jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (4 posts)

Would u think it make sense to start worshiping Lucifer as the real god, after r

  1. profile image62
    peter565posted 8 months ago

    Would u think it make sense to start worshiping Lucifer as the real god, after reading this?

    In ancient Egypt myth, jealous demon Set, killed the beloved good King that bring peace and prosperity. Set then hold dictatorship over the land, demand all to worship, serve and love him only and kill those who refuse. Under Set's rule the world fall to horror, till the God Horus came and defeated Set and established a new monarch and order to return peace, order and prosperity. Later, Set worshipers left Egypt its cult become Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so Christianity demand worshiping its god as only true god and to serve him, made Horus Lucifer, changing story ending to Set won.

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13562310_f260.jpg

  2. AF Mind profile image53
    AF Mindposted 8 months ago

    No, because Lucifer is neither a god or a spirit.

    saiah 14:12-14

    "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

    "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of YHWH: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"

    "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

    See, Christians misinterpret this and think that Lucifer was the highest angel who then became prideful and rebelled, resulting in him being cast down. But I want you to notice something. Isaiah 14 isn't dealing with celestial angels. It is about a prophecy regarding the children of Jacob.

    Now go back to Isaiah 14 12, but read until verses 15 and 16. Notice how in 16 it says, "Is this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;". Why would they be calling Lucifer a man if he is a spirit? Why didn't they say angel? Because Lucifer is basically a name used for the ruler of Babylon, not the name of a spiritual being.

    The N.I.V. and other modern versions have set out the text of Isaiah chapters 13-23 as a series of “burdens” on various nations, e.g. Babylon, Tyre, Egypt. Isaiah 14: 4, sets the context of the verses we are considering: “Thou shalt take up this proverb (parable) against the king of Babylon...” (Isaiah 14 4). The prophecy is therefore about the human king of Babylon, who is described as “Lucifer”. On his fall: “they that see thee shall...consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble...?” (v. 16). Thus Lucifer is clearly defined as a man. Lucifer was a human king , “All kings of the nations...shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?” (vs. 9-10). Lucifer was therefore a king like any other king.


    There's a good reason why the King of Babylon is described as "the morning star", or Venus. The Babylonians believed that their king was the child of their gods Bel and Ishtar, both of whom were associated with the planets- they thought that their King was the planet Venus.

    1. profile image62
      peter565posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      But the plot twist is Ishtar is Horus'(Lucifer's) mother, according to mythology. In Egypt she was known as Isis, till, become known in Ishtar in Babylon.

    2. AF Mind profile image53
      AF Mindposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Your point? The Babylonian  religions were often associated with other ones. It does not dispute the fact that "Lucifer" is not a fallen angel or spirit of any kind in this passage, but the mortal king of Babylon who was being mocked by Isaiah.

 
working