THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LUCIFER AND SATAN

Some people hear “Lucifer” and “Satan” and just think those are the names of the Devil and don’t even question why there are different names for him. There is a huge difference between the two names and when they were his names. When taking all of this in with the meaning of his names, it can provide you a whole lot of wisdom about not just him, but about us and why we are here. That’s a trip for you to take if you decide to though. I cannot go any further than where this post ends.

In the KJV and other translated versions of the Bible, they translated the word “Lucifer”. Lucifer in the original Hebrew was actually Helel (hay-LALE). If you open a Hebrew OT, it would read in the Hebrew “Helel”, not Lucifer. The reason why it is written as Lucifer is because the authors of the Vulgate and the KJV translated the name. The Catholic church translated the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament into Latin with the Vulgate. The KJV is the English translation of the Vulgate. There was some wisdom to the translation with the next line “son of the morning.” The definition of it is “brightness”, “lightbearer”, but it’s also the Latin word for the “morning star”. Only one time does the Bible mention the word Helel, or “Lucifer”. That is in Isaiah 14:12. There’s a reason for that. It mentions what Helel’s crime was, in which he was banished from God and sentenced to everlasting torture. It says Helel exalted himself above all of the other stars of God and tried to be the god of the congregation. Helel was Satan’s name before he committed his crime.

Satan in the Hebrew means “opponent, adversary” and sometimes in the OT it can mean “persecute”. There’s a reason for that too. Satan is what he became after his crime. He was the morning star, and now he’s the adversary and has and will persecute our creation. Since the days of Adam, he has been known as Satan. People don’t trace back what is written in Revelation 20:2 back to the serpent written of in Genesis with Adam and Eve. “And he laid hold on the dragon, THAT OLD SERPENT, which is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years.” What was John of Patmos referring to? Revelation 12:9 also refers to Satan as being that old serpent. Did God tell a snake his seed would have enmity with the woman’s seed? That doesn’t make sense.

Ba’al was a fertility god of the pagans, but was he more than that? In Elijah’s time, Ba’al was the great opponent god and Jezebel was a chief pagan prophetess. As Paul reiterates the conversation between Elijah and God in Romans 11, he adds something that really puts traditional teaching into question. As is written, God tells Elijah “I have reserved to myself 7000 men who have not bowed the knee to Ba’al.” Traditional teachers have said that God meant there were 7000 people living in Israel who did not bow the knee to this pagan god. That’s wrong. If God reserves to Himself a person, it means that that particular person has not lived yet. Proof of that is what Paul said afterward. “Even so at this present time there is also a remnant according to the election of grace.” A remnant. That means there are still some left. Elijah lived around 900 BC. Paul wrote this around 900 years afterward. There couldn’t be any living still if the traditional teachers are correct. God reserves to himself a person by not letting them live. In that particular conversation God meant that He has reserved to Himself 7000 men (and women) for the last generation. When else? Also Paul said that these people were not chosen for any work they have done, or else it would not be called grace. The ability to have faith is done by grace, but to show it is a work. Showing faith is a good work. Being unfaithful is a bad work. These people did not show their faith in this life in order to be chosen. Those seven thousand people listed in 1st Kings were not the same seven thousand that Elijah, God, and Paul were referring to. The seven thousand in 1st Kings included children. How can a child be held accountable for either being faithful or not being faithful? They cannot be. That is what Paul was trying to clarify. Another secret to all of this is what Ba’al truly was. Ba’al may have been the pagan god of fertility, but he was also the deity of Venus. Helel/Lucifer means the morning star. What is the morning star? Venus is. Take it from there. I cannot go any further. I wish you luck.

WAS JESUS BLACK?

Was Jesus black? No, He was not. This is one of those things where people have twisted something written in the Bible to fit their own idiotic points of view. This is definitely nothing new. People years ago were killed for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun, even though it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Men took it upon themselves to distort things to their liking.

Some black theologians, particularly those from the Black Liberation Theology like Barack Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright, have said that Jesus was actually black. Where do they get this idea? From Revelation 1:14-15 where it says Jesus had hair like wool and feet like brass. With something so small black religious zealots went “aha! Jesus was black!” Problem is in that vision from John is that Jesus was a candlestick holder holding the seven churches of Christ. His feet were of brass probably because that is where He was connected to the brass of the holder. His hair also being like wool could be just the color, but Jews do tend to have thick hair. Moses also had his hair turn white after he saw God. Man, you really have to twist something really hard to come up with that meaning Jesus was black. Jesus was a ruddy-complected Jew!

Of course what’s almost as ludicrous is the historical view of Jesus by white people that He was a pristine, blonde-haired, blue-eyed man of pale skin. Dumb. Jesus most likely had darker complected skin, brown eyes, and dark brown or black hair. History’s vision of Jesus is nearly as wrong as the contention that Jesus was actually black. Who comes up with this stuff? Aie aie aie.