spin

Chili, I don't mind your unsupported announcements, but I don't know if the notion of evidence is one that you adhere to. Usually here, when one says something they usually have to say exactly what grounds causes them to feel they can say it. You may have noticed that a lot of the debate is about evidence, yet you continue to ply your unsupported announcements. Don't you think it would be more useful in your communication to supply evidence and help people understand that you might have something to say that they can appreciate?

At the moment you seem to be in an epistemological (dealing with how you know things) quandary. How you know something is just as important as what you know. It is the check to allow you to think that you are not just hallucinating. This how-you-know is where evidence comes in. Evidence is a relatively objective external source of information that can be used to demostrate your thought. Without it you can't really communicate much.


spin

Chili

Hello spin and thanks for the advice. I think it is fair to say that my evidence comes from the same lines that others read with the only difference that I understand them different.

No I am not hallucinating but remain calm, cool and collected and have no reason to be any other way.

Toto

Split from here

Lugubert

Thank you for that information, Toto. I didn't understand why there was a discussion on a non-existent word. The OP made it clear that "Lucifer" does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. The expression indicating the Morning star is hîllil ben-shâhar, perhaps really meaning the new moon of the morning... (hîllâl etc.)

Moreover, the concept of the "Morning star" must be common to several Middle East religions. In the Qur'an (Surah 86), it is the "Night-Visitant" (translation of A. Yusuf Ali), as a mystic symbol. Its meaning has been debated; Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, in his introduction to his rendering of surah 86, remarks "The Morning Star has here a mystic sense, and is taken to refer to the Prophet himself."

In Babylonia, the Morning star represented Ishtar as the war goddess. Quite a flexible star!

spin

Evidence needs to be expressed. When you say "I think it is fair to say that my evidence comes from the same lines...", how will your reader know? If you understand a text differently you need to show why. Otherwise you are wasting most people's (including your) time. No evidence makes people think that the speaker/writer is talking nonsense.

Hallucinating not in any sense of aggitation, but in the usual sense of thinking one is receiving data from external sources, though in reality it is internal data, ie data that cannot be objectively verified. Most discussions on topics require data that other people can check out for themselves, so one needs to elucidate the data, so that other people can check it out. If you don't, then you have little hope of communicating your ideas. The rule is evidence. Without stating it, you say little.

In short what you know (ontology) is important, but how you know it (epistemology) is just as important.


spin

spin

Illustration:

Do you assume that the light bringer is at some stage to be associated with Satan? If so, why?

How do you arrive at your notion of illusion here? It doesn't seem to agree with the common usage of the word, which means you are starting to have communication problems.

Where does Jerome say this? (Yes, you really need to cite sources, so people have the opportunity to check them out.)

How is Jerome, who was writing several hundred years after the Isaiah passage which mentions the light bringer, relevant to the text under discussion? He may have had his opinions, but they don't help us much to understand the context and significance of the matter under consideration.

Again, how can you relate revelation to Isaiah? The writer of Revelation is also free to have an opinion, but you seem to be mixing things together without showing why you think you can. You need to show why both Jerome and the writer of Revelation are relevant, otherwise they seem like rabbits from a hat.


spin

Chili

spin[/QUOTE]

Hi spin, if I am wasting your time I must apologize because that is not my intent at all. On the other hand I will admid that I am here for myself and only for myself but I do appreciate it when I get a response and here I like criticism best. As an aside, I used to bounce my arguments off of my mother-in-law (she likes 'the bait') but I have learned that was not a good idea in the end.

I think it was cweb who caused me to actually read the relevant passage (for the first time because I am not a bible student at all), and that actually confirmed my preconceived ideas about that passage. It reminded me of Siddharta and The Emperor Jones or even the fact that I myself sometimes feel like a king. Other than that I really can't give you a source for my opinion because it sure is not based on data received from external sources. Maybe I am just a poor artist.

This does not mean that I deny that there ever was a king of Babylon but for me the real message is that we must recognize ourselves as that king, and so on.

Chili

Yes he was an angel of satan because he pointed at the light of common day in the expression "sons of the morning" and then bewailed the fact that we have fallen from heaven. So it is not 'good' to be a son of the morning in the context (urgency) of this passage.

Satan is not evil as we sometimes think of evil. Satan is good, and is good for us because whatever we accumilate with our faculty of reason is really the handiwork of satan except for the initial creation of the idea. Satan, in this context is the total desire of our faculty of reason wherein we go by the light of common day ever since our eyes have been opened . . . as we must because we have little else to go by ever since we chose our faculty of reason to be our daily guide =the fall of man.

The Morning star is just another cause idenitified that is responsible for our desire and in Catholicism Mary is also called the Morning Star. In the end of Revelation Mary is stated to be the great city which has sovereignty over the kings of the earth" and that would be us after we have fallen as king and eventually crown her queen of heaven and earth simply because she was taken from man (us) in Gen.2. That is, of course when we come full circle.

Now Lucifer is the name of that angel which was not known to the Jews as of yet (except to the mythmaker) and will not be known to them until they, each in their own time, will recognize themselves as the king of Babylon . . . which they never will and if they do they will no longer be a Jew. So therefore, the name Lucifer does not belong in the OT by name although his handiwork was in effect since long before that.

There is another component that Lucifer is known for and that is performing as "the angel of ligth" wherein he tormented the children of Israel. He is the one who provided the manna (spiritual nourishment) that therefore did not last long and needed to be renewed each morning (hence the name Lucifer, I think). The light of common day is an illusion (in the same way that sound is an illusion) but good for us mortals to go by until we have no need for "lamps or the sun" for then "the night shall be no more" (Rev.22:5). This is just about inspiration here and does not mean that light and sound will no longer 'exist' but that Lucifer will have been defeated and we can go directly to the source of light = back into Eden where we will know the now befriended "Morning Star." Yes, she, the great harlot, is very enigmatic. I got it from the link attached to the OT.That was about the name Lucifer that was added to the Isaiah passage and makes reference the specific angel that tormented the Jews in their faith journey. It is rather easy to call him by name because he is very much active today.If Revelation shows that when we enter the reign of God the night shall be no more it is easy to conclude that the light of common day is an illusion and the Morning star pointing at the [right] wrong direction.

Revelaton is not just an opinion but fact and must be 'history' in post-millenialism. Not?

I like Jerome if he added those words. A bit nasty but nice.

I'll be happy to return but must go for now.

Chili

My gosh, did I ever wreck the word "post-millennianism."

I've also read "The Spire" wherein dean Jocelin was the [Babylonian] tower builder on top of his medieval Cathedral. The word "medieval" refers to his mind and that implies that he's a post-millennialist who built the tower "in faith, against advice." The tower was his ego, the Cathedral his body and his chest was the crossways where it all came together.

Chris Weimer

Chili, if you're here for yourself, take at least this advice. Don't confuse people! You start off by remarking that Lucifer referred to Satan (somewhat in an allusion) but then go off by saying that we are the personal ones. Why would Isaiah be referring to us? Take it in context now. Isaiah wrote for the Jews during before, during, and after various oppressive empires. Now, if he saw the fall of Antiochus, wouldn't that seem as though he would be referring to him, not only directly by name, but not indirectly to us? Now, if you wish, you can take the example of the king and apply it to yourself, by all means that is what literature is for, but to say that he was directly referring to you, me or anyone else currently alive is just preposterous.