Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 11:38:24 GMT -6
f12 said:
I said:
Gnostic thought is "common knowledge" to the extent that you don't feel it's necessary to provide sources? The origin and meaning of modern Catholic terms and ideas are certainly a specialty among those interested in Christianity's origins.
Ordinary practicing Catholics have very little knowledge of the Bible itself, let alone Gnostic and Pagan ideas and literature. There is nothing wrong with that at all. There is too much information out there and most people are uninterested in such things.
Getting back to your post...there is nothing for a Catholic to "fear"
if one DOES choose to investigate such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 11:54:44 GMT -6
Butters- I will warn you ahead of time, as a Catholic, this is a road which you do not wish to travel. It will lead to you not going to church and disavowing your Catholic beliefs. It will take you through astrology, ancient writings by many cultures, Venus cycles being featured prominently throughout the bible, and many other things. But, if you wish to continue this discourse, fine by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 11:57:40 GMT -6
Today at 12:17pm, butterbean wrote:
Today at 11:47am, freedom12 wrote:No , Lucifer and the "devil" are two different entities. The meaning of Lucifer, has been changed by the Catholic church to fit their dogma.
This is an area you should probably stay away from as a Catholic as most source material on this subject mater is considered non-canonical. It also causes problems for the doctrine and dogma of the church.
Not to the everyday, church attending/practicing Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And therein lies the problem. I agree that Catholics think they are the same entity, but being uneducated about the religion you practice is no excuse.
Lucifer is mentioned one time in the bible, the 14th chapter of Isiah. Kind of interesting that a Latin word was used before the language even existed, since Isiah was written in Hebrew. The original story in Isiah, was of a fallen Babylonian king who persecuted Israelites and makes no mention of Satan.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 12:11:12 GMT -6
Yeah, I know that right now you are Googling and searching for a response. I'd be willing to bet your next post will be copy and paste. In your search for material to respond, you probably are going to learn some things, which can't hurt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 12:19:15 GMT -6
freedom12 :
Nahhhh...I know a lot more about this stuff than you do. What good is a pissing contest? As far as a discussion about the origins of the Catholic faith goes...the fact that human beings are involved means that there is going to be scores of opposing opinions about EVERYTHING. I have a library full of these texts, f12. What I have learned over a lifetime of searching has increased, not diminished my faith in the CC and it's teachings.
When all is said and done...after you have exhausted every reason you can think of to hate and bash the Catholic religion...this remains:
We don't need to debate anything here. It's all been done by others and is ongoing as I type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 12:23:26 GMT -6
Yeah, I know that right now you are Googling and searching for a response. I'd be willing to bet your next post will be copy and paste. In your search for material to respond, you probably are going to learn some things, which can't hurt. I'm sure that your misplaced arrogance has been your downfall your entire life...right? |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 12:32:19 GMT -6
"Nahhhh...I know a lot more about this stuff than you do. What good is a pissing contest?"-BButters
Isn't the above quote contradictory?
Your claim that Lucifer is one in the same as Satan/Devil is proof you are uneducated on the subject matter.
I acknowledged that most Catholics believe the same misinfo you mentioned. So, where did they get this erroneous info?
As mentioned on the above post, some of it comes from 14 Isiah. It also can be attributed to St Jerome and his translation.(Vulgate) Another person responsible for misconstruing Lucifer's name is British poet John Milton in his story Paradise Lost from 1667.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 12:50:01 GMT -6
"Nahhhh...I know a lot more about this stuff than you do. What good is a pissing contest?"-BButters Isn't the above quote contradictory? Your claim that Lucifer is one in the same as Satan/Devil is proof you are uneducated on the subject matter. I acknowledged that most Catholics believe the same misinfo you mentioned. So, where did they get this erroneous info? As mentioned on the above post, some of it comes from 14 Isiah. It also can be attributed to St Jerome and his translation.(Vulgate) Another person responsible for misconstruing Lucifer's name is British poet John Milton in his story Paradise Lost from 1667. "Your claim that Lucifer is one in the same as Satan/Devil is proof you are uneducated on the subject matter." Put my statement in the context I offered it. What's wrong with you? We were discussing what the garden-variety Catholic is taught to believe, not the etymology of each word. I'll bet your comparative linguistics background begs attention. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 13:03:05 GMT -6
You wished to address the topic of Lucifer being the same as the Devil/Satan? If offended you by use of the term "Catholic", I'll use Christianity instead. Now, back to the subject matter.
I left out Dante's Inferno to the above list of St Jerome, John Milton, and Isiah 14.
As for etymology, I haven't even went there, yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 13:08:28 GMT -6
You wished to address the topic of Lucifer being the same as the Devil/Satan? If offended you by use of the term "Catholic", I'll use Christianity instead. Now, back to the subject matter. I left out Dante's Inferno to the above list of St Jerome, John Milton, and Isiah 14. As for etymology, I haven't even went there, yet. Please read reply #4 and have a good day. |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 13:50:26 GMT -6
I hope you didn't throw a hissy-fit and storm off?
Since you brought up etymology, let's delve a little into that.
The story of Paradise Lost concerns the heavenly revolt of Satan, leading to his fall from grace and the establishment of Hell.
Now Mr Butters, here was a passage in the Old Testament book of Isiah 14:12 which prophesied the overthrow of Babylon's king, stating: "How are you fallen from heaven, day star, son of the dawn!" As is made clear by the term "son of the dawn", the Isaiah reference was to the King of Babylon, but astronomically the "day star" or "morning star" is Venus, which appears in the sky before sunrise. In Latin, Venus "the light-bringer" was referred to as the "lux-fer", or as it was more commonly written, "the lucifer".
What Milton did was to treat this descriptive femine term as a proper noun in accordance with St Jerome's Vulgate translation, and as it appears in the Isaiah verse today. But more than that - Lucifer was aligned in paradise Lost with Satan.
Of Lucifer, so by allusion called,
Of that bright star to Satan paragon'd.
Prior to 1667, the term lucifer (lux-fer: "light-bringer") had never been associated with a male entity - and certainly not with an evil Satan.
You with me so far?
Even after Milton's death, in 18th century dictionaries, the correct reference is given. For instance, the Nathan Bailey's Etymological Dictionary states: 'Lucifer - The morning or day star, the planet Venus, when it rises before the sun'. But, notwithstanding, following Milton's lead, Freemasons were now not only sun cultists - they were also satanists!
And so, from 1667, Lucifer became an alternative name for Satan, while its association with Venus, light bearer and goddess of love, was forgotten by way of clerical indoctrination. What is perhaps surprising is that, more than three centuries later, the Puritan view is still being expressed by a body of hard-line religious extremists. They pretend on the Internet, and in their books, to be investigators into a liberal conspiracy, but in reality they pursue a modern-day which hunt that accuses Freemasons of being satanists and devil-worshipers.
On to Jerome and hang in there, almost done.
The clear dishonesty in the Vulgate Isaiah translation can be seen from the word that was misrepresented as Lucifer. The direct Greek equivalent to lux-fer (light-bringer) was phos phoros (from which the Latin and English word phosphorous derives). Where this was used in the New Testament (2 Peter 1:19), it was trasnalted as "day star". This is absolutely correct as lux-fer and phos phoros are identical in referring to the light bringer (or light carrier), and the word "phosphorus" is rightly given in today's dictionary as relating to the morning star. This was never a derogatory term, and was even applied in relation to the Messiah (Revelation 22:16 - "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.)
But the original term used in Isaiah was not phos phoros but the Hebrew word Heylel. This derives from the primitive halal, and is used 165 times in the Old Testament. Examples can be found in 1 Kings 20:11, Psalms 10:3, and Proverbs 20:14, and in each case (along with many others) heylel relates to boasting. Isaiah 14:12 should not read as 'How are you fallen from heaven, day star, son of the dawn!' but 'How are you fallen from heaven, boastful one, son of the dawn!' As the writer of Isaiah intended, this was a direct reference to the Babylonian king, and had no connection whatever to Venus or a light bearer of any kind.
Not only was John Milton's misuse of lux-fer thoroughly ill-disposed, it was (as derived from the Vulgate translation) the wrong word in any event.
Okay, that's a start Butters, but I have at least 2 more hours off the top of my head yet. I half-arsed tried to reference for you.
Next up should probably be Enoch, but I'm sure you read him, correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 14:24:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 29, 2011 7:59:19 GMT -6
And Butters runs away like a little biotch.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 7, 2011 17:46:31 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2011 4:57:52 GMT -6
Me: Opposing ideas about religion and God are as normal as mud after a rain. Free will...remember? |
|
