Jesus = Lucifer?

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
I think understanding the divine nature of Christ requires understanding the resurrection. I am reading a book on early Christologies that convey the challenge that is really created by the death and resurrection of Christ. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, how could he have died on the cross? So some people believed he didn't die on a cross and that someone took his place because they believed Christ was divine.

If he did die on the cross, then he couldn't be divine and he was just another man or a prophet like Elijah. So there was a struggle to accept that whole picture that is really created by the cross along with the resurrection. The cross and the resurrection is the source of the confusion over the Trinity. The cross says Jesus is a man. The resurrection says he has a divine nature. It has been a challenge to see Christ from the perspective of the combined perspective of cross=resurrection ever since.

Cross=resurrection is essentially the foundation of logos Christianity. This was the orthodox position the church took in the early years because this was the position that reflected the combined teachings of the apostles or the outcome of a cloud of witnesses.

When these teachings are combined to form a conclusion, this concept of cross=resurrection is what we come up with and that the writings of all the apostles do not support leaning to an opinion of cross=human as opposed to divine=resurrection.

The whole conundrum over who Christ is was created by His death and resurrection, not the doctrine of the Trinity. It is His death and resurrection, which are the elementary principles that lead to a mature understanding of Jesus as the Son of God.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
The whole conundrum over who Christ is was created by His death and resurrection, not the doctrine of the Trinity. It is His death and resurrection, which are the elementary principles that lead to a mature understanding of Jesus as the Son of God.
Too bad it can't be proved. You would think if someone actually came back to life after actually dying the Romans would have recorded it considering they were really good at recording things. There is not one historical report of zombies rising from their tombs or a man named Jesus being resurrected.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
Too bad it can't be proved. You would think if someone actually came back to life after actually dying the Romans would have recorded it considering they were really good at recording things. There is not one historical report of zombies rising from their tombs or a man named Jesus being resurrected.
Salaams my bruh, it's important to have consistent arguments man. This is like when i used to read answering-christianity and answering-islam back and forth..and i'd find both sides are so biased that often times the christians are directly telling the muslims "look your Quran contains the truth but you people dont accept it" and the muslims would do the same thing with the christians concerning the bible...yet they would hate each other and could not come to any common understanding.

In the context, Jesus would have been in the tomb for 3 days/nights and then disappeared. So no roman would have witnessed what happened in that time. The accounts after the resurrection were very brief ie Jesus was seen.
That's a bit like if someone escaped from jail for a few days, just because no independent account exists doesn't mean anything.

The Quran itself in Surah 3 tells us Isa AS raised the dead back to life and also gave life to a clay form of a pigeon.
So there doesn't need to be independent evidence of 'zombies'...by the Quran you should believe the dead can be raised back to life.

Also it is especially important to understand there is a true context within all of this concerning the topic of DEATH itself. For example in the book of Wisdom chapters 1-3 which is one of the key missing prophecies, it tells us that death is not real. The only people who actually die, are the sinful. Death is experienced because of our carnal nature ie our nafs. So what would happen to someone who acheived the state of fanaa (a sufi concept) ie they put their nafs to death for the sake of Allah, could such a person be killed? int he case of Isa AS he actually experienced his fanaa when he was in the desert.
Now link this to acts 2..peter says "for death had no hold on him" meaning whilst his body was clinically dead, the grave rejected Jesus. our carnal nature is attached to the earth and therefore we experience spiritual death, but if the source of those attachments is put to death, then barzakh cannot hold us.

So what does Wisdom tell us?
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=3&id=27
1 But the souls of the upright are in the hands of God, and no torment can touch them.
2 To the unenlightened, they appeared to die, their departure was regarded as disaster,

3 their leaving us like annihilation; but they are at peace.

hope was rich with immortality;

will their blessings be. God was putting them to the test and has proved them worthy to be with him;

6 he has tested them like gold in a furnace, and accepted them as a perfect burnt offering.

time of visitation, they will shine out; as sparks run through the stubble, so will they.

will judge nations, rule over peoples, and the Lord will be their king for ever.


so from this perspective if you read verse 4:157 in the Quran the meaning becomes very obvious.
Actually this is one of the problems i have with muslims myself.
They always quote this verse but they do not even quotei t's entire context.
For example when it begins, it says "They said in boast"
and who is it referring to?...to understand this context, just read chapter 2 of wisdom
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=27&bible_chapter=2
It was a prophecy of the sadducee's
those who rejected belief in the resurrection.

http://biblehub.com/mark/12-18.htm
Then Jesus was approached by some Sadducees--religious leaders who say there is no resurrection from the dead. They posed this question:

honestly, i've been criticised by muslims a lot of times because they say "we do not use the bible, an altered book, to understand the Quran, rather we use the Quran to understand the bible"
my honest view is that most muslims who have opinions on these matters are ignorant and they only say such things out of sheer ego...which is the big irony given the topic is about the nafs.

@rainerann when you talk about Son of God, when you discuss this with muslims why not just use the term Logos/Word of God instead? as ive said many times the term 'son of God' was only a symbolic way of referring tot he logos anyway.
it is a symbolic term which islam rejects because it is potentially polythiestic anyway. Saying 'the logos/word of God' however is easy to understand.
plus in the english language it is different to it's origin...
bene elohim...was generally used to describe those who were close to God.
it was problematic ie it was even given to angels.
so when you speak of Jesus as the 'only begotten son of God' it is funny, since God has said before that Israel was His firstborn..........this is just symbolic stuff and not literal. However the Logos/word of God itself as an eternal expression of the Absolute Essence, is something that's easier to understand.
I think when you christians talk about the 'son of God' your intent is kind of fruity.......you're basically trying to push the polytheistic trinitarian belief, which in the original context was not what it was meant to be.
The Logos as God's expression IS his Immanent nature, so it is ironic that i reject the trinity but i do believe the logos is God's Immanence and hence so is Jesus. It's only that i deny he is co-equal with the Transcendent God who is the power behind His Imminence.
His Imminence is also, everywhere (universal consciousness/logos)....inc inside us (holy spirit). Jesus is meant to be the incarnation of the logos. So the idea of the universal consciousness incarnating into a single person, is a concept as ive said, came from hinduism into persian and then greek hands and finally into judaism.
This is why i say that if you have it in you to worship Jesus then technically you must be consistent and accept pantheism.
Whwen it says "in him all things are held together" for example, it is not talking about Jesus Christ specifically but the Logos.
also there are many incarnations of the logos but only one logos. "only begotten son of God" is not exclusive to Jesus, but it is exclusive to the Logos.
The other reason it is ironic though is because i read somewhere that the trinitarian belief actually does NOT teach that Jesus and the holy spirit are the Transcendent God. If this is true then there is not much im in disagreement with except literal interpretations and the fact that most christians have the wrong belief. it also means you guys are doing the trinity wrong. That makes me more christian than you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
According to Christian theology, the transcendent God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. In Byzantine Rite theology the immanence of God is expressed as the hypostases or energies of God, who in his essence is incomprehensible and transcendent. In Catholic theology, Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit, and the Divine Nature, the Godhead is wholly transcendent and unable to be comprehended.

I fully 100% agree with this yet ironically there are many christians inc catholics i conversed with who fully 100% disagreed and told me that 'you must believe Jesus is FULLY God, as the Transcendent and imminent God' which i obv reject. personally i think they do not understand the difference.

Of course islam avoids all of these controversies but it does not mean there is no truth within them. Afterall I firmly, 100% believe the words Bismillah irRahman IrRaheem deal with the same metaphysics.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
Salaams my bruh, it's important to have consistent arguments man. This is like when i used to read answering-christianity and answering-islam back and forth..and i'd find both sides are so biased that often times the christians are directly telling the muslims "look your Quran contains the truth but you people dont accept it" and the muslims would do the same thing with the christians concerning the bible...yet they would hate each other and could not come to any common understanding.
Walaikum assalam brother,

I don't use references from either of those sites but to be fair Answer-Islam was created in order to rebut some of the crazy nonsense and straight out of lies that Answering-Christianity was coming out with.

In the context, Jesus would have been in the tomb for 3 days/nights and then disappeared. So no roman would have witnessed what happened in that time. The accounts after the resurrection were very brief ie Jesus was seen.
That's a bit like if someone escaped from jail for a few days, just because no independent account exists doesn't mean anything.

The Quran itself in Surah 3 tells us Isa AS raised the dead back to life and also gave life to a clay form of a pigeon.
So there doesn't need to be independent evidence of 'zombies'...by the Quran you should believe the dead can be raised back to life.
If you break it down logically Jesus would have been in the tomb for only 2 nights and 1 day (it couldn't have been 3 nights and 3 days when he was allegedly crucified on Friday afternoon and then raised Easter Sunday sunrise). It simply doesn't add up. Also, when Jesus was allegedly crucified and died (it takes several hours to die from crucifixion by the way) saints came back to life and walked into the city in other words they were literally zombies yet there is no historical mention of this. You would think if a bunch of people came to life the Roman officials would have documented that considering they would have been there during the crucifixion. None of it logically adds up.

I believe the dead can be raised and all the other miracles but when those miracles do happen it's a prophet that is performing it through the permission of the Most High but most of all it adds up.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
@Kung Fu answering-c is the muslim site and answering-i the christian site.
I think they started out debating on newsgroups then went onto website. However you're right the christian side went full retard and started every type of website possible. there are a lot of people working against islam, but unfortunately the muslim side kind of created the context when they went all out with the common views we have of christianity. Those views basically led to attacks against islam when they didnt need to be.
it's like on here where christians attack islam, based on assumptions they have from common muslim viewpoints esp towards xtianity.

About the resurrection, it happened in the tomb, not directly after the crucifixion in public.
About the day, it was the day before passover so the assumption is it was on Thursday. It isn't clear what day it was but this is the better assumption.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Salaams my bruh, it's important to have consistent arguments man. This is like when i used to read answering-christianity and answering-islam back and forth..and i'd find both sides are so biased that often times the christians are directly telling the muslims "look your Quran contains the truth but you people dont accept it" and the muslims would do the same thing with the christians concerning the bible...yet they would hate each other and could not come to any common understanding.

In the context, Jesus would have been in the tomb for 3 days/nights and then disappeared. So no roman would have witnessed what happened in that time. The accounts after the resurrection were very brief ie Jesus was seen.
That's a bit like if someone escaped from jail for a few days, just because no independent account exists doesn't mean anything.

The Quran itself in Surah 3 tells us Isa AS raised the dead back to life and also gave life to a clay form of a pigeon.
So there doesn't need to be independent evidence of 'zombies'...by the Quran you should believe the dead can be raised back to life.

Also it is especially important to understand there is a true context within all of this concerning the topic of DEATH itself. For example in the book of Wisdom chapters 1-3 which is one of the key missing prophecies, it tells us that death is not real. The only people who actually die, are the sinful. Death is experienced because of our carnal nature ie our nafs. So what would happen to someone who acheived the state of fanaa (a sufi concept) ie they put their nafs to death for the sake of Allah, could such a person be killed? int he case of Isa AS he actually experienced his fanaa when he was in the desert.
Now link this to acts 2..peter says "for death had no hold on him" meaning whilst his body was clinically dead, the grave rejected Jesus. our carnal nature is attached to the earth and therefore we experience spiritual death, but if the source of those attachments is put to death, then barzakh cannot hold us.

So what does Wisdom tell us?
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=3&id=27
1 But the souls of the upright are in the hands of God, and no torment can touch them.
2 To the unenlightened, they appeared to die, their departure was regarded as disaster,

3 their leaving us like annihilation; but they are at peace.

hope was rich with immortality;

will their blessings be. God was putting them to the test and has proved them worthy to be with him;

6 he has tested them like gold in a furnace, and accepted them as a perfect burnt offering.

time of visitation, they will shine out; as sparks run through the stubble, so will they.

will judge nations, rule over peoples, and the Lord will be their king for ever.


so from this perspective if you read verse 4:157 in the Quran the meaning becomes very obvious.
Actually this is one of the problems i have with muslims myself.
They always quote this verse but they do not even quotei t's entire context.
For example when it begins, it says "They said in boast"
and who is it referring to?...to understand this context, just read chapter 2 of wisdom
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=27&bible_chapter=2
It was a prophecy of the sadducee's
those who rejected belief in the resurrection.

http://biblehub.com/mark/12-18.htm
Then Jesus was approached by some Sadducees--religious leaders who say there is no resurrection from the dead. They posed this question:

honestly, i've been criticised by muslims a lot of times because they say "we do not use the bible, an altered book, to understand the Quran, rather we use the Quran to understand the bible"
my honest view is that most muslims who have opinions on these matters are ignorant and they only say such things out of sheer ego...which is the big irony given the topic is about the nafs.

@rainerann when you talk about Son of God, when you discuss this with muslims why not just use the term Logos/Word of God instead? as ive said many times the term 'son of God' was only a symbolic way of referring tot he logos anyway.
it is a symbolic term which islam rejects because it is potentially polythiestic anyway. Saying 'the logos/word of God' however is easy to understand.
plus in the english language it is different to it's origin...
bene elohim...was generally used to describe those who were close to God.
it was problematic ie it was even given to angels.
so when you speak of Jesus as the 'only begotten son of God' it is funny, since God has said before that Israel was His firstborn..........this is just symbolic stuff and not literal. However the Logos/word of God itself as an eternal expression of the Absolute Essence, is something that's easier to understand.
I think when you christians talk about the 'son of God' your intent is kind of fruity.......you're basically trying to push the polytheistic trinitarian belief, which in the original context was not what it was meant to be.
The Logos as God's expression IS his Immanent nature, so it is ironic that i reject the trinity but i do believe the logos is God's Immanence and hence so is Jesus. It's only that i deny he is co-equal with the Transcendent God who is the power behind His Imminence.
His Imminence is also, everywhere (universal consciousness/logos)....inc inside us (holy spirit). Jesus is meant to be the incarnation of the logos. So the idea of the universal consciousness incarnating into a single person, is a concept as ive said, came from hinduism into persian and then greek hands and finally into judaism.
This is why i say that if you have it in you to worship Jesus then technically you must be consistent and accept pantheism.
Whwen it says "in him all things are held together" for example, it is not talking about Jesus Christ specifically but the Logos.
also there are many incarnations of the logos but only one logos. "only begotten son of God" is not exclusive to Jesus, but it is exclusive to the Logos.
The other reason it is ironic though is because i read somewhere that the trinitarian belief actually does NOT teach that Jesus and the holy spirit are the Transcendent God. If this is true then there is not much im in disagreement with except literal interpretations and the fact that most christians have the wrong belief. it also means you guys are doing the trinity wrong. That makes me more christian than you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
According to Christian theology, the transcendent God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. In Byzantine Rite theology the immanence of God is expressed as the hypostases or energies of God, who in his essence is incomprehensible and transcendent. In Catholic theology, Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit, and the Divine Nature, the Godhead is wholly transcendent and unable to be comprehended.

I fully 100% agree with this yet ironically there are many christians inc catholics i conversed with who fully 100% disagreed and told me that 'you must believe Jesus is FULLY God, as the Transcendent and imminent God' which i obv reject. personally i think they do not understand the difference.

Of course islam avoids all of these controversies but it does not mean there is no truth within them. Afterall I firmly, 100% believe the words Bismillah irRahman IrRaheem deal with the same metaphysics.
I use the term Son of God because it is more accurate way of describing Christ as the word of God in the form of a human man known as Jesus. To refer to a man as "the Logos" doesn't make sense on its own. To use the term "logos" to describe the relationship of Christ with the Father makes sense, but it doesn't make sense if we are trying to describe the ministry of Christ.

To refer to him as the logos is not any easier to understand especially when you reject the cross and the resurrection, which is the point I was trying to make. To discuss the subject of the Trinity is somewhat ridiculous when you reject the cross and the resurrection initially to begin with. Of course, it won't make sense. This is the point I was trying to make.

The subject of Christ has to be reduced to accepting simpler precepts like the cross and the resurrection. This is the foundation. To make the subject easier to understand, we need to discuss the building blocks, not change the language from referring to Christ as the Logos instead of the Son of God especially when we are trying to engage in a discussion on the life and ministry of Jesus.

Essentially, saying that Jesus is the Son of God is the same thing as describing the presence of the Logos as a pillar of Cloud by day or fire by night instead of saying the Logos was visible as a cloud and as fire when it was dark.

"And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night." (Exodus 13:21).

In this verse, God was visible to the people and leading them directly with His presence. In the same way, Christ was visible during His ministry and the Holy Spirit is visible to those of us who accept Christ as the Son of God.

We also know that God says something interesting to Moses in Exodus 33:19-20.

"And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

So Moses was able to see all the goodness of God without seeing His face. This is essentially what Jesus as the Son of God accomplished. We can see all the goodness of God through Christ, but we cannot see His face still.

So we would say Jesus is the Son of God because saying that Jesus is the Logos is to describe the complete experience of God, including his face. When John refers to Christ as the logos that was in the beginning, it is suggesting that Christ is complete with the Father and can see His face in a way we are not able to do according to Exodus 33:19-20.

It is not suggesting that the Son of God is called the Logos, while we call God the Father. The Logos is not separate, and seeing Christ is having the opportunity to experience God while we are still unable to see His face. He is a pillar of cloud by day and the fire that guides us through the night.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
@rainerann ok I can see where you're coming from. what you're essentially saying is the 'son of God' was more a reference to the incarnation than the Logos itself.
let me explain how this theme fits in my understanding which is also, a sufi theme. I've explained this before.
The idea of the logos is akin to a universal ocean...and a human spirit is akin to a drop in that ocean. Yet there is this idea of a special person in whom the entire ocean is contained, ie 'the ocean in a drop'. Though such a thing is not exactly part of mainstream islam, it is a deeply spiritual theme that of course would be very challenging to many people who do not understand (spiritually) the meaning of this term.
It is basically the ultimate enlightenment.
However where you're wrong, is that the Son of God IS the Image of God..and the Image in the context was the precise thing/level which the jewish philosophy Philo used to incorporate the concept of logos into jewish spirituality.
This of course led to Jesus Christ. It was a universal theme, why do you think Zoroastrians knew about Jesus when he came? people were awaiting this 'ocean in a drop' for a while.

Jesus Christ the individual, the incarnation, is the flesh, the son of David, the messiah etc.
The problem with using the term 'son of God' in the context is, it's like when I was a young boy (went to a christian school), the songs they sang of Jesus..the images..what I had in my simple mind was that this baby was meant to be the literal SON of God..and our headteacher used to be very specific in pointing to this image of the baby in the manger and saying 'he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of God'.
This is why for a long time i had no interest in christianity or the NT. It wasn't until i got older and began to take serious interest in the metaphysical themes,I read ibn arabi's views of the Kalaam (logos/word of God) and realised these themes were entirely referenced throughout the NT.
For example, when Paul said that the Son is the Image of the INVISIBLE Father
it actually completely put into context the theme of the Essence of God vs the manifest/attributes of God. Ie the Essence is invisible/hidden reality of the Transcendent God, but it is through the expression (the logos) that the attributes/qualities of God are made known.
This is a lengthy topic in it's own right so I won't get into it. However you should at least know that personally i've studied these themes in islam and in hinduism in depth and found that the NT helped me too because each of these seemingly random statements made me realise my understanding was consistent with the whole./
There are many truths that you may not directly know about.

For example...
In hinduism, it teaches that there are 3 types of qualities (gunas) that dominate all of nature, not just humans but animals too.
Sattva/purity, rajas/passion..and tamas/darkness.
Similarly in islam, there is islam, hawa and jahilliya.
The hindus go into depth explaining these 3 qualities and what they collectively produce in society. They have a dietry system, meditations, mantras etc in order to keep a person remaining in sattva nature.
An example, imagine a really pious God-fearing person, that person is in Sattva.
Now rajas/passion has it's merits, for example if you want to be physically active, workout etc, you have to have some rajas. Rajas is what moves us, the word Hawa means 'air' and is basically part of our sexual energy (the etheric lifeforce) so it's also important. When people enter into tamas, that's when the world becomes a dark place, full of murder, cannibalism, homosexuality etc.
Now back when I first came to learn about this theme. I began observing the way us muslims eat day to day. Despite the teachings of islam. For example in islam it is severely disliked for us to eat meat on consective days. it is considered excessive, greedy, arrogant, wasteful etc. It is also bad for us.
YET for me to look my physical best, i have to eat a lot of protein in my diet. so it's fair to say day to day i am in a deep state of rajas/hawa.
The 'qualities' this state collectively produces for us all, is that our actions then reflect. Which is why people are sex obsessed for example, there is simply too much of that rajas/hawa/passion. Do you understand so far?
Now a combination of rajas with tamas, ie an athiestic civilisation that forgets God and is driven by lusts..what is their end state? as i said, you see murders, homosexuality, cannibalism (eventually)..all types of evils are produced.
Yet the hindus, having a dietry system related to all of this, at least have ways of us having a yardstick ie if you are attracted to certain types of foods, it shows what level you're at.
So i realised from this, clearly this planet, regardless of religion/culture, we are mostly dominated by rajas and tamas. Even if we claim to believe in God, most of us are not true to God.
Anyway....then I read Romans 1 and i think 'man Paul was ON POINT'
I found that a lot with Paul's teachings, much of what i was coming to understand he would just say..and what appear to be random teachings have deep significance.
I like certain aspects of hinduism simply because it is such an old religion, so they've delved deep into these truths better than most religions.

Another topic
in my religion there is a saying of the prophet SAW where he said 'when you sleep, your soul returns to Allah'.
In another instance he said 'my eyes sleep but my heart never sleeps'.
To me what this indicated back when i was young and knew nothing..was that clearly he had acheived this state of consciousness even in the deepest sleep state. That got me looking into the whole beta/alpha/theta/delta brainwave states.
I have never seen any muslim, ever.......talk about this.
Yet it intrigued me and I wanted to try and at least understand this theme. That directly leads to hinduism. Read up on this
http://anaditeaching.com/turiya-the-absolute-waking-state/

it reminds me of when Jesus said
the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. He told his disciples to remain AWAKE.
Why was that so important over sleep?
See the hindus, you've got to respect them..they have this in their religion, in depth. They have a system for it, meditations, yogas.
btw the word Yoga just means path. So for example, if you have love in your heart, be it for Jesus or God or even your own family...that is called Bhagti Yoga..and this type of yoga on it's own, can take you to enlightenment when it's expanded.
Similarly there is a type of yoga where you just serve people.
now when i look at islam..it is a different system to theirs, but it does encorporate many of the same ideas in it's own right. for example when we read the salat, those movements are a yoga in their own right. This is something many hindus themselves have observed/appreciated about islam and likewise muslims have acknowledge this as a yoga.

The point im trying to get at is, to me, the angles i'm coming at you from, are to understand all these themes from a universal perspective...seeing how they all link to other religions in a way that makes perfect sense.
To you, this does not matter, but i think you'd agree that despite everything you think you know, there's a lot more to know...
personally, i've found the NT full theme after theme that on it's own is an expanded theme outside of christianity, just like ive found themes that are part of islam but not expanded on by muslims (like turiya consciousness).

Btw check this out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#The_Logos
Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son.
 

ohnehta

Rookie
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
20
Morning Star is just a title. Jesus existed Lucifer was even a thought so he can call himself whatever he wants because he's God and Lucifer is not.
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
Too bad it can't be proved. You would think if someone actually came back to life after actually dying the Romans would have recorded it considering they were really good at recording things. There is not one historical report of zombies rising from their tombs or a man named Jesus being resurrected.
Yes there is. Josephus wrote also about Jesus.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." - Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
What was translated as "Lucifer son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12 is the Hebrew "heylel ben shachar".

Well "heylel" is only used one time in the Bible in the sense of brightness... and "hilal" is the Arabic word for crescent... and so it makes sense that Allah was worshipped as a moon god in Arabia.

It is about high time that Islam owns up to this idol worship.

---

Now do you know why Islam is so strong today and muslims so annoying ? It is because they worship the same idol as Freemasonry which has entrenched itself in the West for a long time and so they know they have a most powerful ally within the West.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
What was translated as "Lucifer son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12 is the Hebrew "heylel ben shachar".

Well "heylel" is only used one time in the Bible in the sense of brightness... and "hilal" is the Arabic word for crescent... and so it makes sense that Allah was worshipped as a moon god in Arabia.

It is about high time that Islam owns up to this idol worship.

---

Now do you know why Islam is so strong today and muslims so annoying ? It is because they worship the same idol as Freemasonry which has entrenched itself in the West for a long time and so they know they have a most powerful ally within the West.
You utter prat.
freemasonry has it's origins in the knights templars from the crusaders, islam/muslims fought your crusers. The beast is the western colonial roman Christian world.

As for the word 'heylal' and the arabic word 'hilal' you haven't exactly proven it has anyhing in connection with islamic tawheed, if you even know what that is.
the argument is so laughable to us, but still

Here is a story in the Quran about Abraham

https://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=6&translator=5#77

75 Thus did we show Ibrahim (Abraham) the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he be one of those who have Faith with certainty.
76 When the night covered him over with darkness he saw a star. He said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "I like not those that set."
77 When he saw the moon rising up, he said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among the people who went astray."
78 When he saw the sun rising up, he said: "This is my lord. This is greater." But when it set, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners (in worship with Allah).
79 Verily, I have turned my face towards Him Who has created the heavens and the earth Hanifa (Islamic Monotheism, i.e. worshipping none but Allah Alone), and I am not of Al-Mushrikun (See V.2:105)".
80 His people disputed with him. He said: "Do you dispute with me concerning Allah while He has guided me, and I fear not those whom you associate with Him (Allah) in worship. (Nothing can happen to me) except when my Lord (Allah) wills something. My Lord comprehends in His Knowledge all things. Will you not then remember?

come back when you're a little older and actually learn to think like a real man and not a complete spastic.
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
freemasonry has it's origins in the knights templars from the crusaders, islam/muslims fought your crusers. The beast is the western colonial roman Christian world.
Yes you're right... Freemasonry is the continuation of the Knights Templar who converted to Islam.

And Freemasonry is the shadow gvernment of most nations and the United Nations.

No wonder the Jews just can't get a break and Christians are persecuted around the world.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
Do you think that a moon god will come clean as an idol in his own book ?
LOL! In other words, the Quran which states that the moon and the sun are a creation and subservient to the Most High, you have no proof even when the Quran goes completely counter to the claim you made which you have no evidence for whatsoever.

You're making this to easy.
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
LOL! In other words, the Quran which states that the moon and the sun are a creation and subservient to the Most High, you have no proof even when the Quran goes completely counter to the claim you made which you have no evidence for whatsoever.

You're making this to easy.
Look the Quran is not from God and not from the angel Gabriel.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
Yes you're right... Freemasonry is the continuation of the Knights Templar who converted to Islam.

And Freemasonry is the shadow gvernment of most nations and the United Nations.

No wonder the Jews just can't get a break and Christians are persecuted around the world.
lmfao
knights templars are christians
freemasonry dominates western society, it's in every town.
jews are the welthiest people on earth by a long shot.

No, christians aren't persecuted you silly beggar. Christians colonised the majority of the world. They're persecuted in relatively small number but it's nothing like what's happening to muslims in indian controlled kashmir or burma or any other place.
The biggest massacre of christians happened in the bolshevik era and it was manipulated by jews, had nothing to do with muslims. Those were jews preaching an athiestic message to turn people away from the eastern orthodox church and to loot the wealth in churches.

Do you think that a moon god will come clean as an idol in his own book ?
lmfao again
an idol can't talk, ok an entity then? if muslims were worshipping a 'moon god' it would tell us it's a moon god. Throughout history, in many places, people have worshipped entities (jinns) and even the angels as 'gods' but those religions were panthestic/polythiestic.
islam, obviously rejects that but my words are wasted on you, you're too stupid to understand even a simple thing like that.

If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?
this probably goes way over your head too. typical dumb christian.
 
Last edited:

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
lmfao
knights templars are christians
freemasonry dominates western society, it's in every town.
Yes you're right Freemasonry dominates western society and that is why millions of muslims have been mass imported into western society.

Freemasonry who is the continuation of the Knights Templar worship Lucifer who is the moon god of Islam.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?
this probably goes way over your head too. typical dumb christian.
This. I've said this very same thing countless times. Logically it doesn't make sense for Satan to do that. Intelligent Christians never say the Quran was authored by Satan because they know pitfalls in that statement. It's usually low IQ Christians that make ridiculous statements like lol.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
Yes you're right Freemasonry dominates western society and that is why millions of muslims have been mass imported into western society.

Freemasonry who is the continuation of the Knights Templar worship Lucifer who is the moon god of Islam.
Colonial nations forged their own commonwealth ties with their former colonies. Many of those were muslim but just as many were not.
So in britian you got people from the carribean and the indian sub-continent..these were british territories.
in France you got North (berber muslims) and west africans (both muslim and christian).
Germany didn't have a huge empire but it had a deal with Turkey and so you similarly you get turks in Germany.
Spain has it's ties with latin america. Portugal with brazil and s.india/sri lanka.
It's the same with holland and belgium too.

All these countries were european christian...and former colonies of the roman empire.
Rome became Christian. Everything these nations then conquered became subsequent extentions of rome and hence part of the beast system.

Furthermore, creating a globalised world meant they allowed immigrants in, first from the commonwealth and then from the EU.
Also, christians took N.America and australasia, 2 continents...you're whining over a few million muslims in europe?
 
Top