Conspiracy of the Century...Jesus and Lucifer, One and the Same!

reply to post by WickettheRabbit

Look no one know exactly what Jesus said, and being as men in those days were mostly illiterate, only the Jewish Priests know how to read and write. Nothing was written about him until 70 years after he "died." (Read that spirited off by the Jewish underground) The Roman Piso Family authored the New Testament, This was written about the year 75 CE.

So even if Christ did spread the gospel, (means "good news") how pray tell can we possible know what it was?

reply to post by autowrench


Good and evil is man made. What is good to one is evil to another. There is a flip side to each coin, there also must be at least 2 choices for each 1 choice that we are given. There cannot be light without dark and there cannot be good without evil. There are common laws however that were made when our universe was made. Our universe is made from positive/negative, light/dark, matter/antimatter, happy/sad, good/evil. A "good" man/woman can be turned "evil" just as easily as an "evil" man/woman turned "good". If "God" is everything, would he not also be "good" and "evil" at the sametime? If "God" sends people to "hell" and "heaven" does that not mean he is both? is not "wrath" anger, and isn't anger the opposite of happy?

www.merriam-webster.com...

reply to post by Lawgiver

Why yes, you make perfect sense here, Lawgiver. You take a collection of writing written in Ancient Hebrew, then translate that into Greek. then it is translated into Latin, the language of the Holy Roman Church, which still to the day has a sinister agenda. then, and only then is it translated into English, and has been altered many times since.

Now we all know something is always lost in translation. That is where the saying came from. So how can any intelligent person, knowing this, still call the Bible the "Word of God?"

The bible was written a couple of decades after the death of 'Jesus'. I've got a few questions:

The names Mark, John, Paul, Luke e.t.c were not used during the time of Christ, They were translated, why translate names? What were their real names?

If the bible is the word of God then why the hell is it written by the apostles and characters like Paul? In their own words?

I don't believe Jesus is Lucifer although i really do not know what to call the two anymore, lol.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
You certainly seem to have a distaste for Christians...especially for the fundementalist sort. It strikes me that your argument to make Christ as Lucifer goes well beyond the academic and scriptural, and crosses almost to contempt.

I am curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that the OP was acting in contempt? This discussion is rooted in FACT. To my knowledge nobody is claiming anything derogatory against Jesus Christ. (other than the OP not believing in the Christian aspect of region)

Sadly, as a mason, I had to learn all about this argument because of the type of Christians you speak of.

I think this is just one more evidence that too many men have tampered with and corrupted "scripture" for it to be used for anything other than a guidebook. If it is any representation of the real God, then it is a poor one at best.

Somehow, I doubt that God, Jesus, or the devil himself would step forward to take credit for any religious manuscripts on earth. Let alone the bible.

BTW. This is an interesting read on this topic, and may add to what the OP has already layed out.

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. I had to sit back into a cotton bean bag chair and take a moment before continuing. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Lucifer=Latin

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by WickettheRabbit

 

Look no one know exactly what Jesus said, and being as men in those days were mostly illiterate, only the Jewish Priests know how to read and write. Nothing was written about him until 70 years after he "died." (Read that spirited off by the Jewish underground) The Roman Piso Family authored the New Testament, This was written about the year 75 CE.

So even if Christ did spread the gospel, (means "good news") how pray tell can we possible know what it was?

You sound very confident of your knowledge on the subject but I think maybe you need to do more research.

Polycarp of Smyrna
Irenaeus
Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine

As for your theory about Christ and Lucifer being the same... rubbish.

reply to post by reeferman

I most certainly agree, millions have been viciously tortured and burned in the name of Jesus, and probably just as many put to the Sword by the Priests with the Conquistadors, not to mention that all of their scared texts were burned, because they were "Pagan." We as a people would know a great deal more than we do now if we had these today. I myself always wondered....so many killed in the name of Jesus, not one killed in the name of Lucifer, or Satan. Guess who the good guys are?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
If so and this is of the Brightest then verify how Satan the darkest of angels fits in? Or does some consider Satan and Lu ci fa same and if so now how does this add to Lu ci being Christ and not a worker of Christ. Again where did Satan come from... GUESS HE JUST DOESNT EXIST AGAIN

How can anyone still trust the Bible as a source of good information? I say again, not one person alive know what Jesus said, or what Jesus did. If so, please, show them to this thread, and set me straight.

reply to post by GeechQuestInfo


Oh, it's real alright. Real Extortion, Real Lies, Real Mind Control, Real Brainwashing of Children. Need me to explain the extortion? Give 10% of your wages or go to Hell.

Originally posted by Klassified
I think this is just one more evidence that too many men have tampered with and corrupted "scripture" for it to be used for anything other than a guidebook. If it is any representation of the real God, then it is a poor one at best.

Somehow, I doubt that God, Jesus, or the devil himself would step forward to take credit for any religious manuscripts on earth. Let alone the bible.

I agree with this. I will give my not very unpopular opinion on it and say I feel the Bible is a great guide to live life by. It has some great stories in it, some may even be true, but some, may just be lessons allegorically told. To believe that it could ever be 100% truth when it was written by man, and translated many times with things omitted and changed just seems wrong. But I believe the best guide for our mortal souls overall.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


If you are addressing me, friend, I didn't just make this up, it's all over the Internet, some 42,000 hits. I am only the messenger here, don't blame me if your assumptions were wrong, guess you should have performed a little research, like I did. Research is easy....www.bing.com... Just type in what you wan to know.

just my two cents here:

1. in Job Lucifer is an astronomical reference.

2. in Isaiah Lucifer = the king of Babylon whose fall is being predicted

Your theory is flawed.

Here is why:

Job 38 verse 7

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Morning star is not a term that is entirely specific to only one individual. As you can see, the term is pluralized in this passage indicating that there is more than one.

reply to post by WickettheRabbit


I agree also..

I once asked decades ago a priest why Jesus refers to himself in that manner "the bright and shining Morning Star".. if this also describes Lucifer..

all I got was some BS about Jesus being better than Satan.. which once again to me seems like giving human characteristics to God, specifically pride in this case...

regardless .. it looks to me as if this mistranslation is the line of thinking Masons take when seeking "light".."further light" etc... in that the "light" being sought after is not Satan but

a good "God" or "Great Architect" as they describe it..

So then ..

.."Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the son of the morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with it's splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!" Morals and Dogma page 321

becomes a good thing to strive to find.. as explained again by Albert Pike 33°

"That which we must say to a crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees - The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay whose deeds prove his cruelty, perdify and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil." Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive in La Femme et l'Enfant dans la FrancMaconnerie Universelle on page 588

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
If so and this is of the Brightest then verify how Satan the darkest of angels fits in? Or does some consider Satan and Lu ci fa same and if so now how does this add to Lu ci being Christ and not a worker of Christ. Again where did Satan come from... GUESS HE JUST DOESNT EXIST AGAIN

How can anyone still trust the Bible as a source of good information? I say again, not one person alive know what Jesus said, or what Jesus did. If so, please, show them to this thread, and set me straight.

So... if Jesus didn't exist than why are you claiming that Jesus and Lucifer are one in the same?

I'm confused....

reply to post by autowrench


not to knitpick.

but should this be labeled the conspiracy of the last the millenia?

just saying.

IMO one should be warry of all people who tell them how to live their lives. Im not saying theres no one out there with good advice, but the final say should come from you.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
If so and this is of the Brightest then verify how Satan the darkest of angels fits in? Or does some consider Satan and Lu ci fa same and if so now how does this add to Lu ci being Christ and not a worker of Christ. Again where did Satan come from... GUESS HE JUST DOESNT EXIST AGAIN

How can anyone still trust the Bible as a source of good information? I say again, not one person alive know what Jesus said, or what Jesus did. If so, please, show them to this thread, and set me straight.

So... if Jesus didn't exist than why are you claiming that Jesus and Lucifer are one in the same?

I'm confused....

It is not my claim, please refrain from making me the author, although I really wish i were!

Hey, I, nor anyone else, can say for certain that either one ever lived. Perhaps it is all made up? Perhaps the Annunaki saw fit to teach religion to man/womankind to assert control over them, and to keep them thinned out by constant fighting, even up to today? I know if I were the leader of a group who came upon a planet such as ours, and created for myself some slaves, then made them able to bear their own kind....then I was going away, I would really want a way to keep them from overrunning the world, I would teach one group that I am this God, and another group I was that God, and so on. To keep them in line, a powerful enemy would have to be invented, and that way when I returned, I might find those people I left just like....us. Make sense?

reply to post by autowrench


But the research itself is flawed. Whether you are the researcher or not, is not the point.

Job 38

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

The whole argument is based on the usage of the term "morning star" and the characters being to referred to as such, but we can see in the above passage the "morning star" is not an exclusive term.

reply to post by autowrench


I agree. Nobody can verify that anything that is written in the Bible OR any of the people/characters in the Bible actually existed, other than the historical kings and whatnot. So why are we debating?

This is, again, like asking if Gandalf was actually Sauron.