The Christ of RCC is the Son of Lucifer

[Eliyahu]

Isaiah 14:12 KJV
12 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!

Isaiah 14:12 - NASB

“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,


Bob

KJV is correct!

How can Ben in Hebrew become Star?

Is Son of Morning (Satan) the same as Morning Star( αστηρ ορθρινοσ)?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Point one, you might want to consider what the Bible says about baptism, and communion, in its spiritual sense rather than seeing it as something physical.

What I find curious is that taking the bible as a whole we find a consistency in theme when it comes to a connection between the physical and the spiritual. For instance God asked Moses to build a box. Now boxes of themselves are of no special significance but the ark of the Covenant was the place of God's real presence to Israel. So much so that if anyone touched it they would die. Also as the Israelites were poisoned by snakes if they looked up to the object God told Moses to make they would be healed. And so it goes through out scriptures. Therefore I believe it is reasonable from scriptures that the physical sign of a spiritual effect is itself the means which God uses to make that spiritual effect. It would seem to me to separate the two and hold to a "spiritual event" not related to its physical sign would be contradictory to this theme we find throughout scripture.

Point two, you might want to study the Anabaptists more comprehensively, as their views were quite diverse. Further, the reason for the Anabaptists' existence was to shed man-made tradition and get back to what the Bible, and especially Jesus, actually taught

I agree that the initial intent of the Anabaptist were to attempt to shed what they held as "traditions of men" and stick to what they believed the scriptures taught solely on its own statements. Though even at the very beginning of the movement we see a pretty wide understanding of what that actually entailed. Such as some held to single wives other allowed for multiple wives. The only unity really was in believers baptism, relying solely on scriptures as their guide, and disdain for anything Catholic. I find it curious that the inheritors of their views have fallen into extremely divergent groups from Amish to several different "levels"/groups of Mennonites to more varieties of Baptists than Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors all holding to their personal views of how to "get back to what the bible actually taught." Almost as if as a whole this people seem rudderless. Which makes me question if they all hold to the same authority is that authority flawed?. If not then maybe their supposition is? I have to admit that these were some of the question I struggled with before returning to the Catholic church. That is not to say it is all I struggled with but one of the obvious questions that occurred to me.

 

[Eliyahu]

I had already explained without the use of wiki that not only is your translation wrong but the wrong word was associated in that prayer as both Bob and you have shown by going to wikilinks for more information on that prayer. Your only recourse then was to say it may be translated as such and make a nonsense comment about "original Latin". The fact is that prayer is in ecclesiastical Latin. And the meaning hasn't changed. You are therefore forcing meaning that was never there. Proving once again that rather than having an actual "evidence" you choose to buy into manufactured false information provided by someone who falsified data about the prayer and purposely gave a mistranslation. Ending what I have said from the beginning, you are spreading false information. And though you have looked at another source you stubbornly hold to the mistranslation and the false information given showing that you are not an honest broker but a biased person.

.

You are blinded and hard-headed, brainwashed by RCC dogmas, which are pagan!

Why do I say that? Read the following comparison!

(1) Christus Fílius tuus,

RCC translate this to :

Christ, that Morning Star,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exultet

Eliyahu translate it to :

Christ Thy Son

Who is correct?

(2) Flammas eius Lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
RCC translate this to:
the Morning Star ….
find this flame still burning

Eliyahu Translate it to:

Lucifer finds His Flaming of Dawn

Who is correct?

Check with the dictionary here:

http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html

I already mentioned in OP that my translation may contain minor errors.
But the important thing is that RCC praise their Christ as the son of Lucifer!


Is Lucifer Morning Star?
Yeah! to the eyes of hard-headed, stiffnecked RCC, Lucifer ( Isaiah 14:12) is the Morning Star,
but to me, Jesus Christ is the Morning Star! ( Rev 22:16)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are blinded and hard-headed, brainwashed by RCC dogmas, which are pagan!

Why do I say that? Read the following comparison!

(1) Christus Fílius tuus,

RCC translate this to :

Christ, that Morning Star,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exultet

Eliyahu translate it to :

Christ Thy Son

Who is correct?

(2) Flammas eius Lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
RCC translate this to:
the Morning Star ….
find this flame still burning

Eliyahu Translate it to:

Lucifer finds His Flaming of Dawn

Who is correct?

Check with the dictionary here:

http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html

I already mentioned in OP that my translation may contain minor errors.
But the important thing is that RCC praise their Christ as the son of Lucifer!


Is Lucifer Morning Star?
Yeah! to the eyes of hard-headed, stiffnecked RCC, Lucifer ( Isaiah 14:12) is the Morning Star,
but to me, Jesus Christ is the Morning Star! ( Rev 22:16)

You are proving my point for me. I said Earlier

Its in the middle of a longer prayer. For Background Easter Vigil the Catholic Church uses candles to signify the light of Christ into the world as we await his second coming and not only his resurrection. And so we light the Candle which represents this. Then the ACTUAL PRAYER IS:
Flammas ejus lucifer matutinus inenaiat.

Which, you just verified on this post. I also said

In Latin lucifer means morning star. Its an observation regarding the night sky probably the planet Venus as its seen just before the sun rises. So first and foremost, lucifer should be regarded as the light which shines brightest before the dawn. Next you are so stuck on Americanism because we have used this Latin term not meaning satan as the proper name for satan. However, in Latin it is not the proper name for anyone. Its a descriptor. Even the word satan is a Hebrew descriptor which means accuser. Like prosecuting attorney. Next, it is important to note that Jesus is referred to in scripture as the morning star like 2 Pet 1:19 "the morning star rises in your hearts." or Numbers 24:17 "And a star will come out of Jacob". The reason the Latin phrase was Chosen to give a "proper noun" name to the devil and call him Lucifer is because Isaiah 14:12 is believed to be a revelation about the devil and even there morning star is a descriptor rather than used as a proper name. However, not every time the scriptures use the words morning star does it refer to the devil.

FYI, I made the big bolded letters to note particular points following your example.

And so you may call me stiff necked but I don't insist on believing conspiracy theories or holding an opinion when evidence suggest otherwise. Oh and your Latin Translation is still off.

Lets look at what its actually saying:

Oramus ergo te

Therefore we pray to you

Domine: ut Cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus, ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam, indeficiens perseveret.

Lord, that this wax candle hallowed to the honor of your Name, to dispel the darkness of this night, may continue unfailing.

Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus, supernis luminaribus misceatur.

and an acceptable fragrance be united with the heavenly lights.

Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat. Ille, qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit.

Which the direct translation would be Morning star may find its flame alight. He who is back from the dead (which leads us to believe because of the syntax that Morning Star refers to he who is back from the dead) may shed his light on mankind.

Later after addressing the Father as Lord and no longer speaking about the Morning star it says

Per Christum Filium tuum

Through Christ your son

Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus

Who lives and reigns in unity with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Eliyahu]

You are proving my point for me. I said Earlier Which, you just verified on this post. I also said FYI, I made the big bolded letters to note particular points following your example.

And so you may call me stiff necked but I don't insist on believing conspiracy theories or holding an opinion when evidence suggest otherwise. Oh and your Latin Translation is still off.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory either! Don't go that far.

What is wrong is wrong.

Look at the translation by RCC, rendering Lucifer to Morning Star!

Then look at Christ they Son to Christ the Morning Star, in order to hide their pagan Lucifer Worship!

If you don't see it, you are still blinded.

(1) Christus Fílius tuus,

RCC translate this to :

Christ, that Morning Star,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exultet

Eliyahu translate it to :

Christ Thy Son

(2) Flammas eius Lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
RCC translate this to:

the Morning Star ….


find this flame still burning

Eliyahu Translate it to:

Lucifer finds His Flaming of Dawn


Why do RCC try to hide LUCIFER ?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't buy the conspiracy theory either! Don't go that far.

What is wrong is wrong.

Look at the translation by RCC, rendering Lucifer to Morning Star!

Then look at Christ they Son to Christ the Morning Star, in order to hide their pagan Lucifer Worship!

If you don't see it, you are still blinded.

(1) Christus Fílius tuus,

RCC translate this to :

Christ, that Morning Star,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exultet

Eliyahu translate it to :

Christ Thy Son

(2) Flammas eius Lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
RCC translate this to:

the Morning Star ….


find this flame still burning

Eliyahu Translate it to:

Lucifer finds His Flaming of Dawn


Why do RCC try to hide LUCIFER ?

You will want to read my post again as I ammended it to include the direct latin translation of those same passages.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't buy the conspiracy theory either! Don't go that far.

Really?

Then look at Christ they Son to Christ the Morning Star, in order to hide their pagan Lucifer Worship!

Obviously you do "go that far". You just expressed a conspiracy theory here.

Christus Fílius tuus Christ, that Morning Star

in the prayer this phrase "Christus Filius Tuus is two paragraphs after the morning star section. Look

Oramus ergo te, Domine: ut Cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus, ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam, indeficiens perseveret. Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus, supernis luminaribus misceatur. Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat. Ille, qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit.
Precamur ergo te, Domine: ut nos famulos tuos, omnemque clerum, et devotissimum populum: una cum beatissimo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. quiete temporum concessa, in his paschalibus gaudiis, assidua protectione regere, gubernare, et conservare digneris.
Respice etiam ad eos, qui nos in potestate regunt, et, ineffabili pietatis et misericordiae tuae munere, dirige cogitationes eorum ad iustitiam et pacem, ut de terrena operositate ad caelestem patriam perveniant cum omni populo tuo.
Per Christum Filium tuum: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus:

Also note you left out an important word in your "text translation source" which is the Latin word "Per" indicating "through' Your son which two paragraphs later "your" isn't refering to morning star as morning star refers to Jesus himself in the context of the prayer.

Why do RCC try to hide LUCIFER ?

Obviously, the discriptor morning star in this prayer isn't refering to the devil. And since its a highly published prayer the RCC as you put it isn't "trying to hide lucifer". In this context lucifer is a discriptor or an adjective describing Jesus as the light of the world.

 

[Eliyahu]

Really?

Obviously you do "go that far". You just expressed a conspiracy theory here.

in the prayer this phrase "Christus Filius Tuus is two paragraphs after the morning star section. Look Also note you left out an important word in your "text translation source" which is the Latin word "Per" indicating "through' Your son which two paragraphs later "your" isn't refering to morning star as morning star refers to Jesus himself in the context of the prayer.

Obviously, the discriptor morning star in this prayer isn't refering to the devil. And since its a highly published prayer the RCC as you put it isn't "trying to hide lucifer". In this context lucifer is a discriptor or an adjective describing Jesus as the light of the world.

I reject the Conspiracy theory strongly because they imply that the Satan control everything in the world, don't insiuate that I am spreading the Conspiracy theory.

The reason why I have changed some of my translation is because I started the translation based on the copy of the Video.

In the beginning I thought their translation was accurate, but I started to find some errors again and again. At the end I translated the whole thing.

Why don't RCC mention Lucifer in their English translation?

RCC do not chant or recite in English, but in Latin, therefore what they praise about Lucifer in Latin, still matters.

As I said, they clearly chant Christus Filius Tuus which means Christ Thy Son, toward Lucifer! Can you hear it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ioL4HMOY40​

Otherwise, buy a Hearing Aid!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I reject the Conspiracy theory strongly because they imply that the Satan control everything in the world, don't insiuate that I am spreading the Conspiracy theory.

You were saying that the Catholic Church was conspiring to worship the Fallen Angel referred to as Lucifer or more properly the Devil. Moreover that Catholics were being clandestine doing it. That is a conspiracy theory. However, I agree with you that Satan is not incontrol of the world.

The reason why I have changed some of my translation is because I started the translation based on the copy of the Video.

In the beginning I thought their translation was accurate, but I started to find some errors again and again.

Thank you for admitting it. And don't you think that the errors were purposeful intended to decieve about the real nature of the Prayer? Or the Catholic intention?

At the end I translated the whole thing.

Well parts of it. It is evident you left out at least on word and taken another passage out of context.

Why don't RCC mention Lucifer in their English translation?

Because when you write Lucifer capitalizing the letter "L" it is in english a proper noun. However, in Latin lucifer is the morning star which is venus that shines brightest in the sky before dawn. It is not the name of a demonic entity in Latin. It can be used as an adjective describing something or as a noun specifying that star that shines brightest before the dawn. To have the proper translation is to translate it in the context of the passage with is either being used as an adjective or as the actual star seen in the morning.

RCC do not chant or recite in English, but in Latin, therefore what they praise about Lucifer in Latin, still matters.

This is not true. Catholics do chant in English look up some masses on Youtube to verify this. Latin is the eccesiastical language for the RCC all its documents are in Latin which is why there still is a Latin mass. And we praise Jesus as we discribe him as that bright light of the morning which heralds the dawn of a new age under his authority. This is the sense that the term lucifer is used therefore shouldn't be capitalized.

As I said, they clearly chant Christus Filius Tuus which means Christ Thy Son, toward Lucifer! Can you hear it?

Did you not see where in the prayer that phrase is? And did you not leave out the word "per"? So "your son" isn't refering to lucifer but to Lord as it is Domine which is the object of the prayer.

And clearly you hear what you want to hear. Rather than what is.

 

[Eliyahu]

You were saying that the Catholic Church was conspiring to worship the Fallen Angel referred to as Lucifer or more properly the Devil. Moreover that Catholics were being clandestine doing it. That is a conspiracy theory. However, I agree with you that Satan is not incontrol of the world.

Thank you for admitting it. And don't you think that the errors were purposeful intended to decieve about the real nature of the Prayer? Or the Catholic intention?

I don't think it's purposeful. Sometimes they make mistakes by ignorance.

Well parts of it. It is evident you left out at least on word and taken another passage out of context. Because when you write Lucifer capitalizing the letter "L" it is in english a proper noun. However, in Latin lucifer is the morning star which is venus that shines brightest in the sky before dawn. It is not the name of a demonic entity in Latin. It can be used as an adjective describing something or as a noun specifying that star that shines brightest before the dawn. To have the proper translation is to translate it in the context of the passage with is either being used as an adjective or as the actual star seen in the morning.

It would be ridiculous if RCC chanted the planet or a star, it must be poor excuse that doesn't make sense at all.

Apparently they delete Lucifer in English translation.

This is not true. Catholics do chant in English look up some masses on Youtube to verify this. Latin is the eccesiastical language for the RCC all its documents are in Latin which is why there still is a Latin mass. And we praise Jesus as we discribe him as that bright light of the morning which heralds the dawn of a new age under his authority. This is the sense that the term lucifer is used therefore shouldn't be capitalized.

I know Benedicto 16 returned the masses to Latin, in other words, previously English or local language was used quite a lot.

However, in this case, what matters was Latin as the chanting man didn't chant in English but in Latin.

Moreover the important Masses like Easter Vigil is recited in Latin.

Did you not see where in the prayer that phrase is? And did you not leave out the word "per"? So "your son" isn't refering to lucifer but to Lord as it is Domine which is the object of the prayer.

And clearly you hear what you want to hear. Rather than what is.

In the whole context of the last paragraph, Lucifer of the dawn finds his flames, or Flaming Lucifer finds, then Christus Thy Son,

Who is thy? Where is Lucifer gone?

It is talking to lucifer!

Why RCC delete Lucifer in their English translation?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't think it's purposeful. Sometimes they make mistakes by ignorance.

Maybe. But I have my doubts.

It would be ridiculous if RCC chanted the planet or a star, it must be poor excuse that doesn't make sense at all.

How so. Lets take scripture for instance. In Revelation 2 it says

18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze

It certainly being discriptive of Jesus connecting him to "flame of fire". And look what else it says

26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star.

Which the Barnes notes on the bible (commentary) refers to the verse this way

And I will give him the morning star - The "morning star" is that bright planet - Venus - which at some seasons of the year appears so beautifully in the east, leading on the morning - the harbinger of the day. It is one of the most beautiful objects in nature, and is susceptible of a great variety of uses for illustration. It appears as the darkness passes away; it is an indication that the morning comes; it is intermingled with the first rays of the light of the sun; it seems to be a herald to announce the coming of that glorious luminary; it is a pledge of the faithfulness of God. In which of these senses, if any, it is referred to here, is not stated; nor is it said what is implied by its being given to him that overcomes. It would seem to be used here to denote a bright and brilliant ornament; something with which he who "overcame" would be adorned, resembling the bright star of the morning. It is observable that it is not said that he would make him like the morning star, as in Daniel 12:3; nor that he would be compared with the morning star, like the king of Babylon, Isaiah 14:12; nor that he would resemble a star which Balaam says he saw in the distant future, Numbers 24:17. The idea seems to be, that the Saviour would give him something that would resemble that morning planet in beauty and splendor - perhaps meaning that it would be placed as a gem in his diadem, and would sparkle on his brow - bearing some such relation to him who is called "the Sun of Righteousness," as the morning star does to the glorious sun on his rising. If so, the meaning would be that he would receive a beautiful ornament, bearing a near relation to the Redeemer himself as a bright sun - a pledge that the darkness was past - but one whose beams would melt away into the superior light of the Redeemer himself, as the beams of the morning star are lost in the superior glory of the sun.

It is a discription of Jesus and his Kingdom in this context. So the scriptures make this referrence. Why wouldn't we sing a praise about it? It seems total congurent that Catholics would sing or chant about it.

Apparently they delete Lucifer in English translation.

No it is not. It is properly translated "morning star".

I know Benedicto 16 returned the masses to Latin, in other words, previously English or local language was used quite a lot.

Why do you refer to Benedict as Benedicto? Is it a type of jab? And you are wrong. Latin Mass never went away and was given emphasis begining with John Paul II. Benedict was responsible for making the modern english translation of the Mass Closer to the Actual Latin than it had been. So the English Masses now are closer to the Latin translation.

However, in this case, what matters was Latin as the chanting man didn't chant in English but in Latin.

The Mass was held in the Vatican. Vatican Masses are normally held in Latin. But Catholics around the world can hear the Mass in their own language

Moreover the important Masses like Easter Vigil is recited in Latin.

Also in English.

In the whole context of the last paragraph, Lucifer of the dawn finds his flames, or Flaming Lucifer finds, then Christus Thy Son

Again you mistranslated the passage. I directly translated the passage and provided it for you. And again lucifer isn't a proper noun referring to the devil therefore it is inappropiate for you to capitalize the "L". Morning star find its flame alight is the correct translation. And two paragraphs later after the prayer calls upon "Domine" or Lord. Therefore Christ is the son of the Lord. And Christ himself is referred to as the morning star.

Who is thy? Where is Lucifer gone?

Thy is "Domine" (Lord) look at the prayer.

It is talking to lucifer!

It isn't

Why RCC delete Lucifer in their English translation?

They don't they correctly translated it "morning star."

 

[Eliyahu]

Maybe. But I have my doubts.



How so. Lets take scripture for instance. In Revelation 2 it says It certainly being discriptive of Jesus connecting him to "flame of fire". And look what else it says Which the Barnes notes on the bible (commentary) refers to the verse this way
It is a discription of Jesus and his Kingdom in this context. So the scriptures make this referrence. Why wouldn't we sing a praise about it? It seems total congurent that Catholics would sing or chant about it.

No it is not. It is properly translated "morning star".



Why do you refer to Benedict as Benedicto? Is it a type of jab? And you are wrong. Latin Mass never went away and was given emphasis begining with John Paul II. Benedict was responsible for making the modern english translation of the Mass Closer to the Actual Latin than it had been. So the English Masses now are closer to the Latin translation.


The Mass was held in the Vatican. Vatican Masses are normally held in Latin. But Catholics around the world can hear the Mass in their own language


Also in English.


Again you mistranslated the passage. I directly translated the passage and provided it for you. And again lucifer isn't a proper noun referring to the devil therefore it is inappropiate for you to capitalize the "L". Morning star find its flame alight is the correct translation. And two paragraphs later after the prayer calls upon "Domine" or Lord. Therefore Christ is the son of the Lord. And Christ himself is referred to as the morning star.

Thy is "Domine" (Lord) look at the prayer.

It isn't

They don't they correctly translated it "morning star."

If you believe so, let them ( RCC) proudly mention Lucifer in their English translation.

Only God can have such flame, not Lucifer!

Jesus Christ is the only Morning Star, not the Lucifer is.

Benedicto is mentioned because he was present there and Benedicto was the one who instructed RCC to return to the Latin mass or Latin chanting.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you believe so, let them ( RCC) proudly mention Lucifer in their English translation.

What part of this sentence: the translation of the Latin word "lucifer" is "morning star" which is in the english translation, don't you understand?

Only God can have such flame, not Lucifer!

We are referring to Jesus not the Devil. It is you who keeps bring up the Devil. You seem obsessed. That is also evidence of more problems you may have.

Jesus Christ is the only Morning Star, not the Lucifer is.

Do you know how silly you sound? the word "lucifer" is morning star so to say "Jesus Christ is the only morning star, not the morning star is" just sounds silly.

Benedicto is mentioned because he was present there and Benedicto was the one who instructed RCC to return to the Latin mass or Latin chanting.

You are not answering my question. Why are you Calling Pope Benedict, Benedicto? Is it a slur?

 

[Eliyahu]

What part of this sentence: the translation of the Latin word "lucifer" is "morning star" which is in the english translation, don't you understand?


We are referring to Jesus not the Devil. It is you who keeps bring up the Devil. You seem obsessed. That is also evidence of more problems you may have.


Do you know how silly you sound? the word "lucifer" is morning star so to say "Jesus Christ is the only morning star, not the morning star is" just sounds silly.

You are not answering my question. Why are you Calling Pope Benedict, Benedicto? Is it a slur?

First of all, let me answer you about Benedicto because many Italians or others called him Benedicto too.

https://www.facebook.com/Benedictus.papam.XVI

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=benedicto+xvi&qpvt=benedicto+xvi&FORM=IGRE


Are they speaking Slur?


You are silly because you don't understand what I explained many times.

RCC chant the Christ! not the devil! However they are terming in Latin that Christ is the Son of Lucifer! You don't hear it because you are Silly!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First of all, let me answer you about Benedicto because many Italians or others called him Benedicto too.

But I assume you arn't Italian nor probably speak Italian. So why do you call him Benedicto?

Are they speaking Slur?

They are Italian speaking Italian. However, knowing Italians as I do its a possiblity.

You are silly because you don't understand what I explained many times.

what You explained that the word "lucifer" is in the LATIN PRAYER. But not in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THAT PRAYER. Which would makes sense because "lucifer" is a Latin word and not an English word. The English use of the Latin word is to provide the Devil with a Proper Name. And since the Latin wasn't talking about the Devil it would be inappropriate to use it as a proper name for the devil. Therefore your insistance that the word "Lucifer" be added to the English translation would be erroneous. Your explanation therefore doesn't make any sense.

RCC chant the Christ! not the devil!

Yes! Because we are talking about Jesus and not the Devil as you are trying to assert.

However they are terming in Latin that Christ is the Son of Lucifer! You don't hear it because you are Silly!

Because that is not what they are saying! Again Jesus is being described as the morning star (lucifer) and when they say Per Christus Fillium Tuum it means "THROUGH CHRIST YOUR SON" Where the "you" being referred to is in the preceeding paragraph which says "Domine" which is Translated "LORD".

Capice?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

What I find curious is that taking the bible as a whole we find a consistency in theme when it comes to a connection between the physical and the spiritual. For instance God asked Moses to build a box. Now boxes of themselves are of no special significance but the ark of the Covenant was the place of God's real presence to Israel. So much so that if anyone touched it they would die. Also as the Israelites were poisoned by snakes if they looked up to the object God told Moses to make they would be healed. And so it goes through out scriptures. Therefore I believe it is reasonable from scriptures that the physical sign of a spiritual effect is itself the means which God uses to make that spiritual effect. It would seem to me to separate the two and hold to a "spiritual event" not related to its physical sign would be contradictory to this theme we find throughout scripture.

I agree that the initial intent of the Anabaptist were to attempt to shed what they held as "traditions of men" and stick to what they believed the scriptures taught solely on its own statements. Though even at the very beginning of the movement we see a pretty wide understanding of what that actually entailed. Such as some held to single wives other allowed for multiple wives. The only unity really was in believers baptism, relying solely on scriptures as their guide, and disdain for anything Catholic. I find it curious that the inheritors of their views have fallen into extremely divergent groups from Amish to several different "levels"/groups of Mennonites to more varieties of Baptists than Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors all holding to their personal views of how to "get back to what the bible actually taught." Almost as if as a whole this people seem rudderless. Which makes me question if they all hold to the same authority is that authority flawed?. If not then maybe their supposition is? I have to admit that these were some of the question I struggled with before returning to the Catholic church. That is not to say it is all I struggled with but one of the obvious questions that occurred to me.

When Jesus talked of spiritual things, the Jews were confused and thought he was talking of the physical. People who hold to baptismal regeneration and other such errors do the same thing.

One thing all the Anabaptist descendants hold to is a belief in religious liberty, a rejection of infant baptism, and a reliance on the Bible as final authority. Further, if you want to talk about a denomination with a wide variety of beliefs, the prime example of that is the RCC.

 

[Eliyahu]

But I assume you arn't Italian nor probably speak Italian. So why do you call him Benedicto?

They are Italian speaking Italian. However, knowing Italians as I do its a possiblity.

For the Pope, Italian pronunciation is not wrong.

Because that is not what they are saying! Again Jesus is being described as the morning star (lucifer) and when they say Per Christus Fillium Tuum it means "THROUGH CHRIST YOUR SON" Where the "you" being referred to is in the preceeding paragraph which says "Domine" which is Translated "LORD".

Capice?

You equalize Lucifer with Morning Star as RCC do.

I believe only Jesus Christ is the Morning Star.

You are confused in the simple sentence too much.

Read the following

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.


They chant < Christ Thy Son! > toward Lucifer!

Don't manipulate it!

If you don't understand it, consult with Latin specialists.

 

[Walter]

For the Pope, Italian pronunciation is not wrong.



You equalize Lucifer with Morning Star as RCC do.

I believe only Jesus Christ is the Morning Star.

You are confused in the simple sentence too much.

Read the following

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.


They chant < Christ Thy Son! > toward Lucifer!

Don't manipulate it!

If you don't understand it, consult with Latin specialists.

Let's see... the generic word for "light bearer" is "lucifer" in Latin. The light of the candle which symbolizes the light of Christ going out into the world has nothing to do with Satan. Here's an idea, go to Google translate and then paste the text of the Easter Proclamation or Exaltet into it. You will find a prayer to Christ who is the light of the world. Or, just believe your conspiracy theories, pump in some Dracula music and take everything out of context.

 

[Eliyahu]

Let's see... the generic word for "light bearer" is "lucifer" in Latin. The light of the candle which symbolizes the light of Christ going out into the world has nothing to do with Satan. Here's an idea, go to Google translate and then paste the text of the Easter Proclamation or Exaltet into it. You will find a prayer to Christ who is the light of the world. Or, just believe your conspiracy theories, pump in some Dracula music and take everything out of context.

As I said, if Lucifer can be justified, why don't RCC continue to call Jesus Son of Lucifer?

Isn't the OP saying Christ of RCC is Son of Lucifer?

Lucifer is the combination of Luceo + Ferre which means Light + Carrier.

Ferry came from Ferre or Fero.

So, Lucifer is the Light carrier

Morning Star in Re 22:16 is not Lucifer.

 

[DHK]

Eliyahu,

I haven't read everything nor have I watched the video.
But isn't the crux of the matter the translation of Isaiah 14:12?

The KJV says:
Isaiah 14:12 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!

The 1899 Douay Rheims Bible, long time official Bible of the Catholic Church says this:

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

Does this really make your case?