The Vatican's L.U.C.I.F.E.R. Device

This book is one of the toughest in the bible sometimes to interpret and admittedly this passage is probably not immediately self explanatory, but…
Romans 3:19-31 (ESV)

[quote]19-Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20-For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21-But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22-the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23-for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24-and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25-whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God?s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26-It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27-Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28-For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29-Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30-since God is one who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31-Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.[/quote]
God simply forgiving sin, which in short, sin is to fail the standard of His law, would be the eternal divine equivalent of you simply looking the other way when your children ignore your rules. Only instead of being an attack on the authority of one man who is also sinful, sin against the Lord is an attack on the nature and authority of a blindingly pure, holy and JUST God. A God whose very purity, holiness and justice will not allow Him to simply wink at sin and say “awww, that’s ok, I know how ya’ll are chuckle chuckle!!!” No. His nature and justice demand satisfaction of the violation of His law.

That law was given after the entrance of sin into the world as a tutor to instruct man in his exceeding need of a remedy for his deplorable state of rebellion wherein he is incessantly attempting to run his own life and flipping God off.

This passage is lifted from it’s immediate context, to say nothing of the much larger one that flows through it. However, the short version is that NOBODY in their present state is capable of satisfying God’s perfect law perfectly and as the apostle James said, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” (James 2:10) Two important lessons are learned here. One, this explains how something so seemingly trivial as a bite from a piece of fruit in defiance of God’s command can bring eternal ruin to our entire specie. Two, it shuts up ALL men (and women) under sin seeing that even the most apparently good and moral among us are still guilty of eternal crimes and under the sentence of death.

Paul says in the passage above that redemption from this sin of ours is in Christ Jesus, who though Himself born under the law is the only specimen of our kind to avoid descension and hence corruption from Adam because God is His Father. Having then obeyed the law perfectly, He is thereby singularly qualified to make satisfaction before the Father on behalf of others. In this way the apostle says in verse 26, God is BOTH just and the justIFIER of those who avail themselves of this most merciful and gracious benefit which is acquired by faith in this Jesus who has died in their place. He is just because His law and it’s penalty have been upheld. He can then JUSTLY forgive those who call on Him by applying the satisfaction of Christ’s sacrifice to them…

Jesus of Nazareth, the man born God, satisfied the law on behalf of His elect by both obeying it for them and dying as if like them He hadn’t. Having therefore no sin of His own, death could not hold Him and when He rose again in victory over sin’s penalty, all those who had been given Him by the Father rose with Him. This is why at our church, make no mistake, we celebrate Jesus my dear friend. We have us one spirit filled hallelujah glory shoutin good time exalting and praising Him for His amazing grace indeed. Here’s a tip. He couldn’t care less that this highly offends you. For the record, He couldn’t have cared less when it highly offended me either.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
I can’t make this shit up.
Apparently they are expecting extraterrestrial contact via the Vatican’s Observatory on Mt. Graham.
Very interesting, but who’s bright idea was it to to name the Telescope “lucifer” in the first place?
http://www.exovaticana.com/

[/quote]

I don’t really have the time or inclination to wade into this batshit, but basically they claim the Vatican have a stargate portal and are going to bring aliens to earth? Forgive my ignorance, but do you actually give any credence to this story? What’s the purpose of the thread?[/quote]

Catholic bashing. Seems to be a theme in this PWI these days.[/quote]

Well that’s all well and good, but can’t they make it more believable? I mean what’s next? Jesuit sasquatch fakes the moonlanding?
[/quote]

I don’t think facts and truth matters anymore to most people.

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t think facts and truth matters anymore to most people.[/quote]They do to me Pat and I want you to know that though my view of your church has not changed, I did go to bat for her a few times when mostly HeadHunter came up with some totally irresponsible and sensationalistic threads. We’re not ever going to agree on a whole buncha stuff, but I meant it when I said I’ll try to be less caustic and that I don’t want us to be enemies. You’re tryin too. I can tell and I appreciate it.

[quote]Karado wrote:
I can’t make this shit up.
Apparently they are expecting extraterrestrial contact via the Vatican’s Observatory on Mt. Graham.
Very interesting, but who’s bright idea was it to to name the Telescope “lucifer” in the first place?
http://www.exovaticana.com/
[/quote]

Lucifer means light bearer. Lucifer was reported to be the most beautiful of the angels and the most bright, hence the name of Lucifer.

See the two gentleman holding the candles? These are also referred to as lucifers…light bearers. Yes, that is a picture of a Latin Mass.

So, I’m sure someone that was Catholic and knew what Lucifer actually means named the telescope Lucifer; that is if the telescope is actually called Lucifer and someone didn’t just make that up…I haven’t stayed up in the current events when it comes to science and Vatican, I do know they have a telescope in Tucson.

Though they may have had the same motive as me when I named my dog Anathema after someone I was debating continued to show that they didn’t know how the word is used.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is a picture of a Latin Mass. >>>[/quote]There you go stating the obvious Christopher. Anybody can see it’s a latin mass. We had a debate about the use of the word anathema a while back.

Brother Chris sez: "…Lucifer was reported to be the most beautiful of the angels and the most bright, hence the name of Lucifer.

Wrong, The named “Lucifer” you’re refering to has no Biblical basis or authority whatsoever, and whoever started that rumor is to blame because Christians have been locked and loaded on that false meme seemingly forever…there never was an Angel named “Lucifer” in the Bible.
The name “Lucifer” is mentioned only ONCE in the entire Catholic Bible and KJV, and refered only to the King of Babylon, who from what I hear was a bad guy, and a big pain in the ass.

[quote]Karado wrote:
Brother Chris sez: "…Lucifer was reported to be the most beautiful of the angels and the most bright, hence the name of Lucifer.

Wrong, The named “Lucifer” you’re refering to has no Biblical basis or authority whatsoever, and whoever started that rumor is to blame because Christians have been locked and loaded on that false meme seemingly forever…there never was an Angel named “Lucifer” in the Bible.
The name “Lucifer” is mentioned only ONCE in the entire Catholic Bible and KJV, and refered only to the King of Babylon, who from what I hear was a bad guy, and a big pain in the ass.[/quote]

Of course Lucifer has no authority, he is Satan. However, you’re wrong in Isaias 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer the arch fallen Angel.

Though, I am interested what you mean by Lucifer has no Biblical basis or authority whatsoever. Are you saying Lucifer has no Biblical basis and has no authority? Or saying that Lucifer has no Biblical basis and no Biblical authority? I’m confused.

Wait are you one of these folks who denies the OT?

P.S. KJV has beautiful language but is a terrible translation, I do not recommend reading it for theological study. Knox is pretty good. It is theologically correct translation, as well as having the flowery language of the KJV but less thous and thees.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is a picture of a Latin Mass. >>>[/quote]There you go stating the obvious Christopher. Anybody can see it’s a latin mass. We had a debate about the use of the word anathema a while back.
[/quote]

The young man on the right’s lack of reverence is driving me crazy. I mean seriously, khaki pants on an altar server!?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is a picture of a Latin Mass. >>>[/quote]There you go stating the obvious Christopher. Anybody can see it’s a latin mass. We had a debate about the use of the word anathema a while back.
[/quote]

The young man on the right’s lack of reverence is driving me crazy. I mean seriously, khaki pants on an altar server!?[/quote]
You have a lot more to worry about than that with this guy Chris.

“The young man on the right’s lack of reverence is driving me crazy. I mean seriously, khaki pants on an altar server!?”

Are You kidding? You’ve got some kind of hawkeye…you really think that matters in this life
or the next one iota? One molecule?
No.
Maybe the the dude in the Khakis was fucking hung over and did the best he could, some of those repressed guys need outlets like the heavy drinking and swearing I’ve witnessed myself, before making regular amends or rituals at the altar…at least he’s THERE…relax.

[quote]Karado wrote:
“The young man on the right’s lack of reverence is driving me crazy. I mean seriously, khaki pants on an altar server!?”

Are You kidding? You’ve got some kind of hawkeye…you really think that matters in this life
or the next one iota? One molecule?
No.
Maybe the the dude in the Khakis was fucking hung over and did the best he could, some of those repressed guys need outlets like the heavy drinking and swearing I’ve witnessed myself, before making regular amends or rituals at the altar…at least he’s THERE…relax.

[/quote]

Do you think it doesn’t matter?

Sorry if I believe that the representation of the one eternal sacrifice of the Lord is the most important thing in this temporal world and all of the Church Militant should orientate their lives around frequenting (and bringing others to frequent) this grand event and having the utmost reverence while participating and doing the most they can do to help others be reverent, if they are so called to help serve the Mass.

Do khaki pants matter? No. But, does striving for excellence matter? Yes, always.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Of course Lucifer has no authority, he is Satan. However, you’re wrong in Isaias 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer the arch fallen Angel. [/quote]

I prefer the NASB or NIV translations. Where in Isaiah 14 does it use the name Lucifer? It is a prophecy against Babylon and that is what the Jewish nation who the prophecy was given to would have taken it that way. You might be able to read into the passage that it is about Satan, but the original meaning was against Babylon not Satan.

Thx ‘Dmaddox’, you nailed it. Early Church Fathers until the 3rd Century even believed Angels
had sex with human women and sired the giants…Oddly enough, there seems to be strong scriptual evidence
for this, but Catholics are more ‘hush hush’ about it now because the secular world already has trouble
with all the other supernatural events in Scripture, and to add this theory will send seculars over the top
in discrediting the Bible…thing is, this Angel/Human Hybrid theory is increasing in popularity
with more books written about the “Nephilim” in the last decade than any other time in history.
My Sister is Catholic, and she was taught about this in Church well years ago…it was common knowledge for her even before I even learned about it…HMMM, Angels having Penii, Testes, and
viable sperm…very interesting.

This was ‘Revved up’ initially with growing interest when the Dead Sea Scrolls CONFIRMED further the Angel/Human sexual unions when those venerable Ancient Scrolls were unearthed from the Qumran Caves in 1947.

Why ya gotta do this again man? KK already dealt with this whole thing. Or was that with JP? I forget now. Also, neither I nor at least the serious Catholics out there could care less what “the seculars” accept or not. I’ve said a hundred Times. Read 1st Corinthians 1. The gospel is SUPPOSED to be foolish to them. If it ain’t? It ain’t the gospel.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Of course Lucifer has no authority, he is Satan. However, you’re wrong in Isaias 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer the arch fallen Angel. [/quote]

I prefer the NASB or NIV translations. Where in Isaiah 14 does it use the name Lucifer? It is a prophecy against Babylon and that is what the Jewish nation who the prophecy was given to would have taken it that way. You might be able to read into the passage that it is about Satan, but the original meaning was against Babylon not Satan.[/quote]

Says who?

[quote]Karado wrote:
Thx ‘Dmaddox’, you nailed it. Early Church Fathers until the 3rd Century even believed Angels
had sex with human women and sired the giants…Oddly enough, there seems to be strong scriptual evidence
for this, but Catholics are more ‘hush hush’ about it now because the secular world already has trouble
with all the other supernatural events in Scripture, and to add this theory will send seculars over the top
in discrediting the Bible…thing is, this Angel/Human Hybrid theory is increasing in popularity
with more books written about the “Nephilim” in the last decade than any other time in history.
My Sister is Catholic, and she was taught about this in Church well years ago…it was common knowledge for her even before I even learned about it…HMMM, Angels having Penii, Testes, and
viable sperm…very interesting.

This was ‘Revved up’ initially with growing interest when the Dead Sea Scrolls CONFIRMED further the Angel/Human sexual unions when those venerable Ancient Scrolls were unearthed from the Qumran Caves in 1947.

[/quote]

What does this have to do with Lucifer being in the Bible? Lucifer is the name of the highest fallen angel, so far you haven’t proved me wrong except agree with another man that stated his opinion. Neither of you have proved anything, except that your opinions are false.

IDK about that Brother Chris, “Lucifer” is mentioned once in the Bible in Isaiah 14, can you point
chapter and verse as to where I can find that Lucifer is the name of the highest fallen angel
in Scripture?, because in Isaiah 14 the words “devil” , “satan” or “angel” never occur in this chapter.

Not denying there are bad angels ot anything of course, but where did you learn that Lucifer
is the specific name of the highest fallen angel in the Bible?

[quote]Karado wrote:
IDK about that Brother Chris, “Lucifer” is mentioned once in the Bible in Isaiah 14, can you point
chapter and verse as to where I can find that Lucifer is the name of the highest fallen angel
in Scripture?, because in Isaiah 14 the words “devil” , “satan” or “angel” never occur in this chapter.

Not denying there are bad angels ot anything of course, but where did you learn that Lucifer
is the specific name of the highest fallen angel in the Bible?

[/quote]

I already pointed out chapter and verse. Same place we got the New Testament.

I’m sorry, the Chapter and verse is completely void of context to satisfy my question to you if it
refered specifically to the fallen Angel named “Lucifer” or the fall of Satan, because the commentaries below oppose with your view on Isaiah Chapter 14 that it specifically
does refer to Lucifer/Satan…apparently it does not.
I should have asked for more from you because context was key, and the chapter and verse
you provided in this case shouldn’t have been expected to fully understood by anyone
without at least a brief summary from you on why you believe this was specifically
refering to Satan, and not a human being.
Of course I’m assuming that you believe that “Lucifer” and “Satan” are the exact same entity
under different names, If I’m wrong assuming that you think that, please say so.

(several words substituted with caps for emphasis)

From Clarkes Commentary On The Bible:

…But the truth is, the text speaks NOTHING at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented!

From Gills Exposition Of The Entire Bible:

How art thou fallen from heaven,… This is NOT to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell…"

From the Kiel and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:

Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, WITHOUT ANY WARRANT WHATSOEVER, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders.

Those are all Protestant commentaries dude. I have all three. Forgetting this argument for a second, he is, I promise you, not going to care what they say.

BTW, if you spend very much time in Gill’s exposition you’ll start to wonder if I helped him write it even though he died almost 200 years before I was born. There is ALOT about which he and I do agree indeed.

You don’t seem to mind these “old school” guys when they help your argument huh? Start listening to them on holiness and accountable communion with a local church and you’ll really be getting somewhere.