Blackthorn

What about the apocrypha? It is a part of the original canon and wasn;t removed until the reformation in the 16th century. Did god intend that? It is also part of the ethopian canon and has been for over a 1,000 years. Whether god driven or not these decisions are made by men who are fallible and have free will. While I personally am not sure whether enoch is inspired or not. Or if it is just an allegorical work(which some biblical books are as well). It might just be hogwash. However I find the similarities to jesus fascinating. Especially since it was written before he was born.

where in the bible is the name lucifer used for satan and not the king of babylon? It is the Hebrew definition of the word Lucifer. Check the link I left. May I suggest that you consider what the word meant when it was written and also the translation of the words from Hebrew up to English. Looking for the words original meaning shines a new light on the word all together. OneLight I did check the link. Perhaps you should read what I originally posted. I know what helel means. Which in latin is translated as lucifer. This does not change or disagree with anything I posted. It also does not mean that lucifer means satan. Or that anywhere in the bible the word lucifer is used for satan. It is refering to the baylonian king. The original hebrew in isaiah 14 is helel ben shachar which literally translates as morningstar, son of dawn. Whether you read it in english, hebrew, greek, or latin. It does not change the fact that it is not refering to satan but is talking about the babylonian king. So I will ask again. Where in the bible is the name lucifer used for satan and not the king of babylon?

Where in the bible does it state any of this? Ok I understand that but just because satan may have worked through the babylonian king does not mean that his name is lucifer. It does not mean that lucifer is a fallen angel. Please point me to any biblical text that states lucifer is anything or anyone but nebachudnezzer. The belief in Lucifer and him being a fallen angel is not biblically founded or supported. This doesn't mean you can't believe it. Believe what you want but it doesn't change that fact,

where in the bible is the name lucifer used for satan and not the king of babylon?

Actually yes we do. They match up almost exactly word for word. In jewish tradition it can happen. I was merely pointing out what some judaic beliefs about enoch are. I was merely pointing out what beliefs muslims hold about Enoch. And how can you tell it's not God breathed scripture? Alot of the church fathers believed it was inspired work. Including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. They argued with those who didn't. It was at one point part of the christian canon. It wasn't until the 4th century that it was decided that it should be left out. Except by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Which is one way we know that it is the same book jude references. The church fathers even argued that jude should be removed from the bible because it referenced the book of enoch. Which is another way we know that jude does reference this book. Where exactly does it contradict the bible? Have you read it?

double post...

Pretty much

I posted this elsewhere but wanted to put it up for discussion. The bible was translated into latin from hebrew and greek in the 5 century. This became known as the Latin Vulgate or just Vulgate. It was the first version to have the Old testament translated from the hebrew tanahk. The word lucifer only appears once in the english bible. Thats in Isaiah 14:12. 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? Now it appears if you take this one sentence out of context that they are talking about the whole satans fallen angel mythos. This isn't true. If you read it in context. God is talking to the babylonian king nebachudnezzer. Who happens to have the honorific title or nickname of son of dawn. Because he liked gaudy clothes and fine shiny jewlery. Basically he loved bling to put it in modern terms. Louis the 14th was called the sun king for this same reason. God is actually using this title to mock nebachudnezzer. It has nothing to do with the christian devil. Why is lucifer there though? Well when the bible was translated into Latin in the 5th century the latin word lucifer was used as the translation of the hebrew words helel ben shahar Which means literally son of dawn. Lucifer literally translates as light bringer. It was also another name for venus the morningstar. The word Lucifer was the translation of the Septuagint Greek heosphoros, which they used in place of helel ben shahar. Which jerome knew when he translated helel ben shahar into lucifer. When the bible was eventually translated into english the word lucifer was mistakenly left in there instead of being replaced by the proper words. So lucifer is itself a mistranslation. Later during midevil times (and after dantes inferno and miltons paradise lost) Lucifer became synonomous as a poetic appellation of satan in christian belief and the whole fallen angels mythos took hold. In the latin bible the word lucifer appears twice. Once in isaiah 14 and once in reference to jesus in 2peter 1:19 The original greek word used here was phosphoros which also means light bearer. Which jerome also translated into its latin equivalent lucifer. What is everyones take on this and how is believing in lucifer as a fallen angel proper doctrine when it has no biblical support?

Here is the second part to it. The Elect one/ Son of man/ Anointed.

Here is a post I made on another forum that I thought would be good for discussion. I have been reading the book of enoch lately. This is an apocryphal work which has visions of heaven and hell and parables of the coming messiah. It was written about 2nd century b.c. I just thought I would sum up some of enoch, his book, and biblical connection. Then the parts about the son of man which are strikingly similar to Jesus. For the wikipedia on the book of enoch go here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch The bible refers to enoch in genesis as walking with god and he is considered the great grandfather of noah. In rabbinical literature it is believed that god took him and gave him the position of Great Scribe. It has even been thought he became the angel Metatron. In the Quran he is identified with Idris "the instructor" and has a similar role as in the jewish tradition. The book of enoch starts with the story of the Grigori or Watchers. Which is a group of fallen angels that sleep with men and produce nephilim. They were led by samayza. All of them taught men secrets of heaven such as astrology and spread wickedness among men. Azazel taught men how to make swords and shields and wage war. This is supposed to be what brought about the great flood. For more on the grigori go here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori The book of enoch is referenced and quoted in Jude. The second part is where god takes enoch over the earth and into sheol. It's got some great imagery in it. If you want to read the book of enoch it can be found here. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm For the parts pertaining to the son of man read the second parable. I am going to copy and paste some of them to show the relation to jesus. The head of days refers to God in this parable as you can tell from this passage. The description of the head of days reminds me of a passage in revelations which is supposed to refer to jesus. This has lead me to think that the revelations description may have been influenced by this parable because it is a brief description of god. this is all my speculation of course. More on the Son of man. This seems to go along with jesus' claim that he was around at the creation. I also find it interesting that he would be the light of the gentiles. Since judaism at that time only believed the chosen would be saved and it was jesus message that allowed gentiles to be saved.

Except that the scripture in both is almost verbatim.

I think that what he meant was that the ideas present in the bible are pretty much te same as scientology or any other religion. Almost all religions espouse the same ideals. Such as love one another and don't steal and murder. Also from the article it doesn't seem he is going to convert anytime soon and is just defending cruises right to believes as he wishes.

Talk about spin and putting words into peoples mouths. All will smith said was that Hitler THOUGHT he was a good person and pretty much everyone does.

Remember with the internet at your disposal knowledge is only a click away

Actually, it's not surprising that Catholicism is popular in the UK. Way back when the Church was in power of Europe, Catholicism was very widespread all over Europe. At about that time, I think Catholicism was a major religion like Christianity. I would suppose they would keep that custom still. I suggest you read up on a little on history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...Catholic_Church