WishboneDawn

Oh.

I like what Amaleq13 had to say about it.

You start some weird threads and I write them off and then they get interesting. You'd be fun to have at my bible study course.

aguy2

Here are 2 scriptual references that might indicate that the Christ/Savior might represent the earthly career of a Repentant Satan.

(1) Matthew 12:24-25 "But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."

Isn't a 2 party republic a kingdom perpetually divided against itself? With the majority party ruling and the minority party remaining a loyal opposition?

Jesus knew that the Pharisees despised and avoided all things Roman, so when he made the analogy that a 'house divided against itself can not stand' they presumed he was telling them the truth. If the Pharisees had gone to the new Roman built cities like Caesarea they would have seen that houses composed of 'arches' stand against themselves quite well. I haven't done a survey but I would hazard a guess that of the structures that still stand today much as they did in the time of Jesus, 60 to 80 percent of them are structures composed primarily of arches.

Although he successfully avoided being brought up on charges of sorcery, was he was actually telling us, "Beelzebub my butt! Bellzebub is a 3rd level functionary; I am the 'Arch' Angel himself!"

(2) John 13: 26-27 "Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly."

When Jesus passes the sop to Judas their hands touch and the spirit of Satan enters into Judas. Wouldn't it make sense that this spirit came directly from Jesus?

Is Jesus' Father in Heaven willing to forgive any sin if the sinner sincerely repents and is willing to make appropriate restitution? Satan vowed to avoid being eternaly cursed by claiming that he will seduce all men into cursing the name of their Creator; not all men except Job.

After running into Job wouldn't a logical and intelligent Satan admit his obvious failure and express its willingness to bow down to Adam's decendants after all; be willing to actually become one of them, and be willing to take their sins unto himself, seeing as he is at least partially responsible for their past sins due to his seductions?

This possibility sure makes sense to me; does it make sense to you?
aguy2

Amaleq13

I don't see how they are. The reference to Venus is essentially a royal compliment applied to Jesus.

Loomis

From what I understand the expression “morning star” was a late change to Isaiah 14. It was not there originally.

If this is correct then that means that your erection has to subside now because you can’t link “Jesus” to Isaiah 14:12 by way of the expression “morning star.”

Sorry.

From what I understand Isaiah 14:12-14 (when properly translated) reads like this:

Look how you have fallen from the sky,
O Helel, son of Shachar!
You have been cut down to the ground,
O conqueror of the nations!
You said to yourself,
“I will climb up to the sky.
Above the stars of El
I will set up my throne.
I will rule on the mountain of assembly
on the remote slopes of Zaphon.
I will climb up to the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High!”

Shachar was the Hebrew god of the dawn. El (aka the Most High) was his dad. The “stars of El” were Shachar’s siblings.

El was Helel’s grandpa.

Get it?

All of this imagery -- Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the slopes of Zaphon, the idea of climbing up to the tops of the clouds, and the Most High, comes straight out of Ugarit mythology.

Look at the drastic change in context between Isaiah 14:11 and 14:12. From 14:1 to 11 everything is about Yahweh, Jacob, Israel, Babylon, and the king. Then suddenly at 14:12 all of these things are gone and replaced by the Ugarit stuff.

I bet verses 1 ~ 11 were written later - as a setup/ wrapper/ container for the older "familiar" story that begins at 14:12.

Benni72

AFAIK the Greek is different. It is eosphoros in Isaiah and aster proinos in Revelation.

Chili

Yes, it is wrong for Jesus to be the morning star that points at the light of common day to light up our day if he is supposed to be "the light that shines on in darkness and the darkness did not overcome it" (Jn.1:9).

When Jesus is the morning star he had been awakened before God's own time and can no longer be the light that the darkness did not overcome. This would be how the devil is invited into their mind to be the angel of light instead of the true light.

The premature awakening entails the rape of Mary who sends the angel of light via Magdalene who is her subordinate.

Note that Mary is the eclectic Evening and Morning Star to be adored in Catholicism for our own protection.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

show_no_mercy

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...8&postcount=50
...

Solo

Was it Jerome ? Paul makes a transparent allusion to Is 14:12 in a very interesting passage 2 Cr 11. He denounces the claims of the "superlative apostles" to the Godhead through the phenomena I have described here earlier . He says the photic experience itself means nothing because (14) "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light".

Jiri

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that his Latin translation is the first to introduce the connection between the "title" and the fall of Satan.

With regard to 2 Cor 11, calling it a "transparent allusion" to Isaiah seems to me to be circular reasoning since Paul does not actually use the same term nor make any apparent reference to Isaiah. IOW, I think Jerome might agree with you but that doesn't mean it is a legitimate reading of Paul.