as a being with his own kingdom, so forth, then the more serious association, which can mean demon worship in the worst sense, so forth. Same words used, not really the same idea.

Sure. It's just the way mythmaking works. Like coming back to life ─ there are several resurrections in the Tanakh, and countless examples in the Greek myths &c.

But I'm curious to know whether you found those quotes helpful, where Jesus says out loud that he's not God, and Paul agrees.

The Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till late in the 4th century; and the churches call it 'a mystery in the strict sense' which is a polite way of saying 1+1+1=1 is an untenable statement ie that the doctrine is incoherent. It's also silly ─ it would also mean that Jesus, being 100% of God, is his own father, as is the Father, who's also 100% of God, just as the Ghost is, meaning that the Father has no better claim to being called 'the Father' than Jesus or the Ghost do. And it requires Jesus on the cross to cry out, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

And so much more.

 

[blü 2]

I know Lucifer was the name of Satan before the fall

That's in legend. The Tanakh says nothing of the kind.

Then again, the Tanakh says nothing of the Fall, indeed specifically rules out original sin at some length in Ezekiel 18, not least verse 20.

Perhaps some of the verses in Isa 14 belongs to the King of Babylon
particularly no. 3-11

Nope. It's simply not about any villain other than the fallen King of Babylon.

If the King of Babylon have an alias like Lucifer then I would have to concede

This is the taunting of the fallen king that says he used to think he was so high he was the morning star and now he's in the mud so there!

What does Lucifer's name mean?

The morning star is the planet Venus in the morning as seen from Earth. In Isaiah's Hebrew here it's called the 'day star'. When translated into Greek in the Septuagint, it was called by the Greek name for the same thing, the planet Venus (morning version) 'phosphorous' ('phos' light + pherein 'to carry' = 'bringer of light') which gets translated into Latin in the Vulgate by the Latin name for, once again, Venus (morning version) Lucifer ('lux' light + ferre 'to carry' = 'bringing of light' just as in Greek).

After that we're into myths (where the author of Revelation 12:7-12 has a lot to answer for, though John Milton thought it was a good yarn.)

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure. It's just the way mythmaking works. Like coming back to life ─ there are several resurrections in the Tanakh, and countless examples in the Greek myths &c.

But I'm curious to know whether you found those quotes helpful, where Jesus says out loud that he's not God, and Paul agrees.

The Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till late in the 4th century; and the churches call it 'a mystery in the strict sense' which is a polite way of saying 1+1+1=1 is an untenable statement ie that the doctrine is incoherent. It's also silly ─ it would also mean that Jesus, being 100% of God, is his own father, as is the Father, who's also 100% of God, just as the Ghost is, meaning that the Father has no better claim to being called 'the Father' than Jesus or the Ghost do. And it requires Jesus on the cross to cry out, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

And so much more.

Isn't that why we're discussing scripture in the first place? Like, what do those verses in John, mean, if theres a trinity? What do they mean, if as you claim, Jesus or Yeshua is just an average teacher? Pretty weird inferences if Jesus is a typical Jew, judaism, don't you think...
Different religious context, an deity that wasn't known? What?

So, I don't believe the answers are quite what you are making them out to be.

 

[Desert Snake]

That being said, all the verses in the book of John probably can be interpreted in a manner that correlates to the basic premise,
John 1:10
John 1:1-12

 

[blü 2]

Isn't that why we're discussing scripture in the first place? Like, what do those verses in John, mean, if theres a trinity?

Let me spell it out again.

There is no concept of a Trinity in the NT. Jesus in all five versions is the servant and envoy of God, is not God, and never claims to be God.

That's the value of the quotes I set out.

There is no Trinity doctrine in Christianity until the later 4th century CE.

So (given there was an historical Jesus) he'd never heard of it. He was a circumcised Jew and his god was the god of the Tanakh, who since about the 5th cent BCE had been the one and only true god Yahweh.

(Before that he'd been a member of the Canaanite/Semitic pantheon, and freely acknowledged that there were other gods ─ Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 29:1, 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 &c.)

 

[Desert Snake]

The Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till late in the 4th century; and the churches call it 'a mystery in the strict sense' which is a polite way of saying 1+1+1=1 is an untenable statement ie that the doctrine is incoherent. It's also silly ─ it would also mean that Jesus, being 100% of God, is his own father, as is the Father, who's also 100% of God, just as the Ghost is, meaning that the Father has no better claim to being called 'the Father' than Jesus or the Ghost do. And it requires Jesus on the cross to cry out, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

And so much more.

It's actually, 'G'd , G'd, why have you forsaken me', then interpreted as 'father why have you firsaken...'

So, that means something, because those are different.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let me spell it out again.

There is no concept of a Trinity in the NT. Jesus in all five versions is the servant and envoy of God, is not God, and never claims to be God.

That's the value of the quotes I set out.

There is no Trinity doctrine in Christianity until the later 4th century CE.

So (given there was an historical Jesus) he'd never heard of it. He was a circumcised Jew and his god was the god of the Tanakh, who since about the 5th cent BCE had been the one and only true god Yahweh.

(Before that he'd been a member of the Canaanite/Semitic pantheon, and freely acknowledged that there were other gods ─ Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 29:1, 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 &c.)

Why do you keep arguing about the trinity? There is more than one trinity concept, there is something called Modalism, and you aren't explaining various verses that contradict your premise.

'Trinity' is inferred from the text, Modalism can also be argued from the text, the later church didn't invent the basis of belief that informs ""christianity"", get over it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let me spell it out again.

There is no concept of a Trinity in the NT. Jesus in all five versions is the servant and envoy of God, is not God, and never claims to be God.

That's the value of the quotes I set out.

Except they're wrong. Jesus places Himself, 'higher than the angels', that's G- d. Higher than the g- ds of the nations.
The only thing higher than the angels, is G- d.
If you understood Biblical or even Judaism modern judaism, theology, you would know that. It's a monotheistic religion paradigm, therefore, a triune, because of other text inferred religious belief, or, just complete modalism, as I mentioned.

 

[Desert Snake]

(Before that he'd been a member of the Canaanite/Semitic pantheon, and freely acknowledged that there were other gods ─ Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 29:1, 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 &c.)

Academically,
""Christianity""
Is older than 'judaism', ie """mythically""", your arguments aren't "non' religious', and Jesus could be within a different religious grouping, than the Pharisees, even though He was Jewish.

By the way, Jesus didn't practice modern judaism, and that idea is messing your arguments up.

 

[blü 2]

It's actually, 'G'd , G'd, why have you forsaken me', then interpreted as 'father why have you firsaken...'

So, that means something, because those are different.

No, it doesn't change the essential point I'm making ─ if Jesus is God then how on earth can he forsake himself when it's time for him to die as he'd planned all along?

 

[Desert Snake]

You don't know the religious context, you don't know the 'purely academic' context, and you aren't arguing via the text. [Jesus is literally called G- d in the texts. Words. Literal words.

There's nothing to disagree with, except some random statements.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it doesn't change the essential point I'm making ─ if Jesus is God then how on earth can he forsake himself when it's time for him to die as he'd planned all along?

Right.

Except Jesus says a name for God, and it' isn't father.

Something you should have asked your church, right? I didn't write the Bible. By the way, it was interpreted and written, 'father why have you forsaken...' are you changing your argument?

No problem if you are, just need that clarification.