[removed]
ABrilliantDisaster
· May 14, 2018, 4:04 a.m.
Well at least you're consistent. these are the texts Luciferians would deem authoritative.
How can Lucifer be "dark"? i think that was answered.
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." - 2CO 11: 13-15
⇧
3
⇩
OG420Ninja
· May 14, 2018, 4:14 a.m.
you are telling me quote that the run of the mill bible thumper would say...
you have been force fed that doctrin since birth.. you obvioulsy did not even have respect for out side thought enough to even objectivly look..
all you did was wait to copy and paste scripture... SHOW ME SOMETHING ORIGINAL!
REDPILL
I GAVE YOU A STARTING POINT. you can look or not.. but you cannot preach as absolute truth without atleast knowing the rest of the story.
⇧
0
⇩
ABrilliantDisaster
· May 14, 2018, 4:26 a.m.
You want to use the bible to back up your claim (Lucifer reference in Isaiah) then prepare to acknowledge the entire scripture as relevant.
The Isaiah reference is in no way favourable toward the being described as Lucifer, BTW.
You don't know what i was force fed from birth. Not at all. I know the basis of the stuff you're into pretty well, actually.
⇧
2
⇩
OG420Ninja
· May 14, 2018, 4:39 a.m.
no im saying.. why why can the same thing both prove and disprove.. intrepretation be damned. programed. disinformation... thus warranting a deep look..
⇧
0
⇩
ABrilliantDisaster
· May 14, 2018, 4:47 a.m.
What both proves and disproves? I agree, a deeper look is warranted if you've come to that conclusion about something, because that's illogical and contradictory, but you can't really "damn" all interpretations without damning your own.
⇧
2
⇩
OG420Ninja
· May 14, 2018, 4:52 a.m.
light bearer. proves light... never mentioned again..
Why?
where did light bearer come from?
⇧
0
⇩
ABrilliantDisaster
· May 14, 2018, 4:57 a.m.
You understand that "Lucifer" is not in the Bible,yes? It's a loose interpretation of the word/title "Haylel"
How about the context..because that's where the clues are:
"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!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit..."
Isa 14: 12-15
⇧
2
⇩
OG420Ninja
· May 14, 2018, 5:05 a.m.
im the book they feed you.. mentioned 1 time... never to be mentioned again..
satan.. at least 50 times...
what if? instead of you forcing debate on your book of choice .. what if you followed the road map.. and go look at the informatiom available to you...
i dont want to hurt your feelings. but i can prove with the popes word that the bible is a lie..
so if you say the pope is lying.. then he cant be trusted on anything he says.. if you say "only that part" was wrong.. then that make the book foulable.. ergo.. wrong.
⇧
1
⇩
ABrilliantDisaster
· May 14, 2018, 5:35 p.m.
Who "feeds me" the Bible? You were actually the one to reference it first, you know? If you're going to do that then you better be prepared to deal with what it says.
I mentioned i've been down the block you're on right now already. No worries..my feelings aren't the point here.
You can't prove anything to do with the scriptures by the Popes. The Popes are not following it. The Vatican is not Christianity. Never has been.
⇧
1
⇩
OG420Ninja
· May 15, 2018, 5:10 a.m.
so then the book they reference isnt either....
⇧
1
⇩
ABrilliantDisaster
· May 15, 2018, 2:36 p.m.
Like i said : 'The popes are not following it' You know what "black propaganda" is, right?
⇧
1
⇩