Jesus is the devil

[rorylee]

I got linked to this video and thought it was interesting, kinda a good insight too. Whether or not you believe, it doesn't matter.

Long hair is evil, Jesus and Lucifer are the morning star, Lucifer means 'Light bearer' and so on.

Make your own minds up on it =]

bCr5oeLaPvs

The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he never existed?

[Lisa Simpson]

Jesus is the gardener.

[rorylee]

Jesus is the gardener.
hahahaha :D

[Trent Wray]

Mark Twains the Mysterious Stranger.

And this actually does bring up a question I have for believers .... how did they ever get from the passage on "the morning star" that this was talking about Satan? Why does Lucifer equal Satan? What is the historical tradition behind this?

[fromdownunder]

Too many assumptions.

First assumption is that Satan actually exists.

Second assumption is that Jesus had long hair (show me Chapter and verse)

Third assumption: The Jesus of the synoptics actually existed (the author of John does not count) and did the deeds that were ascribed to him in the synoptics.

Since there is no evidence for ANY of the above, that is a good starting point. Once you provide evidence against my three points, and has been said already, we can then tackle any references to the morning star.

Norm

[CurtC]

Second assumption is that Jesus had long hair (show me Chapter and verse)

From the gospel of Homer:

"Kids, let me tell you about another so-called 'wicked'' guy. He had long hair and some wild ideas. He didn't always do what other people thought was right. And that man's name was... I forget. But the point is... I forget that, too.
Marge, you know what I'm talking about. He used to drive that blue car?"

[Safe-Keeper]

Whether or not you believe, it doesn't matter. Oooh, I bet...

[JoeyDonuts]

Unicorns are leprechauns.
Sasquatch is actually Chupacabra.
Psychic ability and telekinesis often co-manifest in the same subject.

Hey, this is fun.

[!Kaggen]

Mark Twains the Mysterious Stranger.

And this actually does bring up a question I have for believers .... how did they ever get from the passage on "the morning star" that this was talking about Satan? Why does Lucifer equal Satan? What is the historical tradition behind this?

This makes for interesting reading :D

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/SBC1976/LucAhr_index.html

[Accidental Martyr]

Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry lee lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world
So there was only one thing that I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long

[I Ratant]

"Outside the Bible, the Roman Rite liturgy's Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial):

May the Morning Star which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Morning Star,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever.


Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum,
Christus Filius tuus qui,
regressus ab inferis,
humano generi serenus illuxit,
et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum."

[AvalonXQ]

And this actually does bring up a question I have for believers .... how did they ever get from the passage on "the morning star" that this was talking about Satan?

I don't.
There's no Biblical support for Satan as a fallen angel. However, there's no Biblical contradiction of it either, so it's certainly possible.

[Skeptical Greg]

So, anything that is not specifically ruled out in the bible is possible ?

[fuelair]

Actually, since nonexistant A is exactly equivalent to nonexistant B, any combination of two nonexistants functionally reduces to zero.

[AvalonXQ]

So, anything that is not specifically ruled out in the bible is possible ?
Anything not ruled out by the Bible should not be denied on the basis of Biblical theology. Hence, I shouldn't say, "Satan was never an angel." I should say, "The Bible never says that Satan was an angel."

[Trent Wray]

This makes for interesting reading :D

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/SBC1976/LucAhr_index.html WTF ?! Without reading it, can you summarize? LOL :)

I don't.
There's no Biblical support for Satan as a fallen angel. However, there's no Biblical contradiction of it either, so it's certainly possible. Do you agree with this (biblically):

* Satan was/is a dragon
* Satan will lead 1/3 of the angels during a war in heaven, in which satan and those angels will be cast to the earth
* this war in heaven is not the same that is talked about in Genesis in reference to the "Sons of God"

? Just curious, AvalonXQ you thread-post cherry picker :)

[AvalonXQ]

Do you agree with this (biblically):

No. You're talking about the visions that John recorded in Revelation. These visions are not prophetic of literal events; they're visions.
Revelation does tell us that Satan will battle with God, but the details are so wrapped up in numerology and imagery as to make the literal facts very, very difficult to even guess at.

[Trent Wray]

No. You're talking about the visions that John recorded in Revelation. These visions are not prophetic of literal events; they're visions.
Revelation does tell us that Satan will battle with God, but the details are so wrapped up in numerology and imagery as to make the literal facts very, very difficult to even guess at. Okay, then what is Satan?

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, then what is Satan?

Satan, the Devil, is a powerful supernatural being with the desire that humans live and die in sin. Satan was the serpent who tempted Eve in Eden. He wields considerable power on Earth as well as being able to control spiritual forces such as demons.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Mark Twains the Mysterious Stranger.

And this actually does bring up a question I have for believers .... how did they ever get from the passage on "the morning star" that this was talking about Satan? Why does Lucifer equal Satan? What is the historical tradition behind this?

You may be interested in Elaine Pagel's "The Origin of Satan." I found it an excellent read on the subject of the origin of Satan as a cultural idea.

[I Ratant]

Okay, then what is Satan?
.
Satan is the boogie man your mother warns you about.
Or your pastor, when you're shorting him in the collection basket.

[Trent Wray]

.
Satan is the boogie man your mother warns you about.
Or your pastor, when you're shorting him in the collection basket. I thought it was the Church Lady's nemesis ...

[Skeptical Greg]

Satan, the Devil, is a powerful supernatural being with the desire that humans live and die in sin. Satan was the serpent who tempted Eve in Eden. He wields considerable power on Earth as well as being able to control spiritual forces such as demons.Did you just make that up ?

It has nothing to do with the Satan that is found in the OT ...

[Third Eye Open]

Satan, the Devil, is a powerful supernatural being with the desire that humans live and die in sin. Satan was the serpent who tempted Eve in Eden. He wields considerable power on Earth as well as being able to control spiritual forces such as demons.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything in Genesis about the serpent being anything other than that: a serpent. Just a regular old talking snake who made some good points.

[!Kaggen]

WTF ?! Without reading it, can you summarize? LOL :)



A picture is a 1000 words.

http://uncletaz.com/christ.html

The dude on the top right is Lucifer.
The dude on the bottom is Ahriman.

:)

[TimCallahan]

What this video proves, more than anything, is that you can get just about anything on YouTube these days. But why should I be surprised? After all, I reviewed Zeitgeist for Skeptic Magazine.

[Bill Thompson]

So Obama, being the anti-christ, is our savior.

(I am kiddding)

[bookitty]

There is a Hindu scholar (self-proclaimed) named R. Thayalan, who wrote a book called Jesus is Satan. Pretty much the same stuff as in the video above. He's quite the little self-promoter. When his next book, the Plotted Course didn't receive the same 15 minutes of shock and dismay, he tried to create a controversy over the image of Jesus being portrayed with demon horns on the front cover.

[Trent Wray]

A picture is a 1000 words.

http://uncletaz.com/christ.html

The dude on the top right is Lucifer.
The dude on the bottom is Ahriman.

:)
Got it ;)

[AvalonXQ]

Did you just make that up ?

It has nothing to do with the Satan that is found in the OT ...

It has some to do with the OT, but most of that is from NT explanations and descriptions.
I believe that everything I wrote there has solid Biblical support.

[Skeptical Greg]

Then I'm sure you can cite a verse or two ?

( I take ' solid ' to mean unambiguous .. )

[AvalonXQ]

Then I'm sure you can cite a verse or two ?

Can we do this in pieces? You point to a specific claim that you believe is unsupported in Scripture, I'll support that claim with Scripture, and then we can move on to another claim.

[AvalonXQ]

But I'll start with this, one of the places in Revelation where we get some concrete information:
So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
From this we know that the serpent, the Devil, and Satan all refer to the same being, and that the "dragon" of the visions in Revelation is also that being. It really helps tie things together.

[Trent Wray]

But I'll start with this, one of the places in Revelation where we get some concrete information:

From this we know that the serpent, the Devil, and Satan all refer to the same being, and that the "dragon" of the visions in Revelation is also that being. It really helps tie things together.Dude. Earlier when I pointed to Revelations you discredited my assumptions from referencing it. Now you are pointing to Revelations to back up your own understanding.

Tsk tsk.

[AvalonXQ]

Dude. Earlier when I pointed to Revelations you discredited my assumptions from referencing it. Now you are pointing to Revelations to back up your own understanding.

Yes, and I explained why referencing it is a problem. It doesn't imply that Revelation isn't God's Word; it implies that Revelation does not literally describe some course of future events.
Revelation does not imply that Satan is a literal dragon. However, here in this passage, it is spelled out for us that the dragon in John's vision is referring to "the serpent of old, called Satan and the Devil".
In fact, it's references like this that help us know for certain that the visions of Revelation are in fact allegorical rather than literal -- the fact that we're told about an image and then told what the image actually represents.
The later part of chapter 1 is a great example of this:
Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this. The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches.
Jesus did not ever literally have feet of brass and eyes of fire, but that's how John's vision represented Him (one of several ways, actually). The seven messengers of the seven churches are not literally giant burning balls of gas, and the seven churches themselves are not literally lampstands. Several times in Revelation we're told what things represent, and there we can draw real, literal conclusions from certain passages in Revelation.
Just as we know from Revelation that there will be a real battle and a real afterlife, but we don't know the literal details.

[Trent Wray]

Yes, and I explained why referencing it is a problem. It doesn't imply that Revelation isn't God's Word; it implies that Revelation does not literally describe some course of future events.
Revelation does not imply that Satan is a literal dragon. However, here in this passage, it is spelled out for us that the dragon in John's vision is referring to "the serpent of old, called Satan and the Devil".
In fact, it's references like this that help us know for certain that the visions of Revelation are in fact allegorical rather than literal -- the fact that we're told about an image and then told what the image actually represents.
The later part of chapter 1 is a great example of this:

Jesus did not ever literally have feet of brass and eyes of fire, but that's how John's vision represented Him (one of several ways, actually). The seven messengers of the seven churches are not literally giant burning balls of gas, and the seven churches themselves are not literally lampstands. Several times in Revelation we're told what things represent, and there we can draw real, literal conclusions from certain passages in Revelation.
Just as we know from Revelation that there will be a real battle and a real afterlife, but we don't know the literal details.And I can always say: "This is one interpretation".

And it's precisely why I find arguing from the bible futile. What is literal to one is allegorical to the other, even in cases when the scriptures specifically identify things one way or another. At other times, it doesn't. Etc and so forth. Circle upon circle.

I think, to be fair, if the bible is going to be brought up, interpretations should be examined ... not discounted because of "rules regarding scripture". It's fine to do that .... but if two people disagree on the rules, then there is no point to continuing further. Unless the rules are open to debate :)

This is why I like practical, real-world examples. Avalon ... have you ever had a vision which involved implied symbolism and literal symbolism? Has God ever dictated to you to write something down ... and if so, how did you know when you were writing things allegorically or literally?

[Third Eye Open]

But I'll start with this, one of the places in Revelation where we get some concrete information:

From this we know that the serpent, the Devil, and Satan all refer to the same being, and that the "dragon" of the visions in Revelation is also that being. It really helps tie things together.

Calling someone a serpent is a way to call them crafty or a liar. I think the serpent in the garden was just a talking snake.

[AvalonXQ]

And I can always say: "This is one interpretation".

If you disagree, explain why.
But this is what the Bible says. It says it clearly to anyone who wants to read it.
It's not a matter of interpretation; just literacy with a little critical thinking ability thrown in.

[Skeptical Greg]

But I'll start with this, one of the places in Revelation where we get some concrete information:

From this we know that the serpent, the Devil, and Satan all refer to the same being, and that the "dragon" of the visions in Revelation is also that being. It really helps tie things together.
Mouse in your pocket ?

What trentwray said..

Where in the OT is Satan defined ?

Do you know what ' unambiguous ' means ?

[Bloodtoes]

The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he never existed?


<fry>That proves it!</fry>

Wasn't that line used in The Usual Suspects? Maybe Jesus is Keyser Soze! :o

[Trent Wray]

If you disagree, explain why.
But this is what the Bible says. It says it clearly to anyone who wants to read it.
It's not a matter of interpretation; just literacy with a little critical thinking ability thrown in. I don't see where me explaining my interpretation of the bible to you will be useful. Will you learn anything? I will learn from you because I'll pay attention to what you say. When I ask questions, I usually have a clear goal in mind .... translating another person's belief into practical use for the here and now. I want to see how your belief translates into practical use here, now, today. If I see it benefit you practically, I may adopt part of it as my own. If I don't, I won't. What I generally steer clear of is defending a "truth" as I see it. Now, the opposite is true when it comes to others. I will pick apart their truth (if it's different than mine) to see if it holds up. I don't do this "for fun" (well, sometimes :) ) I usually do it to try and find something of value in it for myself.

And I usually find the most symbiotically beneficial conversations come when neither party is "defending a truth," rather they are open to augmenting or changing their ideas and not defending them from the start.

If you already claim to understand something ... and thus defend it and have it securely locked up within rules and such ... that's fine. I will pick at it to find value for myself. If you get something of value from my picking, then cool. But if you ask me my opinion already knowing that it is wrong, and have no intention on changing your mind .... there is no point to me sharing my opinion. Call me whatever you like ... dodging a conversation, backing out, whatever. I am not content with chasing my own tail or watching someone else do it at the same time as me.

So if I respond with my interpretation to you ... you have already said, "this is what it says. The interpretation is obvious because it's not a matter of interpretation. Just throw in critical thinking." The only place I can see myself having a legitimate conversation with you from this point on is if you consider my form of "critical thinking" in regards to the bible. It seems you might allow some lee-way in that regard. Will you? If so ... I'd love to answer the question. No tail chasing involved :)

[SimonD]

I like to pull this one out every now and then...

Jesus In A Bowl Of Germs Lyrics
Sage Francis

Jesus In a Bowl of Germs
Pictures of fields without fences...
Shangri La...
and Jesus, Jesus in a bowl of germs
(don’t get scared dad...)

after all god loves this whole of worms, but hates common black sheep who refuse to follow the shepherd. Who heard little lambs into slaughter?
LISTEN - to the silence of the man’s-LIFE-is a serial killer far too complex to expose any logical pattern,
below saturn and mars there are stars dominating the tunnel vision of cast obstruction and jesus might have been a biological weapon of mass destruction,
specifically designed to wipe out millions with vanity and pride,
lab engineered and born, advanced chemistry in a bowl of germs like hybrid corn,
complete with hidden agenda beneath the surface lurking and smirking under a crown of thorns.

The crucifixion was a hoax, a cruel joke shop poison rose bud, emanating smoke screen and only begotten son soap suds,
“Come and Wash Your Sins Away!”, said the spider to the flying rows of holy roman hope bugs.

Let’s see if we can give noah’s old flood a run for it’s money with the first drop of cold blood from the cross began a damned birth.
the contamination spread without aids hospital orderly’s or cancer sticks, and stone moving angels, but no bones for artifacts or relics,
just a vacant hole on easter sunday and a note about his rising soul,
sounds pretty fishy; stand atop the mount and feed me loaves of ******** our last meal was a feast at a table headed by a lupine figure hiding in fleece.

no one ever thought to check jesus for the sign of the beast, no one ever lifted his hair and looked beneath, it was there on his neck, no one cared, or was even looking for proof.
what, you didn’t expect joe and mare’ to volunteer the truth, and judas did not hang from his own noose,
it was just made to look that way, Jesus Christ!
he was a planned device, schizophrenic double edge sword; prophet and antichrist;
good but ultimately evil, with multiple people within shouting orders. leading the flock over the border and through the woods into the land of honey milk and slaughter,
selling water for wine in between black out gorges on swine, eventually leading up to crusaders with torches in line, all the way to Jerusalem from north of the Rhine,
infected by motives that were all but divine, and the same virus has still got the sons and daughters of time on life support waiting for orders to die.
they struggle to stay afloat while their saviour keeps walking on by, on top of the water kicking salt in their eyes.

it’s all in the mind state, they’re all still alive but planning their own wake, waiting for the wave of an apocalypse that already came to break;
**** ARMEGEDDON, life is heaven and hell, the only fate is what we make the only fate is what we make fate is what we make, fate is what we make, we make fate.

your essence was conceived and born to breathe in pictures of fields without fences, it remains relatively unconcerned with this non existent god forsaken whole of worms; natural selection has you headed for shangri-la, don’t settle for jesus in a bowl of germs, don’t settle for allah, amon-ra, vishnu, or abraham in a bowl of germs. don’t settle for anything less than universal respect for every living creature that has breath in it’s lungs and chest regardless of race, sex, preference, or whatever the **** it says in ancient text.

[AvalonXQ]

I don't see where me explaining my interpretation of the bible to you will be useful.

Then don't.
Thanks for the discussion thus far; I've enjoyed it.

[Trent Wray]

Then don't.
Thanks for the discussion thus far; I've enjoyed it. That's too bad. I was really hoping you would be able to shed some light on my ultimate point, and sort of "put it to the test". :( A bible literalist who is willing to talk is a rare find. At least you'll walk some of the way with people. Thanx.

[AvalonXQ]

That's too bad. I was really hoping you would be able to shed some light on my ultimate point, and sort of "put it to the test". :(

I'm not going to bargain with you to tell me what you think. It's not a game I'm interested in playing.
Again, thanks for the discussion thus far.

[Trent Wray]

I'm not going to bargain with you to tell me what you think. It's not a game I'm interested in playing.
Again, thanks for the discussion thus far. I can see why you'd say that. I'm not interested in a game either ... but I usually explore in hypotheticals. I usually try to think of a common way to relate to the person I'm talking to by thinking of a hypothetical, one where we can be in each other's shoes, where I can examine their pov, and they can examine mine. I don't view it as a game. I view it as real life. But it's allright. No worries :) *tips my hat*

[AvalonXQ]

I can see why you'd say that. I'm not interested in a game either ... but I usually explore in hypotheticals. I usually try to think of a common way to relate to the person I'm talking to by thinking of a hypothetical, one where we can be in each other's shoes, where I can examine their pov, and they can examine mine. I don't view it as a game. I view it as real life.

I've done the same. It's enlightening.
Asking me to agree to certain things before you'll be willing to share your point view, isn't.

[Trent Wray]

I've done the same. It's enlightening.
Asking me to agree to certain things before you'll be willing to share your point view, isn't. Fair enough. I can see how that is manipulating. Honestly.

So I'll give my POV and if you'd like to respond, it's up to you. Otherwise, I'll drop this point in particular :)

First, I'll assume for the sake of this argument that you're god is real. I'll also assume that Satan is real. Then I'll turn my bible face down, and ask you to do the same. Then I'll ask you to ask god who or what the devil is, and let you tell me the answer. That's how we'll explore the question and get enlightened. Otherwise, if we both pick up a bible, I'm going to see something different than you, and if god is real ... I don't want to speak on his behalf and be wrong. So, let me know if God tells you something directly, and how you knew that he told you. And if you're not down with this method, then why not? To me, it's cutting out the middle man and going right to the source.

[JoeyDonuts]

This is the first biblical literalist I've ever seen that doesn't hold that Lucifer + 1/3rd of the heavenly host = Satan and the Demons.

Whoa. Good band name.

[rorylee]

The beginning*
All is good, kinda boring. Humans created, Positive and Negative most follow. Satan and the Demons begin, Positive and Negative created. Humans tested on loyalty, faith, good will etc*. Earth wiped out, Hell wiped out.

End result*
Heaven filled with righteous and loyal humans, Heaven gained Science and Technology. All is good but not boring.

*Brief

[Beerina]

Jesus is Jeshua is Joshua is Jehova Saves.

Lucifer does mean light-bearer or bringer, and is a synonym for the Morning Star. There's debate whether the name "Lucifer" in the bible was intended to actually mean "Morning Star". IIRC, most scholars do not believe "Lucifer" is intended to represent the devil, an (arch)angel, or anything similar, and rather just the intended standard meaning of Morning Star (aka Venus in the AM), though obviously it would be used in the "sign from heaven" sense.


"Satan" means advocate (or accuser or adversary) in Hebrew, and some books use The Advocate as a real being who argues with God for the sake of exploring God's theological positions. It is a rhetorical device.



"Satan" =/= Devil =/= Lucifer =/= The Serpent, IIRC. YMMV.

[Magyar]

Jesus is the gardener.

WOW, I thought he was the dish washer! OR does he just have 2 jobs so he can afford health care?

[Trent Wray]

Jesus was the eggman. Jesus was the walrus.

[devnull]

The beginning*
All is good, kinda boring. Humans created, Positive and Negative most follow. Satan and the Demons begin, Positive and Negative created. Humans tested on loyalty, faith, good will etc*. Earth wiped out, Hell wiped out.

End result*
Heaven filled with righteous and loyal humans, Heaven gained Science and Technology. All is good but not boring.

*Brief

Are we all allowed to make up random crap, or only you?

[David Henson]

Dwindling In Unbelief, a blog by the author of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Steve Wells, comments upon similarities percieved between Jesus and Satan: here are my responses.

1. They are both like a lion. (Revelation 5:5 / 1 Peter 5:8)

Response: Most of the occurrences of lions in the Bible are figurative. Israel, the tribes of Judah and Gad were all prophetically referred to as lions. (Numbers 23:24 / Genesis 49:9 / Deuteronomy 33:20) Jehovah himself is likened to a lion. (Hosea 5:14; 11:10; 13:7-9) Lions represent courage and strength as in the righteous but the fierceness and predatory nature of the wicked are also likened to lions. With Satan (1 Peter 5:8), false prophets (Ezekiel 22:25), rulers (Proverbs 28:15 / Zephenia 3:3), and the wicked in general. (Psalm 22:13 / Jeremiah 12:8)

2. They are the morning star (Venus). (Revelation 22:16 / Isaiah 14:12)

Response: Stars are used throughout the Bible as similes or metaphors. In Joseph's dream his parents were the sun and moon and his 11 brothers were stars. (Genesis 37:9-10) The seven "angels" or messengers of the seven congregations are referred to as stars. (Revelation 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1) The Davidic line of Judean kings were prophetically likened to stars. (Numbers 24:17) Those with insight are compared to shinning like stars while the wicked are compared to stars with no set course. (Daniel 12:3, 9-10 / Jude 13)

There are two cases in which misleading interpretations have led people to believe that certain references to stars are references to the satanic. Isaiah 14:12 is actually a reference to the Babylonian dynasty as represented by Nebuchadnezzar rather than Satan. Lucifer is a Latin word that means "light bearer", so the Latin Vulgate translates the Greek word heosphoros meaning "bringer of dawn" from the Septuagint which in turn comes from the Hebrew word hehlel meaning "shinning one" as Lucifer. Since the KJV comes from the Latin Vulgate it uses the word Lucifer at Isaiah 14:12. The only place the word Lucifer appears in Bibles such as the Douay, An American Translation, Knox and Darby. The American Standard Version and Revised Standard Version use the term "Day Star" instead of Lucifer, Rotherham uses "Shining One" and Moffatt uses "shining star." The Latin word luciferum also appears at Job 38:32 for the Hebrew Mazzaroth / Greek Mazouroth constellation.

The term is applied to Nebuchadnezzar in the sense that he would bring about a figurative new day. He would destroy the earthly representation of Kings of Jehovah God when Babylon ended the Judean kings in 607 B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-10 / Jeremiah 52:3-12) The "Daystar" or the "Morning Star" was a bright symbol of the coming dawn - a new day. Daystar, or morning stars were used because in certain seasons of the year they are the last to rise on the eastern horizon before the sun appears and so heralds of the dawn of a new day. Like Venus.

The other case was the angel of the abyss, Abaddon. (Revelation 9:1, 11) The corresponding Greek name Apollyon means "Destroyer," so people have attempted to interpret a prophetic and satanic application to various historic figures such as Emperor Vespasian, Muhammad, and Napoleon when in actuality, as The Interpreter's Bible rightly says: "Abaddon, however, is an angel not of Satan but of God, performing his work of destruction at God's bidding."

3. They existed before the universe was created. (John 1:1 / Job 38:4-7)

Response: What is interesting about this which some don't realize is that all of the angels joyfully cried out. This would include the angel who would later become known as Satan the Devil.

Since all of the angels were created after Jesus and by means of God's firstborn Son, and they were there in the early part of creation it is only logical that both Satan and Jesus were both there. (Proverbs 8:22-31 / Colossians 1:15-16)

4. They are sons of God. (Mark 1:1 / Job 1:6, 2:1)

Response: From the Hebrew beneh Elohim, which could be variously translated as "Sons of God," "godlike ones," or, with the Targums "the band of angels," and Septuagint "my angels." Adam, at Luke 3:38, is called "the son of God."

[Accidental Martyr]

WOW, I thought he was the dish washer! OR does he just have 2 jobs so he can afford health care?

Sign at church near my house: Jesus is your best health care.

[Elizabeth I]

Sign at church near my house: Jesus is your best health care.

Not only is that sappy, it doesn't even make sense.