Religious Zealotry and its Inherent Hypocrisy Towards Masonry

reply to post by NarrowGate

And who is Moloch again?

An Ammonite(Semitic/Caananite)-Deity, not related to either of them. However, by all means, keep adding 2 + 2 and getting potatoes.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Venus was known to ancient civilizations both as the "morning star" and as the "evening star", names that reflect the early understanding that these were two separate objects. The Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, dated 1581 BC, shows the Babylonians understood the two were a single object, referred to in the tablet as the "bright queen of the sky", and could support this view with detailed observations.[90] The Greeks thought of the two as separate stars, Phosphorus and Hesperus, until the time of Pythagoras in the sixth century BC.[91] The Romans designated the morning aspect of Venus as Lucifer, literally "Light-Bringer", and the evening aspect as Vesper.

Yep; but of course..You are gonna have a fat lot of people, completely throw out common sense in favor of religious zealotry...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I never said it was in the Bible did I? You two sure do like each other. Maybe I should give you some privacy.

Lucifer is a name for Satan before his fall. It is what people call Lucifer. Nothing more, nothing less. A term to describe something. Definitely does not describe Jesus, and Satan does appear as the "angel of light" so I can see how light bringer would indicated that.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Lucifer is a name for Satan before his fall.

And where did this defintion come from? Please link some documentation or evidence.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Lucifer is a name for Satan before his fall.

And where did this defintion come from? Please link some documentation or evidence.

It is just a term that people started using centuries ago and still do. dictionary.reference.com...

Lu·ci·fer /ˈlusəfər/ Show Spelled [loo-suh-fer] Show IPA noun 1. a proud, rebellious archangel, identified with Satan, who fell from heaven. 2. the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star. 3. ( lowercase ) friction match.

reply to post by NarrowGate


Dictionary.com is hearsay......Backed by nothing but mistranslations of a dogmatic religion, compared to factual archaeological evidence..

reply to post by NarrowGate


I would also like to mention that the passage concerning Lucifer in the bible as Heylel or Helel, appeared only ONCE.....

and

Traditionalist Rabbis often rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels, having a view that evil is abstract.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Dictionary.com is hearsay......Backed by nothing but mistranslations of a dogmatic religion, compared to factual archaeological evidence..

The point is the name refers to Satan. Period. It is what the name is used for. To call Lucifer Jesus is to show your true colors were done.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

I would also like to mention that the passage concerning Lucifer in the bible as Heylel or Helel, appeared only ONCE.....

and

Traditionalist Rabbis often rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels, having a view that evil is abstract.

They were split down the middle, much like today. Difference being, today we know they are real vs back then we were not so certain.

reply to post by NarrowGate


Did you even read the second post??

Origen (184/185 – 253/254) interpreted such Old Testament passages as being about manifestations of the Devil; but of course, writing in Greek, not Latin, he did not identify the Devil with the name "Lucifer".[44] Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14 ("I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High") as spoken by the Devil,[45] but "Lucifer" is not among the numerous names and phrases he used to describe the Devi

The claim that Lucifer = Satan, is based on ignorance....NOT fact...

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Did you even read the second post??

Origen (184/185 – 253/254) interpreted such Old Testament passages as being about manifestations of the Devil; but of course, writing in Greek, not Latin, he did not identify the Devil with the name "Lucifer".[44] Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14 ("I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High") as spoken by the Devil,[45] but "Lucifer" is not among the numerous names and phrases he used to describe the Devi

The claim that Lucifer = Satan, is based on ignorance....NOT fact...

Define fact? All it is is a word to describe something. It is not Satans official name and likely never was. It is an unofficial and commonly used name to describe Satan before his fall. To call Jesus Lucifer is to show your true colors.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
It is just a term that people started using centuries ago and still do. dictionary.reference.com...

Lu·ci·fer /ˈlusəfər/ Show Spelled [loo-suh-fer] Show IPA noun 1. a proud, rebellious archangel, identified with Satan, who fell from heaven. 2. the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star. 3. ( lowercase ) friction match.

Which as explained to you is the result of a mistranslation by Jerome and the appropriation of the name by Dante and Milton. The Early Church did not have Lucifer as Satan prior to his fall, this is a more modern conception.

reply to post by NarrowGate


You wouldn't know color if it smacked you in the face....By all means, assume you are privy to my beliefs....

To continue to perpetuate a myth and a misconception despite all other evidence, shows your true colors indeed....

Is dishonesty, and ignorance something that your God condones often?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NarrowGate
It is just a term that people started using centuries ago and still do. dictionary.reference.com...

Lu·ci·fer /ˈlusəfər/ Show Spelled [loo-suh-fer] Show IPA noun 1. a proud, rebellious archangel, identified with Satan, who fell from heaven. 2. the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star. 3. ( lowercase ) friction match.

Which as explained to you is the result of a mistranslation by Jerome and the appropriation of the name by Dante and Milton. The Early Church did not have Lucifer as Satan prior to his fall, this is a more modern conception.

Far from modern. Centuries old.

St. Jerome may or may not have had it right, but it would appear from what the Church says that he did not. Still, why is it so important to you?

It is and will continue to be a name for Satan before his fall. Why is this such a problem for you?

Originally posted by NarrowGate
The point is the name refers to Satan. Period. It is what the name is used for. To call Lucifer Jesus...

Jesus refered to himself (if you believe all of the New Testament) as 'the bright morning star' (2Pet 1:19, Rev 2:28, Rev 22:16) which if were being translated literally, as the Greeks did, would be 'Phosphorus', the day star, which then translates into the Latin, 'Lucifer'.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

You wouldn't know color if it smacked you in the face....By all means, assume you are privy to my beliefs....

To continue to perpetuate a myth and a misconception despite all other evidence, shows your true colors indeed....

Is dishonesty, and ignorance something that your God condones often?

What are you talking about, I already said the name Lucifer is man-made. A man made name for Satan before his fall.


You already said "Lucifer = Jesus". You have malicious intent.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NarrowGate
The point is the name refers to Satan. Period. It is what the name is used for. To call Lucifer Jesus...

Jesus refered to himself (if you believe all of the New Testament) as 'the bright morning star' (2Pet 1:19, Rev 2:28, Rev 22:16) which if were being translated literally, as the Greeks did, would be 'Phosphorus', the day star, which then translates into the Latin, 'Lucifer'.

You know I know you have heard my response before. Do you still want to hear it?

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Far from modern. Centuries old.

I said more modern, which it is in relation to the religion of Christianity.

St. Jerome may or may not have had it right, but it would appear from what the Church says that he did not. Still, why is it so important to you?

He most certainly DID not have it right by evidence of the original Greek. It is important because it is incorrect and should be indicated as such.

It is and will continue to be a name for Satan before his fall. Why is this such a problem for you?

See above. Additionally, it was never part of the Catholic Church's dogma so why do you feel it is important to perpetuate the myth?

reply to post by NarrowGate

Define fact? All it is is a word to describe something.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is not Satans official name..

You are right....It's not Satan's name....Period...There is no 'officiality' to it..

It is an unofficial and commonly used name to describe Satan before his fall

No, it is not, which is something that has been proven to you time and time again....The word Heylel, or Helel, appeared in the Bible only once, and the attribution of it's occurrence to Satan, is a perpetuated misconception...

To call Jesus Lucifer is to show your true colors.

To profess a Christian nature, while perpetuating known misconceptions or lies, despite all reason and evidence, is to show the true nature of yourself, and the 'God' you worship...

Originally posted by NarrowGate
You know I know you have heard my response before. Do you still want to hear it?

I do not recall having a conversation about this with you previously.

Are you always so tedious?