CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Kind of takes the wind out of my revelation, but you're right, the beings he's talking to don't have to be exactly like him, they just have to share the one characteristic that is being discussed, namely the concept of good and evil.
Christianity is mono-tri-theism, which is to say the belief in one God, with three parts, similar to the concept of a human having a body and soul (dualism).
Just ask god directly through prayer and he'll confirm what messages were faithfully transmiited and which ones were messed with by sinful scribes and such. Try it on this message god gave me for you : Pray to me about this my son, and I will tell you what to type next, to expose the great blasphemer, and we will rejoice as we watch him being tortured as a glorious display of my just wrath.
Well... you see! uh....hmm....... There is just one God, jesus and the holy spirit are a part of him.... erm..... sorta like a cherry.. red outside, fruit part, seed. There!
Yes, but that's not really a problem. It only seems like a problem because you're projecting our value system onto God. Our prohibition against incest is due to defects in our genomes (explained below for those who don't know the details) but God has no defects, so it isn't a problem for Him.
Explanation: On average, we all have about 8 defects in our genome that would be fatal if those defects were homozygous. (We have two copies of every gene, one from our mother and one from our father. If both copies are the same, we are 'homozygous' for that gene, if they are different, we are 'heterozygous'.) If you mate with someone with whom you're closely related, then the chance of both of you having the same defects, and thus both of you passing those defects on to your offspring and leaving your offspring homozygous for that defect, is greatly increased. In response to that, natural selection has favored individuals who prefer to find their mates outside of their immediate family.
I can see two possible reasons why this is considered morally wrong. Either we've evolved an inherent feeling of ickiness towards the act of incest, or our ancestors noticed that incestuous relationships produced bad offspring, and interpreted that as punishment for a sinful act. This is similar to the theory for why Jews are prohibited from eating pork, but the attitude against incest is much stronger that that against eating pork, so I'm going with the ickiness theory.
I don't think I'm saying that. I'm saying that the moral rules for God will be different than those for man, because He is a fundamentally different type of being. I am further postulating that if our prohibition against incest is due to the whole defect inheritance issue, which is a fairly accepted theory going back to Darwin's era), and if God is considered to be perfect, then the prohibition against incest may not apply to him.
It's possible, given an assumption of different moral rules for God, that rape and other acts that would be considered sinful for man might not be considered sinful for God, but each act would have to be evaluated independently.
Also, even though we can theorize what may or may not be sinful for God to do, I wouldn't want to be presumptuous enough to accuse him of wrongdoing to his face. Right or wrong, I don't see that as going well for you. :)
Yes that's exactly what you are saying. Being against Rape(marital rape, specifically,since sex outside of marriage is a sin), is a moral rule of people. Just as committing incest is against the moral rules of people. The reason behind the rule doesn't matter. Our moral rules don't apply to God.
I wouldn't want to be presumptuous enough to accuse him of wrongdoing to his face. Right or wrong, I don't see that as going well for you. :)
An omnibenevolent God would be lenient towards such accusations. SO I don't see it going bad for me either.
I'm not saying that none of our moral rules apply to god, I'm just saying that moral rules don't necessarily translate from one species, or type of being, to another, and that each one has to be looked at in a case by case basis. I'm also not trying to state categorically that the incest taboo doesn't apply to God, I'm just suggesting that that would be one way that God could be his own father without having sinned.
If you're reading anything else into what I've said, then you're applying your own interpretation to it, not mine.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Genesis 1:26
Dr. Charles Ryrie explains the plurals as plurals of majesty: "Gen. 1:26 us . . . our. Plurals of majesty" (Ryrie Study Bible, NIV, p.6).
"The explanation of the first person plural forms is probably that the Creator speaks as heaven's King accompanied by His heavenly hosts" (The New Bible Commentary, p. 82).
"It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court... Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God's being" (New Jerusalem Bible, p. 19).
"It is now universally admitted that the use of the plural in Gen. 1:26 did not mean to the author that [God was more than one Person.]" (The Word Bible Commentary)
So, in the beginning there was a heavenly court? Why doesn't the Bible mention this at all? Did God create His heavenly court or did they always exist too?
This might help you....of course we don't know everything..there are mysteries.
"The image of God surrounded by a heavenly council is not uncommon in the Old Testament. The book of Job mentions the “sons of God” (Elohim) presenting themselves before Yahweh (Job 1:6). Isaiah saw a vision of God surrounded by his seraphim. “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’” (Isaiah 6:1-8). The prophet Micaiah saw “the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left” (1 Kings 22:19). Modern ideas about these beings – angels, seraphim, and the host of heaven – are clouded by the elaboration of later ideas. However, the Bible itself does not go into detail about them.
It may be that Genesis 1 refers to “our image” and “our likeness” in order to suggest a link between humanity and the whole realm of the divine. In a similar way Psalm 8 says that Yahweh made the human “little less than” Elohim, a word which interpreters have taken to mean either God himself or the angels."
God seems kind of mean. Imagine if you lived with the grand creator of the universe and he doesn't even mention you directly. Are those beings Gods? It sounds like it.
Well I can't answer everything. And I can see where one would come off that God is mean.
As I parent I often did things to my kids that they thought were mean at the time. My motives were always honorable and I did it out of love. I tried to protect them and they did not have to know everything. I look at Gods reasoning the same way.
I do believe that one day all my questions will be answered.
Thanks Churchmouse, this all seems reasonable. I have read that the Jews were originally polytheistic, that Yahweh was their god of war, and that they gradually transitioned from this state into thinking that Yahweh was their main god (still polytheistic, but believing that they only had one god, and that other peoples had their own gods), to finally believing that there is truly only one God. However, by the time the current forms of the Bible were written, the one God belief was pretty well established, and any references to the plural in today's bible most likely reflect what you've mentioned above.
I'm not sure if the polytheistic beliefs of the early Jews is something that both Christians and Atheists (and Jews and Muslims) can agree on or not. Certain, from a Judaic perspective, Adam and Eve would have known that there was only one God, but the Bible includes many examples of Jews worshiping false gods, so clearly that knowledge must have been lost somewhere along the way, only to be regained through the efforts of the prophets. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that Atheists and {Jews/Christians/Muslims, whom I'm going to call JCMs from now on} can all agree on that.
Well I am not a theologian. What is important to me is the gospel and that is pretty easy to understand. I know why I am here....how I came to be...I know what the truth is...and it can be answered in one word....CHRIST.
I wonder about a lot of things, so many things don't make sense to me....but I am not alone, as no one can answer all the mysteries of life.
I do believe there is only one way...and that one way is Christ. It is exclusive to think that way...but all religions are exclusive. Many say Islam and Christianity have a lot alike...I don't believe so, not at all. We worship a different God. That is why it amazes me that people when they make pot shots at the religious...the religion that takes the most heat is Christianity.
Jesus was about love and forgiveness but He also was about wrath and He came to earth and addressed sin. In fact he talked more about sin and the wrath of God than he did about peace and love.
The gospel is easy enough for a child to understand...and that is what I concentrate on.
So I don't know how much we all could agree on.....this as you know is a subject that really excites people....
I try not to get trapped in the head. By this I mean...sometimes I over think an issue, try to analyze it too much. The head is connected to the heart...and my heart is with Christ...I can't answer everything but I don't think that matters.
I really appreciate anyone who can argue their viewpoint in a logical manner, and it's even so satisfying when that someone has a viewpoint so different from your own. I'm not going to agree with a lot that you say, of course, but the clarity with which you represent your ideas makes it easy for me to see things from your viewpoint.
I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian, so on an emotional level, the ideas and symbolism of Christianity mean a lot more to me than those of other religions, but I believe that from a philosophical standpoint, all religions have a lot to offer.
I'm going to partially disagree with you on your statement that Christianity takes most of the heat when arguing against religion in general. Certainly that's true of this website because almost everyone here is either an atheist or a christian, but world-wide I think Islam is getting a lot more heat these days. However, when you think about it, Islam and Christianity, more than any other religion, teaches their followers that theirs is the one true way, that anyone who follows a different path is going to hell, and that they should try to convert or force others to believe the same thing. I'm sure you're going to object to that statement regarding Christianity, but the missions that Christians have setup throughout history, which still exist today, and whose sole purpose is to convert the godless masses to believe in Christianity, is blatant evidence that they do this. As can easily be imagined, non-Christians are very offended by the way Christians openly claim that theirs is the only true religion and that everyone else's beliefs are false. It is because of this attitude that Christians and Muslims alike get so much heat.
Having said all of this, I think it is the institutions of Christianity, and not Christianity itself, that is to blame for this. Jesus taught to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and he taught the parable of the Good Samaritan. The first teaches us to treat others with respect, the second not to judge others for their perceived failings, and the third that it is your actions, and not your beliefs, that make you a good person. Though it was the founder of Christianity that taught these values, I find that a lot more non-Christians than Christians follow them, yourself notwithstanding, of course.
God is only good. We are evil. Our standards for good are not Gods standards.
You've heard people say...well I have been a good person my whole life. I gave to the poor, helped people, didn't murder anyone. But good is not good enough in Gods eyes. We are all filthy rags...and sin is sin. You break one you have broken all of them.
You might not have an affair on your spouse...but if you have lusted...looked at pornography and had sexual thoughts...then in the eyes of God you have sinned.
Man tries to live LIKE A GOD, tries to live without god. The Word says only believers go to heaven...those who accept Christ. Jesus said it Himself, "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME." This is easy to understand...no way to misinterpret what Christ meant.
Now you can reject this...but then you would be denying what Christ said. There is no other way...only ONE WAY.
Christians put God first...so if you walk the walk...then you have to live a Christian worldview...the bible then is your guidebook on morality and how God wants us to live. Humans I don't think are like angels....basically we are sinful beings. We do not deserve to be in heaven...it is only by Gods Grace that we have a chance to go there.
Humans I don't think are like angels....basically we are sinful beings. We do not deserve to be in heaven...it is only by Gods Grace that we have a chance to go there.
If God actually had grace He wouldn't have made us sinful.
Right!? Mere humans would usually be gracious enough to intervene even if it was someone else's (even if the kid hated them). The ordinary human is more loving and caring than god as depicted in the most popular collection of sacred scripture.
how would you like it if God was you helicopter and just hovered around you watching you to make a mistake so that he'll correct you. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that, that's why God leaves us alone to allow us make our own choices our own decisions and if we do make mistakes we learn from it
You think it is a good thing that God doesn't hover around telling us when we make mistakes, but punishes us as if he had been the whole time? Why would you believe something like that?
if we do make mistakes we learn from it
This is not how you guys describe God. If you make a mistake, you are never told. Once you die, you pay for that mistake FOREVER. Learning implies that after the learning phase you can apply that knowledge.
Would you be happy knowing someone forced you to marry someone you didn't love?
What I don't get is why you are happy knowing that when you pick the wrong person to marry you will be punished severely, and the person doing the punishing thinks about 99% of the people you can pick are worth punishing you for, and that person doesn't have to tell you what partners they will punish you for.
We have the choice to sin or not to sin. Not Gods fault.
Oh, so, you believe God didn't give us that choice. Why didn't you just say that? I totally agree.
Jesus said it Himself, "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME." This is easy to understand...no way to misinterpret what Christ meant.
How is that easy to understand? Christians interpret that as meaning that you have to believe in God and that Jesus is the son of God, but that is certainly not the only way to interpret it. It could also mean believing in and following his message. I could easily be a Jew, but believe in the teachings of Jesus, since he was a Jewish prophet after all, and even though I don't believe Jesus is the son of God, I could still go to heaven. In fact, I could even be an atheist, but if I still lived my life according to Jesus's message, then theoretically I would go to heaven, even though I didn't believe that heaven existed.
There may be other passages in the bible that more clearly justify the Christian interpretation, but the above statement doesn't come close to that.
POI it's more than just believing in God and that Jesus is the son of God there many other things you have to do which I believe neither atheist nor Jews would do and if they did, they wouldn't be atheist or Jews any more
This misunderstanding represents a translation issue between Hebrew and English. Elohim can be a singular or a plural word, its plurality in Hebrew from the accompanying verbs.
When it refers to single beings such as Moses and Baal in the OT they are both referred to with singular verbs and is in a singular form. When it refers to multiple beings such as the gods of egypt, it is accompanied by plural verbs and has a plural form. In the OT when it refers to God it is accompanied by singular verbs and takes a plural form.
In Gen 1, it is only accompanied by singular verbs such as bara, singular masculine of create. Traditionally, in Hebrew the use of Elohim in a plural form with singular verbs indicates a fullness of power and majesty unique to God himself.
Just as it is done in Arabic and other Semitic languages. And in English, where we traditionally capitalized God and Him to indicate a specific being.
He is talking to his angels. There is only one god but angels are about as close as it gets. It could be said that God Is basically just the most powerful angel in existence but that would insinuate that another angel could then Ascend to his status which is impossible.
Oh yeah? It seems to me like God claims to be the one god of a certain people. Never does he say that no other gods exist. Judaism seems to be a monolatry.
The bible says that there is no God other than God. He is called the god of Israel in the bible because at the time the bible was written the Jews were the only ones that worshiped him.
Are you saying they didn't understand the notion of everyone? They already gave God credit for making the Earth, the sun, the moon, and humanity. If they could understand that God created humans, they could understand the notion of everyone. Older religions seemed to understand, so why did Israel claim their God to be exclusive to them? They even slaughtered thousands of Baal worshippers, just because they were worshipping a different God... oh, and because God ordered them too.
Because back in those days when paganism was the most common style of religion gods were associated with things that tied into their mythology and were often tied to things here on earth and called the god or goddess of _. God's worshiper resided in Israel so he was called the God of Israel. Even though he is really the God of everyone.
Then why use a term such as "inheritance"? You do know that countries back then often acquired the surrounding nation's gods into their own pantheon of gods, right? That's one of the reasons why archaeologists are finding so many different idols in Israel from that time period.
Oh, mister big shot! Aced his history class lol. I'm just messing with ya. I'm a bit of a history nut myself. We're talking about... well, actually... we're still pretty much on topic, How many gods in Christianity? I have to warn you though... I aced religion LOL!
In Genesis 1:1 it says, "In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth", but in Hebrew "God" is referred to as Elohim... which is often plural. When added with the verse that you posted, it would make sense that they were actually saying, "In the beginning the Gods made Heaven and Earth".
This misunderstanding represents a translation issue between Hebrew and English. Elohim can be a singular or a plural word, its plurality in Hebrew from the accompanying verbs.
When it refers to single beings such as Moses and Baal in the OT they are both referred to with singular verbs and is in a singular form. When it refers to multiple beings such as the gods of egypt, it is accompanied by plural verbs and has a plural form. In the OT when it refers to God it is accompanied by singular verbs and takes a plural form.
In Gen 1, it is only accompanied by singular verbs such as bara, singular masculine of create. Traditionally, in Hebrew the use of Elohim in a plural form with singular verbs indicates a fullness of power and majesty unique to God himself.
Just as it is done in Arabic and other Semitic languages. And in English, where we traditionally capitalized God and Him to indicate a specific being.
First, I'm curious, why don't you have any points? It says on your profile that you've been a member for a while. Do you upvote and downvote a lot?
Okay, now that I have that out of my system...
I didn't suggest that Elohim is always plural. It's the accompanying verbs, like you just stated, that make it plural... which it has.
I would like to see your evidence that they referred to God in the plural sense as a way to show his "fullness of power and majesty". Judaism was not the World's first religion and every religion before it was polytheistic. I personally believe that the World's religions built off of each other. Many things have been lost in translation and I believe that what we are taught today is a misinterpretation of what the Bible was actually trying to say.
Many consider Old Testament to be the introduction of monotheism, at least on text... however, if we look at the Bible we see many hints of polytheistic beliefs. It's important to understand that before the Bible was created, many associated the Gods with the planets.
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!". This is the only verse in the Bible containing the name Lucifer, yet most Christians believe that to be Satan. In this verse, Lucifer is referred to as the "son of the morning". In other Bible translations, he's referred as "son of the morning star" and some just call him "morning star" or "day star". Well, this is important because prior to the Bible, Venus was always referred to as the morning star. There are even quotes from ancient Greek philosophers/writers where they referred to Venus as not only "the morning star", but Lucifer as well... and there is an ancient Roman God by the name of Lucifer who is also associated with Venus. Lucifer actually means "the bearer of light". Some even refer to him as the "personification of enlightenment". That's weird, isn't it? Everyone was brought up to believe he's Satan, who I'll get back to in a little bit. So why does all of this Lucifer/Morning Star stuff matter? Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
So... now Jesus is associated with the morning star? He's either saying he IS the morning star aka Venus... or he's a descendant of the morning star.
Now like I said earlier, people used to consider the planets to be Gods. Saturn was the evil planet. He started a battle, which in turn, helped spawn the creation of Earth. Saturn was Satan. The first cycle of Earth was due to him. Earth was just a rock then. Then the Sun intervened and started the second cycle, which was the introduction of vegetation as well as the introduction of the Garden of Eden. When Lucifer (the serpent) and Venus intervened and corrupted this kind of pure Earth, they were punished... and in order to defeat them another planet was created as a way to reflect the Sun's rays in order for his light to be shown onto the Earth through both day and night... the planet was the Moon, who is apparently a Goddess. The Moon brought in the third cycle. These three cycles are recognized through the first three days of the week. Saturn-Day(Saturday), Sun-Day(Sunday), and Moon-Day(Monday).
With all of that in mind... it does make sense that the Bible was using Elohim in the plural sense.
If you look at the World's main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) and many ancient polytheistic religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.), they all have a similar story, which fits along this outline. Names obviously aren't the same and stories are a bit different, but if you look at those stories in a metaphorical sense... they're pretty similar.
Christianity is just a term. Modern Christians are obviously monotheistic, but I think it is very possible that the Bible originally spread a polytheistic message.
"If you look at the World's main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) and many ancient polytheistic religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.), they all have a similar story, which fits along this outline. Names obviously aren't the same and stories are a bit different, but if you look at those stories in a metaphorical sense... they're pretty similar.
Christianity is just a term. Modern Christians are obviously monotheistic, but I think it is very possible that the Bible originally spread a polytheistic message."
They don't all say the same thing, they are all different. They don't even pray to the same God.
Different religions make different truth claims on a number of basis issues and they all claim exclusivity.
Well, duh! That's not the point. My entire argument was on how religions have been misinterpreted. I think a lot of the characters within the religious texts were created for metaphorical value. Characters have been used over and over through many different religions, but the names were changed. Basically, they all seem to be going off a similar outline. An example would be the comparison between the Egyptian God Horus and Jesus Christ. There are so many parallels between the two, because they are possibly the same character, just made to appeal to their respective people.
“First, I'm curious, why don't you have any points? It says on your profile that you've been a member for a while. Do you upvote and downvote a lot?”
I do, I’m still relatively new to the forum, is that not normally kosher? The point system is relatively unique here so I’m still trying to learn the ropes of how you guys use it.
“I didn't suggest that Elohim is always plural. It's the accompanying verbs, like you just stated, that make it plural... which it has.”
Well, I didn’t accuse you of saying that it is always plural. It is in fact a plural word, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t;=KJV, always. (eloah being the singular, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H433&t;=KJV). .) Rather it is the meaning of that plural word that is determined by the surrounding verbs and pronouns. For example elohim is used in Exodus 34:15,16; Deut 12:30 and 1 Kings 11:2 to refer to several gods (of the polytheistic nations surrounding Israel), it is clear from the pronouns and context of the verses here that it means a plural set of beings.
“Isaiah 14:12..Well, this is important because prior to the Bible, Venus was always referred to as the morning star. “
This interpretation relies on a relatively tortured reading of the text and some historical inaccuracies.
First, the context of the verse clearly indicates a metaphor. The prophet is referring to the fall of Babylon as being similar to satan’s fall from grace and in comparison a star’s fall from the sky. Flaming and dramatic.
Second, Venus was the Roman version of Aphrodite, not the bringer of light or of knowledge (that is Athena or Minerva to the Romans). Venus only begins to show up historically after the founding of the city of Rome (753BC) while we have relatively reliable copies of this verse in Isaiah all the way back to the 770s BC, earlier. And, Venus is a Grecco/Roman concept, not a Semetic one, that would require a leap between cultures that had not even encountered each other at this point to any significant degree. If you want to tie Lucifer into earlier religions you would need to find a Semitic one or possibly a Hittite version.
The rest of your response appears a bit confused in my mind. Lucifer is both Venus and Saturn? Those are two completely separate concepts within the Roman religion and other star-focused worship systems. Do you have a link perhaps to any support for the “cycle” theory you put forward?
“If you look at the World's main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) and many ancient polytheistic religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.), they all have a similar story, which fits along this outline.”
Only is a pretty shallow sense. This would be like saying evolution and Christianity follow the same story line because they involve progressive change over generations. A more rigorous and in depth look at the comparisons shows them to be false.
You didn't but I am saying is there is no other evidence in the bible for multiple Gods and that it makes no sense to assume it is meant to be plural so I do not know why you chose more then one side.
The Bible only changed in the fact that it was translated. Like for example the name Jesus is Greek. In the original Bible, he was referred to as Yeshua... so most modern-day Christians have his name wrong. I think that along the line, a lot more was mistranslated as well.
They're different verses, of course all the words aren't the same. Is that what you're trying to say?
Both Lucifer and Jesus are referred to as "the morning star" in those verses, so what are you disputing?
The word shouldn't actually be the morning star that was a translation error according to the blue letter bible to my understanding. It should mean light-bearer and saying similar wording and then linking it to Venus is a very big assumption.
The Blue Letter Bible is just one translation, correct? The verses have said the morning star for a very long time now... and just so you know, Lucifer is Latin for "light-bearer".
I just checked it out. So how did you come to the conclusion that it was a misinterpretation? I think the oldest translation they have on the BLB is the King James version, and that says "morning star".
I just checked it out. So how did you come to the conclusion that it was a misinterpretation? I think the oldest translation they have on the BLB is the King James version, and that says "morning star".
It is possible that it was a mistranslation it is not saying that they are the same person I think gotquestions explains it pretty well. Still connecting it to Venus is still illogical.
The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus unmistakably identifies Himself as the morning star. Why are both Jesus and Satan described as the “morning star”?
It is interesting to note that the concept of the “morning star” is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways.
The idea of a “bright morning star” is a star that outshines all the others. Satan, as perhaps the most beautiful creation of God, probably the most powerful of all the angels, was a bright morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is THE bright and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful “light” in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as “bright morning stars,” in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5). Only Jesus’ light is self-existent. Satan may be a bright morning star, but he is only a poor imitation of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world.
That's just another interpretation. There are quotes prior to the Bible from Greek philosophers/writers where they referred to Venus as "the morning star" and even referred to it as Lucifer. Then on top of that, there is a Roman God also named Lucifer who is associated with Venus. Lucifer is only mentioned once in the Bible... and the one time he is mentioned he is referred to as the "morning star", which had always been the name for Venus. Lucifer meaning "light-bearer" and being associated with Venus makes sense because Venus is very bright.
Are you suggesting that the Bible was the first to use "morning star" in a way other than describing Venus? But we also have Jesus who is referred to as the "morning star". Is it coincidence that Jesus resembles the word Venus? Maybe, but he was definitely called the "morning star", which in that time period, was a name for Venus.
Do you know which planet was considered to be evil? Saturn. Some say Saturn is Satan. He was supposedly responsible for Earth's first cycle. Then the Sun, who brought light and vegetation to Earth ("let there be light") was responsible for the second cycle. The Moon brought the third cycle. Saturday, Sunday and Monday are named in this particular order to represent those three cycles. Who was the good God who brought light to Earth? The Sun. Which day do Christians go to church? Sunday. Now, you clearly think that it is a ridiculous thought that Christians originally worshipped the planets, but think about this... how many days does it say in the Bible that it took God to create Earth? Seven, counting the day he took to rest. How many days of the week are there? Seven. Well, I told you the origin of the names of the first three days of the week (Saturday=Saturn, Sunday=Sun, Monday=Moon), but what about the rest of the days of the week? Tuesday is named after Mars, Wednesday is named after Mercury, Thursday is named after Jupiter and Friday is named after Venus. Ever heard of Good Friday? Is it a coincidence that a holiday observing the death of Jesus falls on Friday aka Venus-Day and in the Bible Jesus is actually referred to as "morning star" aka Venus?
We actually have a big-time American landmark secretly commemorating the seven Gods/planets/days of the week. The Statue of Liberty. Everyone knows that the Statue of Liberty is riddled with Free Mason symbols, but the spikes on the crown are important. Seven of them to represent the seven Gods. Those same spikes can be seen as rays of light in early paintings of Jesus and are found in Egyptian as well as many other religious arts and symbols.
So if you've ever heard of the Free Masons (Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, etc.), I just told you what many of them supposedly believe.
According to gnostic Christianity there is a Monad or all-being type god. It consists of a male and female part called the god and goddess or father and mother. The goddess breaks away one day by herself and creates a being called the demirge. This is a serpent type creature born of wisdom (the mother) and this being suspended in nothingness believes it must be god. This is the Yaweh of the bible who then creates an imperfect world as it is imperfect itself being created by half of the Monad. This is in abandoned Christian literature. Some books were also left out of the bible at the council of Nicea (dunno how to spell it) for referencing this theology.