The Vatican's L.U.C.I.F.E.R. Device

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Of course Lucifer has no authority, he is Satan. However, you’re wrong in Isaias 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer the arch fallen Angel. [/quote]

I prefer the NASB or NIV translations. Where in Isaiah 14 does it use the name Lucifer? It is a prophecy against Babylon and that is what the Jewish nation who the prophecy was given to would have taken it that way. You might be able to read into the passage that it is about Satan, but the original meaning was against Babylon not Satan.[/quote]

Says who?[/quote]

The Bible and Jewish Rabbi.

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) is a direct word for word translation of the Hebrew OT and Greek/Aramaic NT. This Knox translation you are using is one individuals interpretation and Translation of the Bible.

I am not disagreeing with you that Lucifer is Satan, but I am disagreeing that to interpret the Bible you first have to understand what the original hearer of the Scriptures actually understood it to mean. Then you can try to apply it to current situations. This is not a Catholic vs Protestant debate because I am neither. I follow the Holy Scriptures first. I follow what Catholics taught up and until they took the scripture out of the hands of the common people by only using one translation (Latin) of the Bible that the priests could manipulate and the common man could not refute because they could not read it for themselves.

The main reason for the Reformation was because the Holy Scriptures were translated into the common language and the printing press so the common people could read it for themselves. I love talking to Christians, that includes Catholics, who have spent the time to read the Bible for themselves.

42

[quote]Karado wrote:
Thx ‘Dmaddox’, you nailed it. Early Church Fathers until the 3rd Century even believed Angels
had sex with human women and sired the giants…
[/quote]

Oh brother. This is hitting a new level of stupidity that just ain’t worth addressing.

43

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Thx ‘Dmaddox’, you nailed it. Early Church Fathers until the 3rd Century even believed Angels
had sex with human women and sired the giants…
[/quote]

Oh brother. This is hitting a new level of stupidity that just ain’t worth addressing.[/quote]

I find it very inconsiderate to leave my username in the quote acting like I am the one that said it. You deleted everything else from Karado’s quote, but conveniently left my username in there.

44

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Of course Lucifer has no authority, he is Satan. However, you’re wrong in Isaias 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer the arch fallen Angel. [/quote]

I prefer the NASB or NIV translations. Where in Isaiah 14 does it use the name Lucifer? It is a prophecy against Babylon and that is what the Jewish nation who the prophecy was given to would have taken it that way. You might be able to read into the passage that it is about Satan, but the original meaning was against Babylon not Satan.[/quote]

Says who?[/quote]

The Bible and Jewish Rabbi.

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) is a direct word for word translation of the Hebrew OT and Greek/Aramaic NT. This Knox translation you are using is one individuals interpretation and Translation of the Bible.

I am not disagreeing with you that Lucifer is Satan, but I am disagreeing that to interpret the Bible you first have to understand what the original hearer of the Scriptures actually understood it to mean. Then you can try to apply it to current situations. This is not a Catholic vs Protestant debate because I am neither. I follow the Holy Scriptures first. I follow what Catholics taught up and until they took the scripture out of the hands of the common people by only using one translation (Latin) of the Bible that the priests could manipulate and the common man could not refute because they could not read it for themselves.

The main reason for the Reformation was because the Holy Scriptures were translated into the common language and the printing press so the common people could read it for themselves. I love talking to Christians, that includes Catholics, who have spent the time to read the Bible for themselves.
[/quote]

I have a NASV, I do like the different take from the ESV. Both are word for word translations but one chooses one word option where there is an option, and the other the other. Both are right, but it’s interesting the assigned meanings when the english word changes.

I guess if you don’t know another language, you don’t understand how words and phrases can be represented different ways in English. So with ancient languages even more so.
I guess if your really, really understand the text of the bible learn Hebrew and ancient Greek. These translations get close, but there will always be room for interpretation. Since I am not planning on learning either language, I’ll let the subtle differences in translations key me in on the meanings of things.

I also agree that you don’t need to know what the ancients or the original audience, knew or thought about the Biblical texts. But I do think you need a decent understanding of author’s intent and who his intended audience was.

45

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
…, you nailed it. Early Church Fathers until the 3rd Century even believed Angels
had sex with human women and sired the giants…
[/quote]

Oh brother. This is hitting a new level of stupidity that just ain’t worth addressing.[/quote]

I find it very inconsiderate to leave my username in the quote acting like I am the one that said it. You deleted everything else from Karado’s quote, but conveniently left my username in there. [/quote]

Sorry, my bad. I just edited from the ‘sex with angels’ crap and deleted down. I wouldn’t want to be associated with that nonsense either.

46

[quote]pat wrote:

I also agree that you don’t need to know what the ancients or the original audience, knew or thought about the Biblical texts. But I do think you need a decent understanding of author’s intent and who his intended audience was.
[/quote]

I like our conversation, but this part I am trying to make sure it was not a typo. I would say you need to know what the original audience of the scripture thought and knew about the scriptures. Their interpretation is what gets us to what the original meaning of the texts are. We have to understand what the Author was trying to get across to the people. You say you do not need to know these things?

The original language of Hebrew and Greek have so many meanings just by changing a few letters in a word or the placement in a sentence. English is very basic compared to Greek and Hebrew. I also like looking at different translations but try to stay away from individuals doing a translation (because they allow individual bias to sometimes step in). I like ones that are done by committee so if the whole committee does not agree then it is not written that way. I have an NASV Catholic Bible at Home. I wanted a copy so I could read the Apocrapha to get an understanding of the differences in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Not much difference just some more History which the OT is just the History of Israel, the Jewish People, and their Walk with God. The NT are the same.

47

[quote]pat wrote:

Sorry, my bad. I just edited from the ‘sex with angels’ crap and deleted down. I wouldn’t want to be associated with that nonsense either.[/quote]

Apology accepted.

48

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I also agree that you don’t need to know what the ancients or the original audience, knew or thought about the Biblical texts. But I do think you need a decent understanding of author’s intent and who his intended audience was.
[/quote]

I like our conversation, but this part I am trying to make sure it was not a typo. I would say you need to know what the original audience of the scripture thought and knew about the scriptures. Their interpretation is what gets us to what the original meaning of the texts are. We have to understand what the Author was trying to get across to the people. You say you do not need to know these things?
[/quote]
I would say the average reader wouldn’t necessarily need to know what the ancients thought and felt about these scriptures. From a scholarly perspective, yes. Every little bit of history and fact the can be obtained about the scriptures and the people needs to be known. The more we know about them, the more we know about the scriptures.
But I do think the average reader needs to know something about the original intended audience and who they were. Knowing the point of the writing gives us much needed insight into the writing as well as context. Of course, knowing something about the intended audience should give you some insight as to their reception of it…

I guess it’s a long winded way of saying, that whatever the intended audience thoughts or interpretations of said scripture were, it’s not necessarily the correct interpretation or the only understanding one should follow. Scholar yes, for the average reader it’s gravy.

[quote]
The original language of Hebrew and Greek have so many meanings just by changing a few letters in a word or the placement in a sentence. English is very basic compared to Greek and Hebrew. I also like looking at different translations but try to stay away from individuals doing a translation (because they allow individual bias to sometimes step in). I like ones that are done by committee so if the whole committee does not agree then it is not written that way. I have an NASV Catholic Bible at Home. I wanted a copy so I could read the Apocrapha to get an understanding of the differences in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Not much difference just some more History which the OT is just the History of Israel, the Jewish People, and their Walk with God. The NT are the same. [/quote]

The most important Deuteronomical books are 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon.
Most bibles put “Bel and the Dragon” at the end of Daniel. So most of the time you will count 6 additional books, not 7.

49

[quote]pat wrote:
Scholar yes, for the average reader it’s gravy.[/quote]

Gravy is what makes the meal. Dry mashed potatoes and chicken fried steak are not that good til you load them up with gravy. Sorry that is a joke. I am so hungry right now and chicken fried steak sounds really good. I have lost 53 lbs in 6 months and I am trying to break through a plateau that I have been in since Thanksgiving.

50

Hey Pat, why are you denying that Early Church Fathers believed that Fallen Angels
had sex with earthly women and sired the devouring Giants?

Was it not until Augustine that this was common knowledge in the Church up until he
made up out of thin air the alternate “Lines Of Seth” theory in the 3rd Century with his work “City Of God”?
This “crap” you deny was one of the definite foundational beliefs of the Church was it not?
So, either you are embarrased my this foundational belief, or you had no idea which is fine. And please don’t
conveniently forget that I intially learned this from my Catholic Sister who’s been a practicing Catholic
for over 20 years now…What do you think, that I made this up?
My 9 year old neice can call anything on any subject “crap” without having to defend it as well, that’s
absolutely is the easiest thing to do, however I will have an issue if she ever said ‘crap’ at her age.
Defend the Johnny come lately ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory you must believe is more of an air tight
case than the original one.

51

[quote]Karado wrote:
Hey Pat, why are you denying that Early Church Fathers believed that Fallen Angels
had sex with earthly women and sired the devouring Giants?

Was it not until Augustine that this was common knowledge in the Church up until he
made up out of thin air the alternate “Lines Of Seth” theory in the 3rd Century with his work “City Of God”?
This “crap” you deny was one of the definite foundational beliefs of the Church was it not?
So, either you are embarrased my this foundational belief, or you had no idea which is fine. And please don’t
conveniently forget that I intially learned this from my Catholic Sister who’s been a practicing Catholic
for over 20 years now…What do you think, that I made this up?
My 9 year old neice can call anything on any subject “crap” without having to defend it as well, that’s
absolutely is the easiest thing to do, however I will have an issue if she ever said ‘crap’ at her age.
Defend the Johnny come lately ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory you must believe is more of an air tight
case than the original one.
[/quote]

There were many heresies sprinkled through out the churches of the early church. This was merely one of them. It was not an accepted teaching of the universal church and never has been. Heresy was a huge problem in the early church as there were many false teachers, many false gospels and poor communications between the churches in the early days. Heresy was a difficult problem to contain.
The core church teachings have never changed since apostolic times. They remain the same now as they were then. Your confusing heresy with core beliefs, this was not a core belief nor it was it a foundational belief.
Speaking of nuns and heresy, it is something that many American Nuns have been engaging in lately and most of them should be fired. The fact that they are engaging and spreading false teachings of their own making over the teachings of the church is why.
It’s fine if you hold a different opinion or don’t believe in the church dogma, just don’t be a nun if you do. Holy Orders calls for obedience. If you are not willing to obey and spread the gospel, then don’t take the vow.

52

[quote]Karado wrote:Hey Pat, why are you denying that Early Church Fathers believed that Fallen Angels
had sex with earthly women and sired the devouring Giants? >>>[/quote]Hey Karado, why are you denying that the New Testament commands you to be in an accountable relationship with a bible believing church where you can be built up in the faith and grow out of your horribly unchristian immoral views and stop piddling with practically meaningless minutia. This principle applies here: Titus 3:9: (NASB)

I’m not lettin go of you just yet. Once God gets your heart and head screwed in and on straight respectively, some delving into peripheral issues like this may actually be appropriate.

53

“There were many heresies sprinkled through out the churches of the early church.”

Congenial,we are talking about some respected ‘Heavyweights’ in Catholicism, they believed the Angel
view… look deeper into the later ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory,because so far it makes NO sense
whatsoever…look into that soon because it has more holes than Swiss Cheese…something’s fishy here
but IDK on which side as of yet, I like to learn about it as too many are stagnant about this anyway,
it would be a boring ass world if everyone said don’t ‘rock the boat’…too common, I’m uncommon.
Investigate your airtight case for your alternate ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory if you believe with 100% certainty it’s heresy.
Respectfully Good luck with that one counselor, but I’m all ears nevertheless.

The hybrid view was held by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and later by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Commodianus, etc.

I stand corrected, ‘lines of seth’ theory came much later, 5th CENTURY! The idea “the sons of God” were the genealogical line of Seth,(What?) and The idea being that the male offspring of Adam via Seth were the sons of God and the female offspring of Adam via Cain were the daughters of men. This mating of nonbelievers (Cain’s kids) with believers (Seth’s kids) resulted in what he termed some mongrel offspring that became so decadent that God destroyed them with the flood. I realize it’s still the predominant view despite some history which would infer it was a product of the church. Celibacy was being embraced for church leaders, as well as angel worship, so the idea of angels procreating with mankind was a threat to those ideas, and thus the later view originated.

54

[quote]Karado wrote:
“There were many heresies sprinkled through out the churches of the early church.”

Congenial,we are talking about some respected ‘Heavyweights’ in Catholicism, they believed the Angel
view… look deeper into the later ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory,because so far it makes NO sense
whatsoever…look into that soon because it has more holes than Swiss Cheese…something’s fishy here
but IDK on which side as of yet, I like to learn about it as too many are stagnant about this anyway,
it would be a boring ass world if everyone said don’t ‘rock the boat’…too common, I’m uncommon.
Investigate your airtight case for your alternate ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory if you believe with 100% certainty it’s heresy.
Respectfully Good luck with that one counselor, but I’m all ears nevertheless.

The hybrid view was held by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and later by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Commodianus, etc.

I stand corrected, ‘lines of seth’ theory came much later, 5th CENTURY! The idea “the sons of God” were the genealogical line of Seth,(What?) and The idea being that the male offspring of Adam via Seth were the sons of God and the female offspring of Adam via Cain were the daughters of men. This mating of nonbelievers (Cain’s kids) with believers (Seth’s kids) resulted in what he termed some mongrel offspring that became so decadent that God destroyed them with the flood. I realize it’s still the predominant view despite some history which would infer it was a product of the church. Celibacy was being embraced for church leaders, as well as angel worship, so the idea of angels procreating with mankind was a threat to those ideas, and thus the later view originated.

[/quote]

No.

55

Fair enough…I like one word answers.
Do you believe the alleged Fatima Sighting and “Miracle Of The Sun” in October
1917 was a Satanic deception?

56

[quote]Karado wrote:
Fair enough…I like one word answers.
Do you believe the alleged Fatima Sighting and “Miracle Of The Sun” in October
1917 was a Satanic deception?
[/quote]

No.
Your just reading conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. Quite frankly, it’s a waste of my time. If you want to believe this crap go ahead, don’t let real, actual facts stand in the way. You haven’t so far.
So sure the moon landing were staged, Bush ordered the planes to be flown into the WTC, and early Christians had sex with angels all the time.