Yep. I agree 100% with this article. Awareness and self education are crucial if one wants to avoid being brainwashed by the institutions and other tools of society.

Which is why "he" lives. Without the human beings living and holding "his" existence in their minds as real and true, "he" wouldn't exist.

Lusmath: if not becous he live that is why u live

That's because they believe that the tithe laws supersedes the new testament.

mkmyers45: I wonder why they are following the tithe rule..

A woolly mammoth.

Aah! I get you now. But one still needs to put this informations out there for those who are willing to know more about the source of all these characters we were brought up with. Age of information and all that.

The ones who are willing to learn will pick up on it and the ones averse to true knowledge will turn their eyes and heads away, as usual. The information age is not for everyone.

plaetton: T

What I was trying to say was that you are trying to englighten a group of people for whom ignorance is bliss. Religious belief, especially christian religious belief, is averse to all forms of critical thinking.

Why do you say that? Is there anything about the article that you disagree with?

plaetton: ignorance is bliss.

The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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!"
Listen to Isaiah - Chapter 14 (King James Version) from blueletterbible.org.

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King".

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,

"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning". Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.

The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.

So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.

A Mormon apologist responds.

The author of The Polytheism Of The Bible And The Mystery Of Lucifer, F.T. DeAngelis, comments on this page as follows

"It seems minor, but - the actual term used in the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 14:12 (given that there is no ONE way of accurately transliterating) is Eo(u)s phoros, morning star/DAWN god of light.

Eos or Eous phoros [not Heos (as your website claims) or phos phorus (as a Christian website I visited shows)] - although there is a Greek term and English... phosphoro(u)s. Your [site] is pretty accurate.

The actual name, "Lucifer," goes back to the Greeks, before the Romans. Socrates and Plato talk about this "god of light"; surprisingly, not in the context of Eos (god of Dawn), but -- as a morning star -- juxtaposed with the sun (Helios) and Hermes. This information can be found in Plato's Timaeus (38e) and in Edith Hamilton's Mythology."

On a lighter note, Arthur Clarke, in his fictional book 2061 correctly uses the word "Lucifer". He uses it as a name for a new sun in the solar system which is correct since the new sun is a second 'morning star' of 'original' 'light-bearing' substance--not some evil being of religious mythology.

David Grinspoon comments on the historical aspects of the word as follows: "The origin of the Judeo-Christian Devil as an angel fallen from heaven into the depths of hell is mirrored in the descent of Venus from shining morning star to the darkness below. This underworld demon, still feared today by people in many parts of the world, is also called Lucifer, which was originally a Latin name for Venus as a morning star." (Venus Revealed p. 17) Actually, Grinspoon should just refer to the "Christian Devil" since the Jews never believed in such a creature and still don't to this day.

And why is that? Is it because they are less humans...like subhumans? This is a very misogynistic comment to make and is very insulting to all human beings, talk less of women.

Sean lenux: Go by what is in the bible, women should not be allowed to preach or lead any service in church. Its against the scriptures. If they must participate, it should be through their husband. May God increase us in knowledge.

Looks like the spirit of the devil has possessed you, bro! How dare you think for yourself? You keep thinking like this and you will end up outside the protection of the church and on your own. Do you want that?

paris10: Lately, I found Church going so boring and very predictable. The same old story. Trend continued every Sunday! Choir sing, Pastor calls out those with testimonies, Pastor testify self as a perfect example of those blessings, and so on. At the end of the day, the sermon is gonna end up with either '5 or 10' things you must do to get blessed or get rich.

The funny part is, when you get on the internet, either on yahoo or hotmail page, you see the same "5 or 10" things to do before you get rich. Secular people have always followed these latter simple steps and are reaping the benefit. But come to think about it, these steps doesn't even include TITHING. Secular people understand the power behind getting rich. You don't even have to be a Xtian to get blessed or rich. It all boils down to CHARITY (which comes in form of an offering, either to a Church, group or individual).

The difference between a Xtian and an non-believer is the belief they hold. Aside from the belief, all factors, mode,,steps and ways of getting rich or blessed remain same. Christians are not in any way better financially than non-Xtians or unbelievers. Just unfortunate that most of our Pastors have brainwashed many in relation to making money. Is it me or that the reason many go to Church is to be better off financially? I love to go to Church to worship God and sing those beautiful heavenly songs to HIM, that's just me!

Praise and Worship time is getting smaller and smaller, and longer hours for sermon. Half of the sermon is now used in emphasising the reason to pay tithe. In my Church, the Pastor preached for 60 minutes on tithe alone, and that was just part one. The next sunday, part two was preached. I got so bored and irritated. I noticed a lot of my friends and some members of the congregation were'nt pleased as well. The problem is, we have the consciousness that something ain't right somewhere, but we lack boldness and audacity to dare mention it. We were under a kinda spell and shadow. Church obedience and service had consumed us.

The man of God to us then was always perfect and was always getting everything spot on.

To be continued,  Need to pick up my sweet heart from the salon

Have you forgiven Judas Iscariot for what he did to Jesus, frosbel? Has every christian done that?

The answer to your questions are as follows;

- The religions of Islam and Christianity are the terrorists because they make the adherents of both religion commit inhuman acts called "terrorism" and they both have a very violent nature. That is why human tragedies are never far away from both.

- Both religions are doing the attacking and the defending. Violence and intolerance breed each other in the name of Yahweh and Allah.

Next!

LagosShia:

my point is:who is really the "terrorist" and who really has a "violent nature"?

who is fighting in defense and who is attacking who?

He will become an "atheism-made man".

logicboy01: What if Oyedepo became an atheist?

And a religion-made man is a religion-destroyed man. Check mate!

on-code:
”Bt a self-made man is self-destroyed man“D. O.Oyedepo"

I personally disagree that they are one and the same. They are neither similar nor are they synonyms. They are fundamentally different elements.

buzugee: soul and spirit are the same. they are synonyms. when you die and your spirit leaves your body and exists alone, then it is called the spirit. however when you are alive and it is within you, then it is called a soul. its like me saying if i remove groundnut from the shell, and give it another name, then it is something different. a groundnut is a groundnut whther it exists in a shell or whether removed from the shell. i may call them different names like -unshelled groundnut and shelled groundnut. thats all there is to it.

Buzugee, you don dey smoke gbanna? Wetin you dey talk for hia? The talk here is that a living being is made up of 3 parts; SPIRIT, SOUL and BODY. Those are the 3 parts to any living organism. At death, the spirit and the soul leave the body and the body falls apart and decays. Where is the argument?

buzugee: those saying the body is 3 parts ? come on now. ECCLESIASTES 12 VS 7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE. THE BODY RETURNS TO THE GROUND AND THE SPIRIT BACK TO GOD WHO GAVE IT. 2 PARTS NOT 3 PARTS.

It is not in the constitution of dogs to communicate via talking. But they do communicate via barking. The same question could be flipped around ansd ask why men don't bark? It is not in a man's constitution to bark. Instead, we speak. whether it is by barking or speaking through words, man and dog both "communicate".

kwenu:
IF THERE S NO DIFFERENCE THEN WHY DONT WE SEE DOGS TALK LIKE WE HUMANS,

It is quite obvious that SPIRIT and SOUL are both used interchangeably in the bible. I wouldn't trust the book to make a proper distinction between the two elements. Besides, i think it is the SOUL of Moses being talked about in that verse, not his spirit.

As far as i am concerned, only a soul can be transfered, not the spirit. But let us agree to disagree on that.

kwenu:
I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS,
YES SPIRITS ARE EVERYWHERE BUT THEY NEED TO BE TRANSFERED
SPIRITS ARE TRANSFERABLE , STUDY YOUR BIBLE, THE SPIRIT IN MOSES WAS TRANSFERED TO THE ELDERS OF ISREAL ELISHA REQUESTED FOR A SPIRIT TRANSFER,(CHECK YOUR OLD TESTAMENT)BY GOD.

Too many religious bigots in here. Atmosphere has become poisonous.

I agree with your submissions, bro.

Reference: The soul is the interface between the body, the earth and all that is visible, tangible, etc in its temporal form and the spirit in whichever spiritual realm, God and all that is permanent, intangible, that exists eternally.

The soul is the seat of the mind that interacts with the tangible by feelings and senses and interacts with the spirit or spiritual things by faith.

I concur.

kwenu: Good post from you, OP,
GOD IS A SPIRIT, IT TAKES A SPIRIT TO CREATE A SOUL, SPIRIT IS FROM ABOVE, WHILE SOUL IS EARTHY, THE PRESENCE OF A SPIRIT INSIDE A BODY MAKES IT A LIVING SOUL.

Again, i concur with this.

kwenu: Good post from you, OP,
THERES NO SOUL WITHOUT SPIRIT, A SOUL IS DESIGNED TO RELATE AND FUNCTION WITH THE WORLD
YES INFORMATION IS STORED IN A SOUL

With this, i definitely do not concur. There is no difference between MAN and the animal kingdom, as far as the SPIRIT goes. The same SPIRIT that resides in MAN resides in animals, no difference whatsoever.

The difference here, however, is the SOUL. The SOUL formed in MAN is quite different from the one formed in a DOG, for example, mainly because they are both programed differently by their different environments and the way they interact with them.

In addition, only the SOUL can be transferred between living things. The SPIRIT, on the other hand, cannot be moved about because the spirit is already everywhere at all times, all pervasive, so it needs not be artificially transferred anywhere to be everywhere.

So, in conclusion, the SOUL is the difference between living beings, man or animal, and not the SPIRIT.

kwenu:
THE DIFFERENNCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS IS SPIRIT
A DOG WILL ACT LIKE A MAN IF THE SPIRIT OF A MAN IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO IT AND A MAN CAN ACT LIKE A DOG IF THE SPIRIT OF A DOG IS BEING TRANSFERED TO HIM.

I concur.

kwenu:
THE POWERHOUSE OF THE SOUL IS THE BRAIN (MEMORY)
AND THE SPIRIT CONTROLS THE SOUL (BRAIN , MEMORY, THINKING FACULTY)
EMOTIONS ARE EVIDENCE THAT SPIRITS ARE PRESENT IN A BODY

Absolutely in agreement.

kwenu:
THE SPIRIT THAT MAKES MAN A LIVING SOUL IS DIVINE,ITS FROM GOD ALONE

Here is the link to my most recent submission on this topic, https://www.nairaland.com/930859/does-baby-foetus-soul

See if it helps your search for the differences between spirit and soul.

Adeniyi, i have already submitted my own explanation to this theme, so i do not wish to repeat myself again. If you want to know my own contribution to this topic, then you will have to use the site's search engine. I can't be bothered to dig it up right now.

Adeniyi A.:
please i need an enlightened response on the difference between 'SOUL & SPIRIT. thank

LOL! @ buzugee. Everybody is smoking something whenever they disagree with you. What do you smoke when you come up with your own theories?

buzugee: i see you are smoking that angel dust again huh ?

You can't have control over your spirit 'cos your spirit is the real you. You, the spirit, controls the soul in ideal cases. The problem is that most of us allow the contents of the soul to control us, hence the world in disarray.

Adeniyi A.:
@logic mind
quite revealing, from your xplanation can we now say that human soul is our conscious mind, our conscience n reservoir of knowledge - in other words,we have control over our soul and not spirit?we determine what it records?

Different covenant, different attitude, different god.

ijawkid:


Good answer my bro....

Same Yahweh different covenant...

Shake my hands joor.....

Soright, kay.

Heaven please? Two intolerant religions in the same community. What do you expect? This is just the beginning. We ain't seen nothing yet.

onuoha16: Feels very frustrating,in tears now.Heaven pls!

Are you okay, kay? Where did you see me argue about fossil records and the theories of the origin of life in my post? I care not about such debates and i have never participated in them.

Kay 17: ^^ theories on the origin of life are separate from evolutionary theory. Theories on the Origin of Life don't demand a fossil record. Your argument against fossil record for origin of life is a straw argument.

The catch here is, though, that tomorrow never comes.

Science and religion will forever remain in conflict because they are both irreconcilably different in their fundamentals. Science is a never-ending journey of discovery(of the mechanics of the natural universe), while religion sees itself as having discovered the end point of that journey(GOD), and thus, there is nothing more to discover. This is fundamental difference that will keep religion and science at each other's throat for all eternity.

Spiritual disciplines, on the other hand, harmonize perfectly with science because they are both on the journey of discovery and growth. The scientific methods take care of the outer natural world, while the spiritual disciplines takes care of the inner landscape. Merge the two together and the human race would have an infinitely powerful tool of evolution of the self. The merging is going on right now, as we speak.

Or the title quote could mean, literally, that GOD is using MAN as vessel to experience this reality. When a MAN dies, GOD dies. When a MAN is born, GOD is born. When a MAN sins, GOD sins. When a MAN repents, GOD repents. When there are 100 thousand people in a stadium watching football, that is GOD 100 thousand times in the stadium watching football... When a MAN looks at himself/herself in the mirror, that is GOD looking at itself in the mirror through the eyes of a MAN.

It is quite interesting that without MAN there is no GOD, and without GOD there is no MAN. They both compliment each other in a way. Remember that GOD is within MAN and vice versa. "Know ye not that ye are gods" Hermetus Trismegistus

buzugee: http://www.informationnigeria.org/2012/06/dana-plane-crash-chinese-men-who-cheated-us-on-queue-made-fun-of-me-daughter.html

so everybody on that dana flight was not redeemable. the redeemable ones, the lord made sure they did not get on that flight. this is the second case i have heard were the lord directed someones steps away from the dana flight.

proverbs 20 vs 24 A man's steps are from the Lord

deuteronomy 32 vs 39[b] There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.[/b]

1 samuel 2 vs 6 The LORD brings death and makes alive;

amos 3 vs 6[b] When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?[/b]

lamentations 3 vs 38 Does not the Most High send both calamity and good?

Persecution for spreading the "Good news", eh.